Who thinks TV Licenses are good value?

[Zak33]

I really quite rate the TV License in the UK. I feel its pretty good value for money.

But some of the guys here at work disagree BIG time....quoting repeat after repeat, and endless Reality Shows.

While I agree that those shows are pretty tired now, I do still think that the TV license offers awesome value for money

What do you think?

[Theo]

I think it's pretty good value, too.. and with the relatively recent addition of Freeview boxes, it's even better value. Of course - you have to actually buy yourself a freeview box. Forty quid and you're sorted with all the 24 Hour News you want.

And despite the freakish amount of Reality TV out there, there is some SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY good stuff. Channel 5 are repeating the awesome American Soap - Sunset Beach.. WHAT MORE COULD YOU ASK FOR?

[DeludedGuy]

Its a complete rip off.

I know a lot of people who have Sky Digital and dont watch anything else but Sky Digital, and have to pay the TV License.

Fair enough, they have some good shows, but a lot of people dont want/need to watch/listen to it.

[Whalefish]

Just take a look around the BBC Website, fantastic imho. The BBC still set the standard for broadcast quality.
I'd rather the licence fee than seeing 'our' airwaves sold off to corporations peddling their
endless adverts and biznezz oriented right wing agendas as happened in the USA.

[coco]

tv license is good value for money , rather that than keep some murdoch type rich . I'd hate our tv to end up like the usa = dross mainly , adverts with the program in them , and very few intelligent programs.
The only thing decent on sky is the sport and if sky lost that were would they be

[fathazza]

yeah, well its when you watch sky/digital that you realise how mucht he bbc rocks.

simply for one thing. NO ADVERTS
not to mention some great shows too

[RVF500]

I strongly resent being forced to pay for something that I may or may not want (in my case not as I rarely if ever watch BBC). In this day and age we should be given the choice of deciding whether or not we want the service and if not then encrypt the service so we can't get it.

I do watch sky, sports, film, documentary programs and some of the general viewing. I have a choice and I choose to pay the fees for the service. Maybe we aren't helping some rich Murdoch type line his pockets with the BBC but we are supporting a bunch of quasi-civil servants to peddle a significant amount of tripe which we have to have under penalty of law if we want to watch any other channels. Frankly if you buy a DVD you help some useless layabout in Hollywood line his or her pockets, if you buy a CD you help some equally useless layabout line their pockets (Liam Galagher anyone?). Who here buys football strips? Nuff said. We pay for entertainment services and someone gets rich, simple. But we have a choice. We don't have to pay an annual fee to the State Philharmonic to be allowed to by CDs of the artist of our choice. So why do we not have a choice over licensing?

Sure, keep the license fee only call it a subscription fee and levy it on people who want the service. Which would force the beeb to put on some competetive programming to keep their viewers. Instead of the threat of a £1000 fine. There's your choice.

[Honoop]

I dont really watch much TV but when I do there is pretty much always something worth watching on (with the exception of Wednesdays). But then I never know when anything is on except Eastenders and you only need to watch that once a month to stay up-to-date with it!
So I reckon the TV licence is good value. I understand why some people would think not, but then if you have other hobbies you dont mind when there isnt much on TV coz you have other things to do. The BBC is so much more than just TV broadcasting these days and with things like set-top boxes there are ways to ensure you get the most out of your fee. Plus its so easy to pay for it now, not like when you used to have to do it all in one lump some or buy stamps from the Post Office!!

I dont have Sky or NTL but when I did have it seemed a bit much then coz ur paying for something you need to have in order to watch all the channels through another source. I think there should be some kind of way that if you have Sky etc your TV licence fee is included in your subscription fee or something so it doesnt seem as though you are paying for something you dont need just because you're not using the aerial on your house for the reception.

Personally I think £121 for a years worth of TV is nothing these days - its not even a weeks shopping for some people.

[Skii]

We have Freeview, which I feel is EXCEPTIONAL value for money, a genuine bl00dy bargain, now combined with the terrestrial channels I get nearly 40 channels, just for the price of a TV license and a £40 reciever. I have no objection paying the TV license for what I get

[megah0]

In my area we can't get freeview, and I live about 7 miles outside of birmingham.

I watch very little TV, mostly CSI on channel 5 and the news.

If i could get freeview then fair enough as the quality of programming is much higher but until then i think its a major rip off.

[Shogun]

Got a freeview box the other day, live about the same distance as mgh0 from brum and can hardly pick up any channels Refuses to pick up ITV and C4 especially when without the box we can pick them up fine?

[Atomic]

If you've ever watched foreign TV you'll be happy with the BBC. I was in Cyprus over the summer and watched a bit of the olympics on their TV, my god it was the most god awful thing Ive ever seen cutting away at good moments, showing pointless shots of random things. After watching that I praise the amazingly high quality programs the BBC has!

The BBC is all that stops the other UK channels from havin huge advert breaks like US TV does. If they went we'd have more sh**e on TV than there is now.

You gotta look at what the BBC does now to see that they set the standard that the other channels follow. Spooks just to name one.

For childrens TV the BBC is second to none too, ask any parent that!

