TV licence fee to rise to £131.50

[Damien]

Goverment moneys goes to the arts as well. I do not go to art museum or theater. Should I have to subsridise that? I know its not exactly the same.

Like I said I think the BBC gives so much other that a few channels

[Enuff]

the sad thing is we dont have any say in the matter we dont get a choice like we do with the other channels like sports etc, if u dont pay for the sports channels then u dont get them. simple... but with the bbc, its a case of u will pay wether u want it or not. now thats a crime, I for one can live without the bbc. why dont the bbc go PPV? because they know what would happen if they did. they'd quickly go bust!

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by AdamD

I agree their news service is great, as is thier webpage
But, the license fee is still unfair overall
They should scrap it and use adverts to generate revenue.

As I have said (repeatedly), ITV would be badly damaged if this happened. Even though I got this from contacts in the advertising industry, it's basic economics. The advertising market is already over supplied. Therefore prices are low, and TV companies are having to have more adverts AND try and keep program costs low (this is why ITV are increasingly relying on Soaps and Reality TV for primetime telly).

What happens when you introduce a massive supply to an already over supplied market? Yep, prices get even lower, program budgets go down, we end up with even more cheap television, and also some of the smaller TV channels (and possibly some of the larger ones as well) go bankrupt, therefore we have less choice.

Still, let's not let reason get in the way of a good rant.

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Dodger444

the sad thing is we dont have any say in the matter we dont get a choice like we do with the other channels like sports etc, if u dont pay for the sports channels then u dont get them. simple... but with the bbc, its a case of u will pay wether u want it or not. now thats a crime, I for one can live without the bbc. why dont the bbc go PPV? because they know what would happen if they did. they'd quickly go bust!

The BBC is not like any other TV channel

We are also forgetting that without the FEE the BBC would be unable to innovate or take risks and there would be no profit motive to have public intrest programmes.

The BBC still makes a massive amount of education resources that schools can use and such.

[Chrysalis]

I think the bbc can remain publicly funded but in a more fair manner, either by general taxation which many other countries have switched to, extra penny on income tax or something, or on a more tiered basis so people with digital eg. pay more and low incomes excempt etc. So all these people wuith bbc1,2,3,4 on digital start paying £200+ see how they still think its good value then and those on low incomes dont pay and those with just analogue perhaps pay something like £50 which is more realistic.

My favourite idea is general taxation with all terrestrial channels getting a share, if they need to go over their alloted budget then adverts are available

[Enuff]

Originally Posted by Damien

The BBC is not like any other TV channel

We are also forgetting that without the FEE the BBC would be unable to innovate or take risks and there would be no profit motive to have public intrest programmes.

The BBC still makes a massive amount of education resources that schools can use and such.

I dont care what entertainment or educational programmes they make, I dont want any of it - there are other forms of free/PPV information out there if I need it. as for the bbc online, news. etc... wouldnt bother me one bit if the sites went down this instant. I like freedom of choice far more.

[Chrysalis]

The crunch is when you living on the breadline and you have to pay over 5% of your income to the bbc, I think the innovation is slightly unimportant.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think the bbc can remain publicly funded but in a more fair manner, either by general taxation which many other countries have switched to, extra penny on income tax or something, or on a more tiered basis so people with digital eg. pay more and low incomes excempt etc. So all these people wuith bbc1,2,3,4 on digital start paying £200+ see how they still think its good value then and those on low incomes dont pay and those with just analogue perhaps pay something like £50 which is more realistic.

My favourite idea is general taxation with all terrestrial channels getting a share, if they need to go over their alloted budget then adverts are available

That sounds a lot fairer..

---------- Post added at 20:00 ---------- Previous post was at 19:57 ----------

Originally Posted by Dodger444

I dont care what entertainment or educational programmes they make, I dont want any of it - there are other forms of free/PPV information out there if I need it. as for the bbc online, news. etc... wouldnt bother me one bit if the sites went down this instant. I like freedom of choice far more.

