O/T tv licence

[CAMiller]

That’s great if there’s something you like to watch but why should people have to pay for a service they don’t use? If you like something it’s goods received if you don’t your basicly being forced to to donate

So would you advocate all roads be toll roads, all schools be private, all libraries be turned into private enterprises.... just because not everyone get's to/wants to use them?

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

On an individual basis, your monthly licence fee (£12.54 per household) is spent as follows:

Television: £6.92
Radio: £2.17
BBC World Service: £1.24
Other services and production costs: £0.80
BBC Online: £1.08
Licence fee collection and other costs: £0.33

Interesting that in these days of apologising for colonialism that the BBC spends so much on the propaganda of the World Service

[Silly-miller]

So would you advocate all roads be toll roads, all schools be private, all libraries be turned into private enterprises.... just because not everyone get's to/wants to use them?

Not the same thing CAM we all us a road we all have been to a school and we have all used a library at least once and got benefit from it

It’s like being born in Sheffield being told you got to pay Sheffield Wednesday £12 a month or go to jail even though your a Rotherham fan and don’t want to be caught dead near Hillsborough

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

The bottom dollar is this, if the BBC lived up to their own mission statement of "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".

Then most would have no argument with them.

But they don’t and compound the insult by having the gall to make you pay for it

[great_fire]

I would still have an issue with them.

Paying the BBC to watch Sky, ITV, Channel 4 etc is just bizarre, and unfair.

The whole concept of a "TV licence" is also bizarre and dated.

[Silly-miller]

The bottom dollar is this, if the BBC lived up to their own mission statement of "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".

Then most would have no argument with them.

But they don’t and compound the insult by having the gall to make you pay for it

Hit nail on head there mate

Even I wouldn’t have a problem with em if they had a more wide range of tv shows but they don’t because comedy is too divisive and offensive to the wokeys violence isn’t nice enough so your stuck with news, antiques and garden shows all of which 20 years ago would have been put on bbc2 while only fools and horses kept people entertained

[Brin]

The BBC provides a public service and couldn't do that if it had to chase advertising revenues.

Take Radio 4 - not to everyone's taste, I know - but the dramas, debates and factual programmes on there are amazing. I would pay my licence fee for them alone, but the audiences are such that they could not be made on advertising revenues.

Look at some of the Attenborough style natural history programmes - cutting edge stuff that is hugely expensive, but so risky that I suspect a private advertising funded body would not make them.

Funding via licence allows the BBC to make niche programmes that nobody else would.

We should cherish what we have.

Sometimes but rarely, you post one and this is it, you’re a snob and it shows.

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

I would still have an issue with them.

Paying the BBC to watch Sky, ITV, Channel 4 etc is just bizarre, and unfair.

The whole concept of a "TV licence" is also bizarre and dated.

Yep agree with that

[sota]

The BBC provides a public service and couldn't do that if it had to chase advertising revenues.

Take Radio 4 - not to everyone's taste, I know - but the dramas, debates and factual programmes on there are amazing. I would pay my licence fee for them alone, but the audiences are such that they could not be made on advertising revenues.

Look at some of the Attenborough style natural history programmes - cutting edge stuff that is hugely expensive, but so risky that I suspect a private advertising funded body would not make them.

Funding via licence allows the BBC to make niche programmes that nobody else would.

We should cherish what we have.

I agree Mr Kerr. I would gladly pay a hefty sum for all BBC and UK TV and radio. I don't understand why it's not readily available overseas, but it's not. Instead, I have to revert to pirate TV where I can watch all UK TV and ALL sport channels (BT Sky etc) in glorious HD for 16 quid a month.

[KerrAvon]

Sometimes but rarely, you post one and this is it, you’re a snob and it shows.

I went to South Grove and had a stint on free school meals. I wouldn't say that I am obvious snob material, but fair enough.

I have recently watched 'The Planets' on iPlayer. I doubt whether that woud have been made if the BBC had been required to sell advertising to fund it. Would advertising big spenders like the online betting and bingo industry have shelled out to try to capture business from its viewers? Would they consider its audience to fit their target demographic? I doubt it and I think it would be a huge shame if it were not made. It is readily accessible science and maybe I am being idealistic and snobby, but I would like to think that it might have helped to capture the imagination of at least some kids and got them into a love of science and given them a bit of direction at school. 'Horizon' did that for me when I was a kid.

And if we are talking The Planets then that leads to a very niche programme - The Sky at Night. I have watched it maybe two or three times in my life, but for amateur astronomers (who are a part of the UK population and entitled to a bit of consideration), I woud imagine that it is required viewing. There is no way that it would be made if it had to attract advertising. Countryfile is another one; it has moved away from its purely farming focus over the years, but it still serves the rural community of the country.

Another thing that has to be borne in mind is that advertising funded TV is not free. Customers of 'Go Compare' and 'Foxy Bingo' are paying for it. I have tried to find some figures on the internet without sucess, but I recall being told a few years ago (possibly on a Radio 4 programme) how much of the price of a box of washing powder represented advertising costs - it was absurd - 30%+, if I recall correctly.

And, of course, there is a limited pool of advertising money available. If it suddenly had to be shared across the BBC as well, I don't think it would be just the BBC who found that they could no longer afford to make quality TV.