QOTW: Should the TV licence fee be abolished?

[Wozza63]

The BBC would not be able to survive as a private business. Investors would not be interested in a place where managers are given ridiculously high wages. Same with the NHS which is incredibly inefficient and not cost effective compared to private healthcare because when it's nationalised they don't really care as it is not their money.

Looks like you've bought everything the right wing media wants you to believe, hook, line and sinker. Private healthcare is there solely to make money, which means as little funding as possible is allocated to healthcare and the maximum amount to shareholders and CEO's.

The NHS, where its efficiency dips, is due to cuts. It is reasonably well understood that rightwing policy makers cut funding to the NHS for precisely this reason. To make it look bad in the public eye, making the transition to the private sector less "rocky".

When it comes to the NHS in the international space, it is frequently ranked exceptionally highly and jealously looked upon by other nations.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/topics/nhs-reform/mythbusters/nhs-performance
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/uks-healthcare-ranked-the-best-out-of-11-western-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html

The service I've received many times from the NHS has been far from impressive. Slow and inefficient. Add a business model to the mix and they will have no choice but to perform at maximum efficiency. It's the managers that would suffer. I've heard stories about meetings just to discuss future meetings that take up an entire day.

[anselhelm]

Absolutely. Having to have a highly-expensive licence just to watch terrestrial TV is shocking.

I'd much rather pay a sensible fee (akin to Netflix or PrimeInstant Video costs) a month for access to BBC channels, with tiers in place for live TV and online.

By doing it this way, the BBC stays free from advertisements but gains a fair revenue stream based on people's usage of the service.

Alternatively, putting up with advertisements, so long as it's nowhere near the stupidity of Channel 4 and 4OD, which are both shocking, then that would be acceptable, but less ideal than the subscription model.

Might even be worth considering a free model, paid for by adverts, and a subscription model without the adverts, though I'm not sure how this would work other than for online viewing.

[abaxas]

Absolutely. Having to have a highly-expensive licence just to watch terrestrial TV is shocking.

I'd much rather pay a sensible fee (akin to Netflix or PrimeInstant Video costs) a month for access to BBC channels, with tiers in place for live TV and online.

By doing it this way, the BBC stays free from advertisements but gains a fair revenue stream based on people's usage of the service.

Alternatively, putting up with advertisements, so long as it's nowhere near the stupidity of Channel 4 and 4OD, which are both shocking, then that would be acceptable, but less ideal than the subscription model.

Might even be worth considering a free model, paid for by adverts, and a subscription model without the adverts, though I'm not sure how this would work other than for online viewing.

The BBC isn't just TV. It covers radio and online aswell.

[Corky34]

And helping to fund the rollout of broadband, not sure why it has to come from them though as shouldn't BT/Openreach be funding that?

[iggy]

The over 70s should not get it free however. That is BS.

Did your gran take away your ice cream or something? Most old people are struggling to pay for their heating in the winter, never mind a tv bill you literally cannot dodge unless you live in a cave.

[kalniel]

Did your gran take away your ice cream or something? Most old people are struggling to pay for their heating in the winter, never mind a tv bill you literally cannot dodge unless you live in a cave.

So make it means tested rather than giving rich pensioners (of which there are many) free TV as well as the poor ones.

[crossy]

The service I've received many times from the NHS has been far from impressive. Slow and inefficient. Add a business model to the mix and they will have no choice but to perform at maximum efficiency. It's the managers that would suffer. I've heard stories about meetings just to discuss future meetings that take up an entire day.

While I'm obviously unhappy (and sympathetic) that you've received bad treatment, I'm going to disagree with what you're saying. I was the unfortunate victim of a public service that got privatized - and all that happened is that the "business model" seemed to involve more managers, more paperwork and demonstrably LESS EFFICIENCY. Basically the poor workforce spent so much time with budgets, cost codes, "corporate" training and "strategy" that less actual work got done. That said, the managers did very, very, very well out of it, (knighthoods and eye watering pensions and payoffs), pity the poor wage slaves that then got "slimmed down" to pay for all that folderol. My encounters with the NHS do not suggest that more privatisation would be a benefit, quite the contrary in fact, less political finger poking would.