Admittedly I am being picky here. You only need to pay the TV licence if you own a device capable of recieving TV. Nobody is forcing you to do this.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Admittedly I am being picky here. You only need to pay the TV licence if you own a device capable of recieving TV. Nobody is forcing you to do this.

What is a device capable of receiving TV though? With TV via IP the distinction is becoming blurred. Something drastic is going to have to change in the not so distant future. Do they make it compulsory to have a TV licence if you only have a PC with a broadband connection? That is capable of receiving the same content as is being delivered via the aerial, satellite system or cable system.

The best idea is to scrap the TV licence altogether and fund the BBC through direct taxation. Cuts out all the administration costs of the TV licence system and means that a persons contribution is more related to their ability to pay.

[Escapee]

The licence fee is a silly idea.

I agree with others here, if it's that great encrypt it and people will pay!

I don't have a TV at home now, the house is a mess because its being gutted from top to bottom. I go to my parents a couple of times a week for my evening meal and watch the one program a week on HTV that I need to see and I watch Sky at my girlfriends.
I bought my parents an LCD TV for the bedroom and a DVD recorder the christmas before last, what a load of trouble that gave me. I had them hound me with letters and eventualy turn up, I could of easily let the guy in to look around for a TV but I didn't like his attitude. I told him that my SKY box was at my girlfriends and he wanted to know her address, I told him what he could go and do with himself and made it clear that he had no right to enter my property. In fact I ended up being quite abusive as he would not believe that I didn't have a TV at this address, or watch TV via the internet or with a TV card.

I recall reading that most people caught are housewives during the daytime, and they bully them into signing paperwork admitting their crime.

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

As I have said (repeatedly), ITV would be badly damaged if this happened. Even though I got this from contacts in the advertising industry, it's basic economics. The advertising market is already over supplied. Therefore prices are low, and TV companies are having to have more adverts AND try and keep program costs low (this is why ITV are increasingly relying on Soaps and Reality TV for primetime telly).

What happens when you introduce a massive supply to an already over supplied market? Yep, prices get even lower, program budgets go down, we end up with even more cheap television, and also some of the smaller TV channels (and possibly some of the larger ones as well) go bankrupt, therefore we have less choice.

Still, let's not let reason get in the way of a good rant.

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Now let me see...£131.50 pounds spread over 365 days...oh dear that's terrible,36 pence is daylight robbery...Better not pay that...

[Enuff]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

---------- Post added at 21:42 ---------- Previous post was at 21:34 ----------

Now let me see...£131.50 pounds spread over 365 days...oh dear that's terrible,36 pence is daylight robbery...Better not pay that...

36p a day, lets see thats £131.40 a year on top of what we already pay to own a TV and whatever else we pay for the channels we do want to watch. owning a tv or any equiptment that is capable of recieving broadcasts isnt illegal it only becomes illegal if you are using the equipment to recieve the broadcast of tv channels. £131 might not sound like much to you, but it's £131 that most of us would like to keep in our own pockets. it wont be long before they introduce a tax for being able to receive the internet, they always seem to grab whatever they can from the masses... most people have TV's, tax it!, most people have a car, tax it!, most people smoke, tax it!, most people drink alcohol tax it!... get them addicted then take their money! so keep an eye out for the internet taxation... so aswell as buying a computer and paying your isp, dont forget to pay for an internet licence or else!

[AdamD]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Now let me see...£131.50 pounds spread over 365 days...oh dear that's terrible,36 pence is daylight robbery...Better not pay that...

It is when you don't use the service.

[Stuart C]

Originally Posted by AdamD

It is when you don't use the service.

Another way to look at it. I personally don't get any use out of the Royal Family (and I can't see any argument that proves to me they are necessary), yet I still have to pay for their upkeep.

My point is we do have to pay sometimes for things we don't use. That's a downside of Taxation.

[budwieser]

Not being picky here but does the Licence fee fund bbc Radio One and the others as well?
I`m only asking because i don`t know.