Quick one before I bugger off - what are people's thoughts on the licence fee?

Personally, I like it, I think it's good. Dunno the exact percentage, but the majority of telly I do watch is BBC, and then there's the radio stations and internet sites to take into account - I think it's worth thirty odd pence a day. There is the argument that commercial channels are free, but who pays for the advertising - you and me. And they're mainly shit, anyway.

Over to you...

you sound like Daisy.




yes, the crazy frog for one.

I meant the channels are shit, not the advertising, although that's mainly shit as well.

Bim bim.

oh


there are some trully valuable things on the bbc. the Swing-o-meter with Peter Snow. Legend.

the bbc for me is more a reminder of our childhood identity and they are always there (big brother?) but its quite a sentimental old fart really. i like it.

I guess its worth the licence fee...at least 5 channels I can think of, numerous Radio stations, local TV & Radio, producers of some of the best documentaries, dramas (and maybe not so true anymore) comedies in the world, film production (no BBC, no Shane Meadows) and no advertising...its certainly more VFM than it was 10 or so years ago.

The Beeb's output isn't all bad, they are responsible for some great stuff (or it slips through, anyway) but locking people up for not being able to afford one is fucking ridiculous and certainly ain't worth it.
http://www.spiderbomb.com/tv/human.html

-edit-

I obviously intended to vote for 'scrap it' but somehow managed to fuck it up and pick something else. Oops.

I think it's worth it the BBC are part of our national heritage and i dread to think what tv would be like without it.If you want programmes that exude quality and intelliegence, look no further than the beeb.

That is my only problem really with it...you can't opt out. If you have a TV you have to pay the fee...whether you watch the BBC or not.

On a similar subject...when Cable/Digital channels charge for packages that contain BBC channels you should ask for a reduction in fee....your paying for them through the licence/freeview box already.

I feel I should have put a disclaimer, that website has been written in a deeply patronising manner. But the point remains that jailing people and to a lesser degree fining them for not contributing to Two Pints of Heart Bypass Live and Your Clothes Are Shit and Your House Stinks shows a lack of perspective that blows my mind.

Whilst i agree that it's extreme to imprison people for not paying the license fee, i don't think people should be able to get away without paying when so many people who are on a low income do.

The best solution being to abolish it, that way nobody on a low income has to pay it. I'll take eating while the adverts are on over starving with some great telly.

I've spent the last few years thinking of various ways of how I could hide my television if and when I finally get my own place. It's not a case of detecting if a television is on (that's not actually possible unless they bug your house which they can't), it's just targeting a list of households that don't have a TV licence registered at that address. It's just knowing where to put the TV and where to put the furniture, so if a TV licence person comes round s/he can look around the place, not find the telly and take my word that I don't have one. I used to do carpentry and floor plans at college, so I could knock up a false wall no problem!

My gran and uncle used to have a black and white television and only watched ITV so they didn't have to pay the TV licence!

Wife Of Rolex

er both the Sky contract and the contracts produced by both Telewest and NTL specifically state that there are non-subscription channels available on their platforms.

It always amuses me that Sky - who are so anti the TV Licence fee on the grounds that it forces consumers to pay for channels that they don't watch seem unable (or rather unwilling) to see that through their refusal to unbundle their TV packages do exactly the same thing. And if Murdoch thinks the TV licence is a bad thing then I'm all for keeping it.

Haven't seen this urban myth in ages - thanks for that.

It's nonsense of course. If you have a TV with a tuner, a VCR with a Tuner, a DVD recorder with a tuner, a Sky Box, Cable Box, Freeview box, TV Card in your PC or any device designed to receive UK TV broadcasts from within the UK you have to pay a TV Licence.

Good luck. The question that arises of course is where are you going to get this TV from? Retailers are legally obliged to provide the name and address of the purchaser for every single piece of TV equipment that they sell. I can't see anyone risking a massive fine not to provide this. Of course you could provide them with a false address - which means if your TV goes faulty you aren't properly covered, nor will you be able to buy the set with a Credit Card (the verification will decline you) on credit (ditto) or get it delivered. Doesn't seem worth it really.

And the TV Licence people don't need to see your TV. They aren't called "Detector" Vans for a laugh .....

If the BBC does become funded by advertising, there'll be very little great telly to watch.

