QOTW: Should the TV licence fee be abolished?

[Wh00pS]

It should be opt-in only if you use its services. If you do not, then why should you pay for it? I have no interest in the BBC or it's programs. I am more interested in sport which I pay both BT and Sky for. Yet I can't do that without paying my licence fee. Ridiculous.

Would you apply that principle to schools or the NHS? So if you don't have children, you opt out of the tax element that pays for education, or you have a pay-per-use health service?

As a public broadcasting service, the BBC isn't beholden to advertisers to produce popularise programming, but is free to (and is obliged to, by its Charter) to produce minority appeal programming. And is £3/ a week really a lot to pay? Less that a pint of beer!

So you are actually comparing the BBC as an essential service the same as school, NHS etc.? So people really need garbage such as Eastenders, Strictly and the multitude of period dramas that they churn out.
Why should i pay almost £150 a year for an "essential service" that i don't use at all.
The BBC is that much of a dinosaur i would happily see it scrapped never mind the just the tax i have to pay for a service i don't use at all.

[kalniel]

I guess the other simple argument is to say if it's an essential service then it should be paid for by general taxation, not a license. We're no longer at the stage where access to the service is severely restricted by uncommon technology - and if so, we might as well provide free radios to those who need them.

[Corky34]

General taxation makes political manipulation more likely.

[sykobee]

The problem with the BBC is that being dependent upon the current government for funding approval, etc, it will always tend to favour the current government, of whatever ilk they are, whilst being punished for whatever they did in the previous government's regime. I think that the government should have zero interaction with the BBC because of this.

I don't mind if the BBC put a limited number of adverts between shows, for a toilet break. That would raise significant money between prime time shows on BBC1. Additionally, I don't watch prime time crap so no loss there really.

However if privatised, the company would end up with a bias towards the owners. We can see how well this works in practice elsewhere - FOX News as an extreme example, Sky News, the newspaper media, ...

And the BBC covers niche interests, e.g., BBC Four, BBC Two to some extent. It provides a path for new talent.

And it's not a massive fee in the end, when I look at Virgin Media and Sky TV packages.

But should it pay loads of money for expensive things, like Sport? It's not like it won't be shown elsewhere. OTOH why should sport fans get a raw deal from the BBC when Arts fans get an entire channel?

[peterb]

So you are actually comparing the BBC as an essential service the same as school, NHS etc.? So people really need garbage such as Eastenders, Strictly and the multitude of period dramas that they churn out.
Why should i pay almost £150 a year for an "essential service" that i don't use at all.
The BBC is that much of a dinosaur i would happily see it scrapped never mind the just the tax i have to pay for a service i don't use at all.

No, I'm comparing it with other services that are paid for by the majority for common benefit, and pointing out that there are other services you pay for, but might not use. You might choose to pay for private health care, or private education, but you still pay for the NHS or state schools, even though you may not be using them.

[zyz]

I think it doesn't need abolished, but it could definitely do with some changes to keep the bbc as it is now

[anselhelm]

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

I mentioned online in my comment, albeit only in passing. My apologies as I had thought it quite apparent that I was referring to terrestrial and online.

As for Radio, it could just be supported by adverts like all other radio stations.

[Corky34]

The problem with the BBC is that being dependent upon the current government for funding approval, etc, it will always tend to favour the current government, of whatever ilk they are, whilst being punished for whatever they did in the previous government's regime. I think that the government should have zero interaction with the BBC because of this.

Not to disagree but the BBC charter gets renewed every 10 years and general elections are held every 5 so being dependent and the funding kind of depends on whose in power when it's renewed.

[Ironbuket]

the BBC covers niche interests, e.g., BBC Four, BBC Two to some extent. It provides a path for new talent.

So do the less well known Free View channels and Youtube

[Tattysnuc]

I think the funding model needs to be evaluated and the license number actually used to encourage subscriptions. Hell, why not introduced tiers to the content and then have to unlock content using your license number. That way they'd take a lot of the guesswork out of understanding their audience.

[maxp779]

So you are actually comparing the BBC as an essential service the same as school, NHS etc.? So people really need garbage such as Eastenders, Strictly and the multitude of period dramas that they churn out.
Why should i pay almost £150 a year for an "essential service" that i don't use at all.
The BBC is that much of a dinosaur i would happily see it scrapped never mind the just the tax i have to pay for a service i don't use at all.

My thoughts exactly. The people comparing the BBC to the NHS are crazy IMO.

[peterb]

My thoughts exactly. The people comparing the BBC to the NHS are crazy IMO.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, but as I explained earlier, had you bothered to read the post, rather than quoting someone else's opinion, I used the the NHS as an example of paying for services whether you use them or not. At no point have I asserted that they are of equal 'worth'.

But to hammer the point home, you pay tax towards the NHS even if you go exclusively to a private clinic.

You pay towards the state education system, even though you may not have children, or you have them educated privately

And you are required to pay for the BBC whether you watch the programmes or not unless you completely opt out of watching live TV (so in that respect it is NOT like general taxation)

Now do you get the point? It's called an example or an analogy.

And wearing my moderators hat, attacks on people (rather than their ideas/ comments) is strongly deprecated. Crazy is at the milder end of the spectrum of insults, and you haven't been around that long, but you might care to re-read the FAQs and also the guidance in the sticky posts in this forum.

[Johnag]

I think it should be gotten rid of, the BBC has had it's day, they don't really have anything good on it anymore, I can't even remember the last time I watched anything on the BBC, nor listened to any of its radio stations, I much prefer the independent radio stations, I tend to only watch the Discovery channels on Sky and if I want to watch a film I use the Netflix service, plus, I tend to watch a lot on YouTube...

The other thing that gets me, is the BBC not only gets a ton of money from the licence fee's they also get money from the eu and its news channels are all controlled by the government, who control what we see and hear...

[Gh0sty]

I dont pay it because I never watch live TV so it makes very little odds to me either way. The beeb doesnt show any of the series that I watch and is less and less impartial in its views these days so they aint getting any more money from me.

[MonkeyL]

The BBC would not be able to survive as a private business.

Why not? It's product is far far better than any other broadcaster in the UK. If the BBC did decide to take adverts and attempt to lure the most common demoninator (like Sky) commercial broadcasters would be decimated.

So, basically nonsense.

Investors would not be interested in a place where managers are given ridiculously high wages.

Source? I'll wager they're lower than ITV. J.Ross stated on his move to ITV that to stay at the BBC would effectively be a pay cut!

In essence, nonsense.

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.

So how do you explain the healthcare costs in the US being significantly higher per head, while having a lower standard of care (according to the OECD)

Again, yet more complete nonsense.

[MonkeyL]

I think it should be gotten rid of, the BBC has had it's day, they don't really have anything good on it anymore

Except all those shows on science, education, mathematics and the arts... I guess you're not one for thinkin' eh