BBC not worth the cost of a TV Licence

The internet has made the licence fee obsolete, and destroyed the functionality of the detector van. Technically everyone who has the internet and a PC, can receive BBC TV programmes in the UK and should pay the licence fee, whether they have a TV or not.

Everyone who wants to watch Premier Football, Golf, Tennis, Cricket should pay a subscription.Anyone who wants to watch a movie should pay a subscription or buy the DVD. News should be paid for by the state but be free of government interference and be free.

The BBC has gone downhill. They know that ITV can't afford to make good shows so BBC have stopped competing, they don't care about good programmes because they get their license fee anyway. The whole of daytime BBC are shows about selling antiques and shows about people purchasing houses abroad, they even show those programmes at the weekend and repeat them evey few weeks so even the people that like them get annoyed.

Lord kecks,

In the fifties, sixties, and seventies the BBC were the best in the world I have to fully agree, but LWT, FILM4, SKY, and others have produced lots of classic programming,

But times have moved on, the BBC should be privatised like the utilities and other national organisations, tv is not the main home entertainment like it used to be.

Given the choice I wouldn't subscribe to the BBC, I could find much better things to do with £144-00 every year. this site alone gives me better entertainment than the BBC.

MikePea:

Gainsborough lad, I know everybody hates the licence fee, but you have to consider the extraordinarily high standard of programmes put out by the BBC over the years.

Fair play it's put out some good programmes over the years, I do enjoy a bit of QI and the like but there is a dirge of rubbish on there too which is covered by the same fees.

British Tv is considered the best in the world and it helps educate peoples like the australians and americans and the irish, who if left to their own devices would not have a clue as to the production of high quality educational programming.

Their problem not ours and if they're seeing such benefit why not apply the same licensing fee to them? Are the licence payers in this country to subsidise their output because they're supposedly incapable of knocking out anything if a similar quality?

pmsl @ u:
its a licence not a tax,

Why is it not sold with the TV and asked for every year then? Why is it one per household rather than one per set?

this is because it's not compulsory to have a tv. the licence is now not only for bbc since the switch over it is to receive ALL channels.

#Cough# Excuse me? Where is this revenue going?

a tv set is a luxury not a necessity, if you drive you have to pay a licence,yes? you also have to pay road tax, you probably use the tv more than the car but have to pay more for the car!

Yes you do have to pay a licence to drive but that's because of the use of public roads and their subsequent upkeep, not only that you have to prove your capability to drive in the first place in order to get one. What do you have to do to prove your aptitude at using a TV? Oh yeah have a hundered and fifty nicker to chuck away on a piece of paper every year. Your argument about car licences is invalid the two don't compare on so many levels and usage is the weakest point you could have thrown out.

look if you want to use tv then stop moaning and pay the licence 142.50 for full year is not gunna brake the bank is it

I like that you used 'brake' rather than 'break' there. heh. Well no it's unlikely to but multiply that number by the several million households that pay it every year and it's certainly 'filling' someone's, regardless that's not the point. I do use a TV and don't pay the licence so it's not an issue of wanting to or having to it's an issue of choosing to or not. I'd rather keep the cash I could ill affort to throw away on this tosh thanks all the same and saying 'just pay the licence' does not cut it.

There is no service provided to the individual watching a (BBC) TV programme by paying the licence fee. Anyone with a TV set and aerial can access said programmes with minimal effort and incur no debt from doing so. The missives and 'inspectors' from TVL are nothing more than snake oil peddlers preying on individual gullible enough to part with their money to 'pay' for.. what exactly?

The use or degradation of their transmission equipment?
Spurious, as the equipment is just as subject to the laws of entropy as the rest of the world and would fall into disrepair at the same point regardless.
Then perhaps the upkeep of their transmission equipment?
Spurious, because, as already alluded to, there is no detrimental effect on said equipment caused by viewers receiving the transmissions.
The transmissions themselves?
Once again no effect on the transmissions by them being received.
The programmes you will watch in the future?
An improvable argument.
Their letters and enforcers?
Hmm, now that has potential as part of an answer.

Simply put, if you're paying a licence fee you are an eejit. You may believe you are shoring up a public service or keeping it ad-free but what you are in fact doing is paying for freely available transmissions which are inherently without value. If they had any real value there would be a mandatory device installed on each TV sold in Britain which recorded and subsequently transmitted the details of how many hours/minutes/seconds of BBC television you had watched in a given year back to the BBC and you would be billed by them accordingly.

