News - BBC license fee to rise to £145.50 next month

[Saracen]

I don't like the principle of the licence, but I have to say I think there's a lot of stuff the BBC do that wouldn't get done as well, it at all, if it were simply down to commercial imperatives. It might be a stretch to suggest we'd get the likes of Eastenders 24/7, but for all that I detest it (and would prefer root canal surgery to having to watch it), the simply fact remains that it seems to inexplicably rack up huge audience figures. I wonder how Brian Cox's Solar System series would compare? Or Dimbleby's Ages of Britain? Yet both of those I would class as education and entertainment packaged as one. What about Planet Earth, or Horizon?

Some "quality" programs would get made without the licence fee. Top Gear, as I understand it, is a huge commercial success, because of overseas licensing, so presumably that would. Maybe that apple is to Planet Earth and other quality material too. Maybe not. I don't know.

One thing the licence fee does though, is to take the commercial risk out of programs like Planet Earth. It's one thing to say a program is a hugely value commercial property after you've made it and seen the revenue flow in, but it's another thing to spend a vast sum of money making it knowing you're bankrupt if it doesn't. The BBC can work out a budget for a series like that and then decide if they should make it, without taking that commercial gamble because of their mandate to educate, entertain, inform, etc, and if it ends up as a commercial success anyway, so much the better.

So they can do programs on the basis of them being a public service, even if they aren't a commercial success. Part of the public service is to provide a broad spectrum of material for all of us to watch if we wish. That might be Planet Earth or Top Gear, it might be Bargain Hunt or Newsnight, it might be F1 coverage or Play School, it might be News 24 or Eastenders.

Not everyone can afford premium TV like Sky of Virgin. The BBC, and the element of C4 that's license funded, at least provide a minimum level of base coverage for all, regardless of income, that address all the relevant areas including entertainment, news, political coverage, period drama, sports and so on.

So amI happy about the fee incre4ase? Not very, no. Not while some starts are getting paid the siumns they are and as much to the point, management are getting paid what they are. But if the licence fee good value for what we get? Yup. It could be better, but it's certainly good.

As for the £2 billion refurb, much though it grates, I'd want to see a lot mote detail of what was done and the case for doing it before condemning it. If it's all about srubbishrubbishrubbishrubbishy offices for staff (and eecs). it's a disgrace. If it's about bring the BBC into the 21st century and improving the functioning, communications and so on, then it may well be that it's an investment that will pay for itself over the years in lowered costs. I certainly don't know enough to have a factual basis for an opinion on whether that was money well-spent or not.

Lastly, the argument about I don't use it so why pay? That's what taxation and government services are for. Why should someone with no kids pay tax towards schools or universities? Why should someone with rock solid savings and investments pay NI to cover unemployment benefit when they wouldn't get it if they were unemployed? Why should someone that uses a private dentist pay to fund NHS dentistry? Because that's what tax and public services are all about. They are there for those that needs them and if you choose not to use them, that's up to you. Of course, the argument about what should or shouldn't be provided by the taxpayer is different, but if we're talking about services we can opt out of because we don't use them, there'd be several I'd put way ahead of the licence fee. At least half our MPs would be looking for a dole office for a start.

[cheesemp]

I just wish they weren't cutting back their website. One of the few decent websites about (plus hexus of course!)...

Do feel the license fee is one tax where I get something I appricate...

[AGTDenton]

My £140 goes to better uses. I removed the aerial from the loft last year and havnt looked back.
TV has sucked since the start of the millennium in my opinion.

Have only bought 2 DVD's where the show has been produced by the BBC during '00's.

Im better off with the TV tax in place, however, it at least gives me the choice to opt out, if the government fund it then I have no choice. Based on the fact that Sky cant fund themselves with just ads leaves me to believe that the government would have to fund the BBC or it would drain away down the plug hole.

[MonkeyL]

Still good value IMHO, especially compared to Sky where you have to pay AND you get adverts.

Couldn't agree more, amazing value. One of the few services I pay for that actually delivers time and time again.

[MonkeyL]

Yes it is very much subjective, but ITV has many excellent dramas and soaps if you want them.

There are? Not that I'm suggesting there aren't, it's just I've never encountered one. (I wouldn't know about soaps tho, hate them).

I see the whole agruement of funding makes quality, but my arguement is quality would make funding. As much as I hate corrie how much is the 3 minute advert break worth in that? I am sure an advert break in eastenders would generate a similar sum.

It would be 7-8 mins, though there is now no restriction.

Basically you can't say that advertising doesn't work as all the other channels get by and there is just as much quality programming elsewhere paid for by advertising.

Sky don't seem to have managed it, the majority of their output is garbage or bought in from the US, they have an expensive subscription AND adverts.

ITV was on it's arse last year.

CH4 is screaming out for license fee money because they can't afford their public service commitment.

I wouldn't mind if it was a fund all channels got there hands on, that way they could mostly fund themselves but still have a top-up to boost quality.

The worst possible solution. A fee you're forced to pay, but allow advertisers to dictate the type of programming. Get ready of universal dumming down to the level of ITV across all channels. You only have to watch Sky for 30 minutes to see the level of crap you can expect + adverts.

Of course quality is very subjective, ITV will show something which will get a lot of views and therefore fund itsself, if we agree or disagree on the quality of the program means nothing, they are broadcasting what the people want.

They're broadcasting what a large demographic of people want, none of which is what I want or would be interested in. If they're all doing exactly the same, what distinguishes one from another when they're all showing variations on big brother?

