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: 21 25.9%
  • I would like the licence fee to only apply for using BBC content

    Votes: 14 17.3%
  • I would like the BBC to be fully funded by adverts

    Votes: 3 3.7%
  • I currently pay the licence fee, I receive TV so I have to

    Votes: 26 32.1%
  • I currently don't pay the licence fee and am not obliged to

    Votes: 16 19.8%
  • The licence fee is just too much, I would happily pay if it was 50% the current level

    Votes: 4 4.9%
  • I am happy to pay but the revenue should be split with all broadcasters

    Votes: 2 2.5%
  • I could have thought up way better poll questions, weltweit you suck!

    Votes: 24 29.6%

  • Total voters
    81
What about the income the BBC makes from selling content and formats abroad, how much of their funding does this amount to?
 
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.
Well this is where technology is making the lf a bit anachronistic. I watch tv on a computer. I don't even own a tv. They have introduced new laws to try to deal with this, but it's becoming increasingly absurd. Watch a film on Sky on your computer, fine. Watch a single second of a football match or tennis match live, and you're breaking the law.
 
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.

I assume you mean the Beeb. But people on low incomes aren't eligible for free licenses so I'm still confused.
 
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.
But the beeb isn't free :confused:
I haven't watched live TV in 20 years, but there's nothing I want to see that I haven't seen or can't see. I just choose not to pay for it.
 
A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.
 
A blind person has a discounted fee as do others in care homes.
BBC also offers programmes with signing and subtitles.
How very nice of the BBC.
Blind people should get a free TV license, not a discount. The same applies to people in care homes, as they have to share the TV with a room full of people, and fight over which channel to watch.
 
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 thought that line became a lot thinner since the DCMS was formed in 1997 and took-over receipt of the Licence Fee before paying for the BBC from its coffers? Which makes the funding operation much closer to a general taxation model than anyone involved might like to admit.

Plus that the increase in income from BBC Worldwide (formerly BBC Enterprises) which has risen to the point where a full quarter of BBC funding comes from its fully commercial operations.
 
Would you rather have pay for view, paying a few to a profit making company run by someone like Murdoch, which is what BBC could become.
 
BBC Worldwide is very largely a problem, imo, rather than any kind of solution. We should not have to pay/watch adverts to watch old BBC programmes. We've already paid for them with the licence fee and they should all be freely available online - that ought to be made part of the deal of the BBC now that the technology is there to do it. Sell abroad, fine, but don't sell back to us stuff we already own.
 
Would you rather have pay for view, paying a few to a profit making company run by someone like Murdoch, which is what BBC could become.
That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee, and you have to pay whether or not you watch anything!
 
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.

Billboards everywhere promoting BBC shows as well. How that can be a valid use of licence payers' money I've no fucking clue.
 
That's exactly what the BBC is now. The only difference is you don't have a choice in whether or not you wish to pay the fee!
Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.
 
Some other channels are very right wing, have adverts, also sponsored programmes and product placement. On the whole, the BBC is strictly a not for profit, independent organisation.
 
For the sake of argument, rather than paying for receiving TV, any TV, not just the BBC, (in fact paying just for owning a TV) instead the BBC all their output - TV - Radio and - web would have to be funded by advertising, product placement and sponsorship, this shouldn't be hard as their output is watched and listened to in high numbers.

So for the sake of argument: Who would like to abolish the BBC Licence fee?
I'm torn.

I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".

And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.

But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.
 
AND the corporate channels rip you off encouraging you pay to vote for a performing dog and then use the information collected as a marketing tool or sell the data on, while promoting shut food, products, companies. Want better quality like panorama, question time, art documentaries, historical documentaries or trash like I'm a celebrity, pay to vote for me and we will also sell your data on.
 
I'm torn.

I spent quite a few weeks working in the US back in the 1990s, and was so appalled by a) the quality of television, and b) NPR's relentless solicitation of pledges and donations, that I came back to the UK thinking "thank goodness we have the BBC".

And either I've got pickier, or the quality of programming has declined, to the point that I watch barely any TV (BBC or otherwise now), and am even more disinclined to prop them up with a licence fee when I see how supine the BBC has become to the prevailing government over the last 10-20 years.

But - and this probably isn't even their fault - the thing that turns me agin the licence fee most of all is the oppressive and threatening approach used to get people to sign up to the licence. Within a day of moving in to this flat, I had a thuggish letter from the TV licensing authority that said, in terms, "we're 'avin' you, son, for watching a tell. SIgn up or else". Fuck off. I took a fairly instant decision right there.
Not to let the bastards in I hope
 
mebbe they should have a subscription-only iplayer for past programmes, so they don't have to sell their old shows to Netflix to stream.
 
I will not give money to shisters like sky, Amazon, virgin etc. Corporate, greedy, money grabbing, unethical Bastards that they are.
If your ethics permit you to do that, fine. It's Not for me.
 
Nah it's not. I am exasperated by the BBC in many ways, particularly by the way it wastes money paying a few idiots vast sums due to some mystical 'talent' they are supposed to have, but it is very very different from Sky or other for-profit media.
The only difference is the amount people have to pay, because everyone has to pay. At least with those 'for profit' organisations, you get a choice to pay/not pay for the service, and a choice in what you watch if you do pay for it.

AND the corporate channels rip you off encouraging you pay to vote for a performing dog and then use the information collected as a marketing tool or sell the data on, while promoting shut food, products, companies. Want better quality like panorama, question time, art documentaries, historical documentaries or trash like I'm a celebrity, pay to vote for me and we will also sell your data on.

Anyone stupid enough to pay to vote for some shite on the TV deserves anything and everything resulting from their stupidity.
 
Back
Top Bottom