If you want to pay them, go ahead enjoy your loss of money for a service which would continue without your 'support'. If not, then don't and encourage others to see the light. We’re not shareholders! It is not our responsibility to keep the BBC running, it's the BBC's responsibility.

The BBC should be sold to private enterprise to raise cash for the hard pressed taxpayer. It already competes unfairly in the commercial sector and is constantly growing uncontrollably. If the privatised BBC had to raise its revenues by subscription ity would enter the real world and probably provide a good service within the contraints of a commercial operation. Does it really need 3.5 billion of public money to run a handful of tv and radio stations?
Not watching BBC is not an option as you still need a tv license to watch any live broadcast be it from the UK or Timbuktoo (by satellite)

Scrap the licence fee? You'd be sorry if all channels looked like daytime ITV57, tat-flogging shopping channels, infomercials, or See-Boobies (after midnight). There room for a few of those channels but TV would be pretty grim if that was all there was.

Although the BBC is heading downmarket, going for viewing figures (entertaining) over providing the programmes that other channels won't (informing and educating), it is still good value for money and higher quality than the others. A satellite or cable subscription will cost you more, and the best channels there will still mostly be the BBC ones and those showing lots of repeats of BBC-originated programmes. I gladly pay the licence fee for a few channels of quality TV without programmes butchered by ads, channel logos (BBC3 & BBC4 excepted) and blatant in-programme product plugging. The only reason I might be against the licence fee would be if I were an ardent sports fan (which I'm not) and watched little else but sport (which I don't).

If I currently choose not to watch TV I don't need to pay the license fee, which seems fair (and I can still listen to BBC radio for free!). If the license fee money came from taxes instead I'd be forced to pay it even if I didn't watch any telly. No-one has much choice about paying for ITV because the cost of TV advertising goes straight onto the prices of the things you buy. You could boycott all TV-advertised products, but then there'd soon be no TV left except subscription or pay-per-view TV - and the BBC license fee would seem like a real bargain.

Without government funding or a TV license fee telly would turn into device for corporations to bombard the masses with product propaganda carried by the cheapest programmes they could get away with. Anything with high costs or uncertain viewing figures would just not get made. That's why there are few (if any - I can't think of one) countries in the civilised world where TV is left totally to the free market.

oh sorry I forgot to add, if you have a tv but no receiver ie sky/free view box and just use the tv for playing console/dvd's or video's (not bbc recorded programs) you also don't need a licence!
yes I do work for tvl and yes I have to pay the full licence fee each year (no discount) and yes I don't want to pay it either but I also have to have a licence to keep my job as they do regular checks on my home address to see if the licence is up to date!

lena, in the five years I have worked for tvl I have never known people to be thrown in prison for not having a licence, a fine yes...if they haven't paid the fine set by the courts then the bailiffs come and it becomes another matter.
also a little insider tip for you that is legal.....you don't need a tvl if you have no tv set. what ever method you use to pay for licence (D/D or payment card) call the help line and tell them you wish to cancel your licence as you have no tv set (depending on time left on licence you may get a refund!) if you use your computer for general surfing don't pay the licence. you will how ever be advised that someone may call at your property to check no set is in use.
IMPORTANT NOTICE-
i must also add if you use a tv and have no licence, and say your neighbour/relative is in while you nip to the shop, and and enforcement officer calls at the property your neighbour/relative is watching the tv they will at that present time be liable for the fine (bad I know) but the E/O is working within the law and can do this (unknowingly granted who asks neighbours if they have a licence!). believe me I deal with around thirty cases like this each month where caller had received court summons for tvl evasion at different address unfortunately they have to pay it.
this is not a scare tactic just some advice.

The BBC show far too much sports, costume dramas and repeats. It also makes me mad the amount of money is wasted on wardrobe and sending reporters abroad. They can just waste licence money to their hearts content.

Suppose I never ever listen or watch anything from the BBC, why should I go to prison for not paying for a service or product that I do not want simply because I have a computer where I am 'able' to watch or listen to the BBC? I am being forced by law to buy or pay for a product that I do not want.

Call it a tv tax or not, if I dont drive a car, (but but walk on the pavement) why should I pay road tax, if I dont have a telly, (but access to the web), why should I pay tv tax?

Question to PMSL, when did they stop throwing people in prison for non payment of tv licence? I know people were put in prison for this a few years ago!