Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?

  • I would like the Licence fee completely abolished?

    Votes: 15 28.3%
  • I would like the licence fee to only apply for using BBC content

    Votes: 8 15.1%
  • I would like the BBC to be fully funded by adverts

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • I currently pay the licence fee, I receive TV so I have to

    Votes: 19 35.8%
  • I currently don't pay the licence fee and am not obliged to

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • The licence fee is just too much, I would happily pay if it was 50% the current level

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • I am happy to pay but the revenue should be split with all broadcasters

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • I could have thought up way better poll questions, weltweit you suck!

    Votes: 15 28.3%

  • Total voters
    53

andysays

Defiantly non-premium member
It wins a charter, with the fee set, then has a certain amount of autonomy in how that fee is spent. Direct funding from the tax payer would end any kind of distance between it and the govt and any pretence that it is anything other than the govt's mouthpiece.
I've heard that argument, but many people already regard it as the government's mouthpiece, which to some extent it undeniable is. Given the huge increase in sources of information since the BBC was set up, I don't think that's nearly as persuasive an argument as it once was.

And the benefits of switching to funding from taxation definitely outweigh the arguments against, IMO
 

mx wcfc

Well-Known Member
But you never hear the end of whinging now either.
If we all pay the licence fee, it is no different from general taxation, except that the poor pay more as a proportion of their income.
At the moment the pensioners exemption is used a a tool to buy votes.
And the bbc is still right wing biased.
I could put up with whinging about bbc bias if it actually was left wing!
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
I've heard that argument, but many people already regard it as the government's mouthpiece, which to some extent it undeniable is. Given the huge increase in sources of information since the BBC was set up, I don't think that's nearly as persuasive an argument as it once was.

And the benefits of switching to funding from taxation definitely outweigh the arguments against, IMO
As long as there is genuine plurality of media, I don't have a massive problem with state media being obviously biased. In a way, the BBC is quite dishonestly biased atm because it pretends it isn't. As I said above, my favourite bit of the BBC pretty much is the World Service, which is directly funded, but that's a bit of a special case.

I suspect, though, that a switch to direct funding would mean a dramatic shrinkage of the BBC in terms of what it does. I can see both sides to that. I do fear the BBC would rapidly decline if it were to lose the licence fee. But at the same time the licence fee is becoming increasingly anachronistic.
 

8115

Macaroni straws.
I don't think the licence fee is becoming anachronistic. People are increasingly opting in to the BBC rather than out of, it's competing for market share with things like Netflix, Sky Atlantic etc etc. Sure, if you have a tv at home it's something you have to pay but an increasing number of people watch tv on their computers. Maybe you could change the link to having a tv, so that people can watch tv on a tv without paying the licence fee, but not get BBC channels. Also be interesting to see figures on how many people do use platforms where the licence fee is an opt in, as opposed to necessary.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
8115 I like the idea of paying when you watch BBC.

I only watch the TV on a Friday night and then only BBC1 and BBC2 - and I watch that on my computer more often than not, it irks me that I have to pay as much as people who watch all week and or have multiple viewers and likely multiple screens.

Pay as you watch / use - or general taxation :) that has me interested.
 

8115

Macaroni straws.
8115 I like the idea of paying when you watch BBC.

I only watch the TV on a Friday night and then only BBC1 and BBC2 - and I watch that on my computer more often than not, it irks me that I have to pay as much as people who watch all week and or have multiple viewers and likely multiple screens.

Pay as you watch / use - or general taxation :) that has me interested.
That's not exactly what I meant, but it's another idea
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
Right now I am in a house where they have terrestial, including freeview, and netflix and prime and a tivo type box, yet more often than not they can't find something to watch. The mind boggles.

And there is no light from Spain, where they have a little bit of a drama followed by 20 minutes of ads, the ads are spaced across channels so people end up watching two dramas flicking from one to the other as the ads come on. TV in Spain is basically broken.
 

Saul Goodman

It's all good, man
Fuck general taxation. People who don't want to watch their shite shouldn't have to pay for it.
Make it PPV, and let the cunts sink or swim on their own merits.
 

scifisam

feck! arse! girls! drink!
It's probably worth it for CBeebies and CBBC alone. They're SO much better than the other channels and I love not having adverts on kids' TV, partly because then kids don't see adverts, and partly because adverts aimed at children are usually really annoying. Nelly fucking Kelly :mad:
 

wayward bob

i ate all your bees
i genuinely love the bbc - the more i watch the youtubes and the netflix the more i appreciate it. i pay the license but prolly don't have to :facepalm:
 

hash tag

chillin
Some good television, no adverts. Some excellent radio, still no adverts. The website as well. Much happier to pay that licence fee than contribute to sky, to virgin, Netflix, Amazon etc.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
You say there are no adverts, but that isn't strictly true, the BBC always has time for plenty of professional adverts promoting their own content.
You can see that that's a different kind of thing, though, no?

The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
Not shitty ones from gambling sites. Supermarkets, junk food places etc.
Indeed, and my preference is that the BBC remain broadly as ad free as it is at the moment. The general taxation route and pay per view options would neither require the BBC to be funded by ads.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
You can see that that's a different kind of thing, though, no?
I am not sure I can. If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares.

The best argument in favour of the licence fee is the state of state broadcasting elsewhere, tbh. We should be careful what we wish for.
I do like the BBC output, I am not a critic of that, but as someone who is watching the pennies and finding ever more genuine demands on my limited funds, I resent paying a full licence when I only watch - just me - one evening a week and only on one device.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
The best argument against the license fee is "Fuck off. I didn't sign up for it!"
Thing is, it's exactly this - that we didn't sign up for it - that gives us the moral force to question it, to demand better from it. This is very far from perfect, of course, but comparisons with elsewhere show how much worse it could be.
 

littlebabyjesus

one of Maxwell's demons
I am not sure I can. If C4 wants to promote its own content it has to do that at the expense of not screening a paid for ad in its place. The BBC has none of this opportunity cost when promoting its own wares..
I'm talking in terms of the viewer, primarily. I give little shit about the opportunity costs of C4. They're not trying to sell you anything. And they never stop a programme part-way through to try to promote something else. It's qualitatively different in its effect on the viewer, especially wrt children's tv.
 

Saul Goodman

It's all good, man
Thing is, it's exactly this - that we didn't sign up for it - that gives us the moral force to question it, to demand better from it.
But it should be an opt-in service. You don't even get the chance to opt out.
The BBC could scramble their signal, like Sky do, and only those who wish to pay for it would/should pay for it.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
I'm talking in terms of the viewer, primarily. I give little shit about the opportunity costs of C4. They're not trying to sell you anything. And they never stop a programme part-way through to try to promote something else. It's qualitatively different in its effect on the viewer, especially wrt children's tv.
Yes, the effect on the viewer is different, indeed.
 

hash tag

chillin
There are many people on low incomes who don't pay a licence fee. If they didn't get the been for free they would get very little television.
if been went pfv, the remains free Chanel's would probably follow that lead.
 
Top