Getting back to the BBC - my feeling is that the license fee in it's current form is probably the least worst option.
I hear talk of "ad supporting" - heck, no - I'm already utterly sick with all the adverts for BBC programmes that we get on the other programmes (yes, I do mean you BBC Breakfast!). Also from what I hear the pool of ad money is shrinking, so would you really want the Beeb to be fighting for a slice of that diminishing pie? If that wasn't a good argument in itself then ask yourself this - do you want BBC content to resemble that of Sky and ITV? I certainly don't.

Next option I hear is that of subscription. So we end up with umpteen tiers of subscription or, worse still, pay per view events. Thanks, but no thanks.

I also hear sentiments along the lines of "I never watch the Beeb, so why the eff should I pay for it". That strikes me as both selfish and self-serving in the extreme.

If not a license then my preferred option would be some form of income tax. At the current rate, that's surely less than £3 per week, which I would assume is a figure that folks earning more than living wage could afford. I'd even welcome some form of tiered arrangement. The flipside of that though is that I'd expect the Beeb to push the ability to pay subscription for providing iPlayer to non-UK consumers - since that would surely bring in some much needed extra revenue?

I'd grant them (the BBC govenors etc) more freedom to look at other "revenue streams", but the stick for that particular carrot would be that not only would executive pay and perks have to be limited to something more reasonable, but also the frankly obscene amounts paid to big names, (at least according to other media).

[jnutt]

I don't like paying for what is basically a government mouthpiece!

[peterb]

I don't like paying for what is basically a government mouthpiece!

Rather naive? That is the point of charging a licence fee rather than paying out of general taxation, and the complex layer of governance; to remove (or at least mitigate) the risk of political control. You may want to read the Charter here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/govern...agreement.html

However, I guess you have never watched BBC news, or watched Newsnight or Question Time on TV, or listened to 'Today' or PM on Radio 4 to see politicians of all parties held to account.

[EvZ_2]

The BBC is archaic, the organisation has managed to get away with fraud, deceit, and overpays employees with ridiculous sums!It is an organisation that hides pedophiles and grooms and abuses children.

Finally, with the internet age, the BBC will be destroyed. Don't get me wrong, the BBC has produced some quality content but the younger audience no longer watches television. The content on television for the most part is absolutely dire! To make quality TV, the program needs a large budget like HBO series etc

So guess what my opinion is: yes it should be abolished, not that I pay for TV licence as none of my TVs are connected to any Ariel, the internet has killed television...

[ik9000]

none of my TVs are connected to any Ariel, the internet has killed television...

I should hope not! I'm not sure she'd take kindly to it!

[daddacool]

BBC should remember what it's there for, to make programmes that commercial telly/radio wouldn't. There's a great history of the Renaissance on BBC 4 at the minute with Waldemar Januszczak, for example, that wouldn't be made for commercial telly because it's not dumbed down enough to attract the advertisers. Shove the reality show and soap budget in to stuff like that, and I'm all for the BBC.

I'm even more for CBBC and Cbeebies though, ad free educational kids telly? Thank GOD. Sick to death of the hyperactive ad filled stuff on commercial telly.

[Corky34]

However, I guess you have never watched BBC news, or watched Newsnight or Question Time on TV, or listened to 'Today' or PM on Radio 4 to see politicians of all parties held to account.

To be fair to jnutt the BBC does have a rather pronounced right wing bias, i guess that's what he/she means as they're the current government.

The BBC is archaic, the organisation has managed to get away with fraud, deceit, and overpays employees with ridiculous sums!It is an organisation that hides pedophiles and grooms and abuses children.

So probably like most other large organisations then? Not excusing it, just pointing out that such things aren't exclusive to the BBC.

[malarkey95]

BBC is getting too political, considering we also have to pay for BBC ARABIC, BBC PERSIAN, BBC URDU, these countries don't pay TV license fee. Like the Lords saviour Kong say its all PROPAGANDAAAAH

[malarkey95]

I meant KONY not KONG

[tomthum]

why would you pay for a licence to a company that knowingly worked with pedophiles
Tom G