Imagine a world where every channel is like ITV.

Only worse because no effort has to be made to try and keep up with the main producer of what little quality telly there is.

Imagine that.

Agree with you on that one - they should simply have their tellies confiscated for a year and be checked randomly to see if they've got another one.

Well digital TV is the only way from 2010 (we'll see), so I propose that you take what the license fee is, split it up into mins (prime time, day time etc.) and then at the end of a year you get chardged for what you have watched.

So ready-steady cook, don't get any of my money, but Doctor Who does.

That way programs that people ACTAULLY want to watch, and aren't just on, are the ones broadcast.

Also stops the monopoly the Beeb have over their internal programming.

BUT

I do think the Beeb to a much better job thatn Sky. The only programs I've ever seen them make is 'Magic tramp', 'Look, some Magic!!' and 'Lets take some basic science and turn it into stupid magic type stuff' oh and '7 year old kid SS guys'

And they charge a packet for it!

Radio 2 and 4, Beeb 2 + 3 and Channel 4 are the only telly I watch, well maybe's Floyd on Sky Travel.

-m0r

It's the TV itself which is your traitor, however - every television contains a component called a local oscillator which generates a distinct magnetic field whenever the set is operating (which could simply just mean that you are watching a video, not even viewing live broadcasts). That magnetic field is what is detected by... thank you philt...

I'd agree with that - it isn't too naive a position for me to be in when I think "I'd rather a licence fee than the unknown alternative". The Licence Fee ensures that at least one broadcaster in the UK is held to some sort of standards and has inherent accountability.

There's nothing but crap on tv (or the radio for that matter). The only decent thing that's been on in recent times is 24, and the BBC are too stingy to pay for that to be shown any more. When I get my own place I'm going to get rid of my TV, and just use my PC for watching DVDs (I haven't got a TV Tuner in the PC so I don't need a licence). I think at the moment the amount of TV I watch in a week combined doesn't even add up to a whole hour, and most of it is because someone else is watching something and I happen to be in the same room.

I'm all for keeping the Licence fee. I used to get annoyed at one point, beacuse I was paying for TV channels I couldn't get, BBC 3 and 4 etc. But now i've got freeview, which is great and only £30 from Argos, I get all the good channels now, and I'm glad for it. Most of the channels I watch are BBC channels and when there's nothing on 1 or 2, there's usually something on 3 and 4, and on the rare occasion nothing is on, just listen to 6Music.

channel 4 has it's momnets, don't even bother with five, and ITV is full of crap reality shows, and I mean full of them. you looking ina tv guide, and nearly ever programme on ITV is a reality programme.

I was half joking and half evil planning! And the black and white tv thing with my Gran and Uncle was completely true. They never tuned it into the BBC channels. Literally only watched ITV for over 20 years until they died.

But to solve the purchasing problem, I could either give my parents' address or a false one like you say and I don't have a credit card so I'd pay with cash out right.

Jesus, I'm a right little criminal me! Evil plans, evil plans, evil plans...mwahahahahahaha!!! It's not so much begrudging paying it, but perhaps the buzz of coming up with ways to outwit others, like TV licence inspectors.

Look, I'm weird and think about these things. Cut me some slack.

Wife Of Rolex

Yeah, but on the other hand, the BBC seems to do more and more self-advertising every day, you can't say that the BBC is anti-commerical because it really isn't the case, you get enough adverts for bbc-related produce to almost make the licence fee obsolete. I don't really disagree with it in principal I suppose, but I get peeved that when I lived on campus-each person singly has to buy a TV licence - 15 people paying £140 or thereabouts seems a tad scandalous - okay so half of them didn't pay it, but you know what I mean...

I think when one mentions advertising, it means from outside agents. Commercially funding the products/programmes that are made...and as such might be subject to conflict of interest etc. The BBC related products cannot make the licence fee obsolete...it's the same fund. The licence fees claimed also pay for the "adverts".

Chris

The majority of the BBC's money comes from selling their programs overseas. If our licence fee goes towards making these programs then they claim a lot more money selling them to commercial stations in other countries, funding future programming. Logic dictates, then, that we are getting more than we pay for.

True-although my point is more to do with the fact that the BBC sells itself as 'you pay the lisence fee - you don't get adverts' Which is misleading.