[MonkeyL]

I like having a big TV, i enjoy watching films on my telly - for that reason i would never get rid of it. However i'm really not pleased about having little choice but to pay extra for a service i really could live without.

You don't have to pay extra, if you don't watch broadcast TV, disconnect the aeriel and de-tune. Then just watch your DVD's. Jobs a good-un.

[Saracen]

You don't have to pay extra, if you don't watch broadcast TV, disconnect the aeriel and de-tune. Then just watch your DVD's. Jobs a good-un.

Almost right. To be slightly more accurate, it's if you don't receive broadcast transmissions, not whether you watch them. For instance, if you record them when broadcast, you need a license. But if you only watch DVDs, play your XBox/PS3 etc, or use delay services like iPlayer to watch/record stuff that isn't live at the time, then you don't.

[mehmeh]

Except you don't actually need a Tv Licence to use iPlayer (yes really!):

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.u...ayer/tvlicence

That I didnt know! Thank you for the link, very interesting. I can't remember the last time I watched anything "live", havent even bothered sorting the aerial for the TV as its only there for DVDs and Games. Think I may well be chopping the Aerial for good and cancelling a Direct Debit tomorrow.

[aidanjt]

Almost right. To be slightly more accurate, it's if you don't receive broadcast transmissions, not whether you watch them. For instance, if you record them when broadcast, you need a license. But if you only watch DVDs, play your XBox/PS3 etc, or use delay services like iPlayer to watch/record stuff that isn't live at the time, then you don't.

Yup, and I'm not sure butchering the tuner on your TV would work as a defence either. A standard monitor with a stack of HDMI ports would be fine though. It'd be nice of someone put something like that on the market.

[Splash]

Why should I pay for something I dont use?

Because someone has to pay for the programmes to be made? How do the broadcasters recoup their investment in the programmes you download? I don't have any figures, but I heard that each episode of the last series of 24 had a similar budget to an independent movie: if you're not paying through your license fee, advertising (I guess if you're downloading then the broadcaster receives no advertising revenue) or a subscription (I've no idea what source you're downloading from as it's not made clear) then all of a sudden those budgets disappear. The attitude that someone else will pay for it is hardly fair, is it?

[shaffaaf27]

im part of a student house where we dont watch TV, but use it for the ps3, which iplayer is used, movies and games. how do we go about not paying the license when the tax man comes?

[Blaineoliver]

If you watch iplayer for anything other than on demand, eg for live streams, you dont have to pay tv licensing.

[shaffaaf27]

so what happens when the BBCman comes around to ask for the money? how do i prove i only do that?

[Champman99]

Well I'm a big fan of the BBC, but as a left-leaning academic middle class person I guess thats not so suprising.

As an economist the license fee does strike me as unfair on the poor, especially as alot of the programmes that wouldnt get made (documentaries on history and nature etc, political content) is largely enjoyed by higher income groups. I remember an episode of the West Wing where they talk about PBS (the american public service broadcaster and most famous for Sesame Street), and people are arguing "Why should the federal government be subsidising programming for rich people" or something to that effect. On the other hand I dont think funding out of general taxation (which would be fairer) is particularly viable as it would mean it could fluxuate havily year to year depending on the whim of the government, and might also compromise the BBC's independence.

Its interesting a poster above used the example of Top Gear as a commercial success, that is absolutely true of course, however that doesnt mean it could have been made as a commercial problem. One of the big issues they had with American Top Gear is that the main advertisers and sponsors would have been the car industry, and they dont particularly enjoy seeing their cars slated and crashed in comical fashion in the way that makes top gear enjoyable.

I agree its difficult to justify license fee going on US imports, or commercially viable sport - although its a difficult balance for the BBC. In a way I support it showing sports like snooker, that perhaps need public service help because they arent attractive to commercial operators, but the BBC constantly feels it has to appeal to the public which is why it goes after ratings aggressively with US imports and Football coverage - in my mind its a very difficult balance between subsidising unique content, and still feeling like good value.

I think the loophole that you can watch non-live streams on iplayer needs to be shut. I dont blame people for trying to save themselves money but it seems rather ridiculous that you can enjoy pretty much 100% of content while others subsidize it. (Although I'm sure others would argue that they never watch the BBC and so are doing that anyway)

I feel like I have alot more points, but I cant remember what they were, for me the presence of the BBC is important for what it does to other broadcasters. Sky News is really not too shabby when you consider its frankly abysmal american equivalent News Corp, Fox News (did I mention I lean slightly left). Isnt this because the BBC keeps it honest?

[borandi]

im part of a student house where we dont watch TV, but use it for the ps3, which iplayer is used, movies and games. how do we go about not paying the license when the tax man comes?

If you're part of a student house, then you pay less than the rest of us do.

Technically if it's a joint contract, you only need once licence. If you have individual contracts (like halls of residence), then you need one per contract.

As said before, if you don't watch live TV or record programs, you don't need a licence. If you want to avoid the man coming round, then write a letter of intent to the Licencing agency, stating you don't require a licence because you do not use equipment in the way the licence states, and for them to make a mark on their database (which should stop mail coming through demanding payment). If you don't do this, it's hard to say to them when they do come round that you haven't been watching live TV. Do it before they call, not after they charge you.

[Champman99]

I think we are talking about quite a grey area. As far as I understood it, watching iplayer on a computer was OK without a licence, but as soon as you have a TV with a tuner (not a monitor) with the capability to receive TV, dont you need a license even if you dont watch it?