Sure, keep the license fee only call it a subscription fee and levy it on people who want the service. Which would force the beeb to put on some competetive programming to keep their viewers. Instead of the threat of a £1000 fine. There's your choice.

You wanna change something that has worked for years and supplies quality TV? Strange.

[RVF500]

I've watched tv in numerous places in the world so I know what the different options are like. North America, South America, all across western Europe, Japan and Korea for example. Not just for a summer or a few weeks but for many months at a time. living and working. I am also a parent of 3 children and they vote with the remote. Of choice they don't watch BBC. My youngest prefers Cartoons on Sky and Childrens ITV. When the older ones were just children they had similar choices and options. No one told them the services they could or couldn't use. So your assumptions don't really hold much water regarding my own background.

What I'm saying is simple if you bother to read it. I want a choice, not my arm twisted. If I don't want to watch BBC then I shouldn't be prevented from watching the services offered by another service provider. As it stands if I want to do that then I face a £1000 fine. I would be quite happy for my ability to watch that service is removed from me personally unless I am prepared to pay for it. That doesn't actually change much. If you want it you pay for it and the signal is unblocked. A simple encryption device similar to a cable tv or sky reciever. Though obviously not so bulky. If a member of my family particularly wanted to keep BBC then we would.

Your view of quality TV and mine are different. So what? That's called choice too and we are excercising it.

Is it such a bad thing to ask for a choice?

[petrefax]

i am still undecided, although i have many criticisms of the current system, these being

i don't watch a lot of TV, and when i do i prefer not to see the endless repeats of once-funny comedies.

the BBC has a terrible habit of making something good, then re-running it so often that you just get sick to death of it

only fools & horses anyone... somebody should tell them....the horse is dead, desist flogging. i [i]used[/u] to like the programme but now can't have it on any more since i've seen them all a thousand times. i could name a few others....porridge for example, again very funny but made over 25 years ago

and who can forget the "hilarious" 'allo 'allo....not even funny the first time round, got less amusing on the 2nd showing...by the time they finally put its rotting corpse to rest it was about as funny as contracting herpes

its not as if these shows aren't available on specialist channels either - UK TV gold shows nothing but re-runs of ld BBC comedies if thats your bag

as for the lack of adverts on the BBC, thats a farce, the BBC is the mater of self publicity. i am a recent convert to non-terrestrial channels & only signed up with NTL because i wanted broaband, before this it used to wind me up something chronic when BBC1 would constantly adverise what was showing on BBC3 (or radio1, or radio4 etc...etc...ad nauseum)

for the license fee to be truly fair it should be banded according to how many of the BBCs services you use. for instance my elderly neighbour has 1 TV & has 4 channels to watch on it (2 of which are BBC) and she has a radio, she doesn't have sky / NTL nor does she have a computer, yet she is paying the same as me, i have 3 TVs, sky digital, a computer which is frequently accessing the BBC website

i find it a little difficult to reconcile how the BBC can justify using license payers money on services that not all license payers have access to

so, thats the moaning out of the way

on the positive side, the BBC is able to provide niche programming for many tasts, and operates a very good web service on account of the way it is funded. having spent some time trying to watch american TV when i've been there i would hate to see british television go the same way since its almost impossible to watch a programme amidst the constant ad breaks that punctuate each show approximately every 2 minutes, you just can't concentrate on anything

i suppose my overall view is that whilst the current system we have is flawed, and in some instances downright unfair, the alternative may well be worse still so the license fee is the best of a bad lot which could do with some tweaking

clear as mud?...i thought so


....i'll get my coat

[Kumagoro]

I dont see how watching TV in other countries means you know what its like can you speak all those languages? if not then its meaning less really.

Is the tv licence good value for money i dont know but its better to have some variety
i cant stand the adverts on sky

[RVF500]

I can speak Italian, German and Portuguese (to varying degrees) and a little Spanish, I did struggle a bit in America where they allegedly speak English . Many English language programmes are often not dubbed but subtitled in the local language. There is also a lot of English language programming in Holland. Also in India. Does that answer your question?

The language is less important than you think. T he quality of programming and presentation still comes through. Also you can't measure locally aimed programmes against our own because people have different values around the world. What we find dull or uninteresting is completely the opposite in another country. I was in Berlin when Rudolph Hess died. The UK, US, French and West German TV made a huge fuss about it. The East German TV (the wall was still up at the time) simply stated "Rudolph Hess died today in Spandau Prison" and that was it.

American TV is heavily commercialised but I found that most other countries I visited do not subscribe to the same over commercialisation.

I still stand by my view that we should have a choice not an all or nothing option. I recently spent time working away from home and rented a flat. I didn't bother with a TV license, I have one at home. So I didn't bother with a TV. Every month I got leters through the door from the licensing authority. To the occupier, you are on our list of properties that do not have a TV license. We're watching you, you are high on our list to check out. Make sure you have a TV license, if you are watching TV without a license you are liable to a £1000 fine. Obviously not word for word but you get the gist. The cost of constant mailing to thousands of people would pay for an encryption roll out and they would have to keep sending threatening letters.