Well yes and no. I think it considers itself "non-commercial" - interpret that how you will. To be fair, between each programme you get one or two ads for other BBC services or programs, more trailers than adverts in a lot of cases. There are no ad-breaks, no product placement and no irritating "this program sponsored by Don Amott's World of Caravans" messages. In the US BBC programs screw up the schedules on BBCA because when you put the ads in they run to 35 or 40 minutes.

My point being that I'd happily lose a couple of good channels and not have to pay it. Subscription should be the way forward for them. If you don't pay it you can't watch it instead of everybody can watch it so you have to pay it.

But they're (arguably) the only good channels we've got.

Yes but the bbc advertising it's own programming (which, if you have a tv license,you already pay for) just serves to benefit it's audience, not expolit it.

They're as clogged up with shit as all the other channels. If there is a show I want to watch these days I wait and pick it up on DVD. I actually find it very difficult to watch TV (on any channel) for more than five minutes these days without becoming infuriated at how imbecilic the programming has become and throwing my remote across the room in a sulky huff.

Well that's true and that's as damning to society as a whole as it is to the TV companies. But there are degrees of shit, and the BBC offers much higher quality shit (and the occasional gem if you go digging for it) than ITV, for example.

The problem is that if there's nothing good on tv, people still watch it, giving the people who make the programs the impression that what they've made is actually good and people WANT to watch it. It's the people who will sit and watch a program regardless of whether they actually like it that ruin things.

It's like going into a shop, not finding anything you want to buy, so just picking up something randomly and saying "this is shit, but there's nothing else I want so I might as well buy it".



... And the BBC are responsible for Eastenders. That alone should be a hanging offence.

...which in itself strengthens Andy's point about confiscating TVs rather than imprisoning people. Of course, the networks may be frightened that these people will discover a world outside TV ala Family Guy.

True ITV is the epitome of lowest common denominator programming and the BBC pisses on them from a height in many respects. But Channel 4, recent crimes against television aside, still have the same high quality hit ratio as the Beeb and have a government regulated programming schedule and we don't have to pay for it.

You could argue that Channel 4 wouldn't have its public service ethic if it weren't for the BBC's original guiding principles.

I fully support the license fee (and yes, I pay it) and the BBC as an institution; I think it's massively important as a benchmark of quality and a way to represent ourselves to the rest of the world. What I dislike about the Beeb, however, is their tendency to chase ratings and their attempts to emulate the more commercial successes of ITV such as Pop Idol.

Of course, they need to innovate and keep up with current trends in television but one of things I expect from the BBC in return for my £100 and something a year is minority interest and cutting edge programming which would be impossible to produce under a commercial imperative. I would happily pay my fee five times over if it meant we got more quirky comedy like The Mighty Boosh - and if it meant it got treated better.

Adverts on the BBC okay lets consider that for a second and what that would actually mean

We'd have one of the largest, best respected TV companies in the world chasing the same advertising revenue as all the other UK TV Companies who are tiddlers in comparison. I wonder who would suffer? mmm ITV / Sky / C4 / C5 probably. The last thing they want with their all viewing percentages at an all time low with pressure from the ad men is a new much larger and more prestigous competitor arriving to fight over the same advertisements. It's pretty simple what would happen - commercial TV (and radio) would implode.

Although the commercial sector moan about the BBC the last thing they really want is for it to take ads.

But we are paying for it - those advertising slots, and the adverts themselves, cost money. I think having a public broadcaster which is accountable to the people who pay for it is a great thing. I'm quite happy to pay my 30p a day, or whatever, to get things like The Thick Of It, The Mighty Boosh, 15 Storeys High, I Am Not An Animal etc. etc. broadcast.

I'll admit genuine ignorance on this one. Just how accountable are they?

Do you know what - I have no fucking idea. That's what I get for posting when I get home from the pub.

I'm going to try to find out, though.

I hate the way American TV stops every 5 minutes or so for an ad break - I find it pretty much impossible to watch TV over here. We don't have cable anyway so I only have a few channels to choose from, but to be honest I don't mind. On PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) the other day there was a fantastic programme about the history of Harlem (where I live) and because PBS is funded completely by donations from the public, there were no ad breaks. Heaven.
I stick to DVDs. Except when the DVD player scratches them *fumes*