The Jackals are circling.

[Biscuit]

whenever i travel i am always struck by how poor tv usually is and how much the BBC is respected by other people - even nonEnglish speakers.

I'm glad - there is precious little left that we are the best at.

 

[stevieb15]

personally i think radio 4 and david attenborough are worth the license fee alone. in real terms it's 40p a day, the price of a newspaper.

But for those of us who rarely if ever watch BBC or listen to its radio content and already subscribe to a far superior service the 40p a day merely for having the equipment to receive seems an intolerable imposition

 

[MOCAŠ]

An imposition, maybe. But intolerable? Hardly.

 

[davethemus]

But for those of us who rarely if ever watch BBC or listen to its radio content and already subscribe to a far superior service the 40p a day merely for having the equipment to receive seems an intolerable imposition

have you ever listened to radio 4? please tell us which better services you subscribe to, it isn't FOX news is it?

 

[Alfie]

have you ever listened to radio 4? please tell us which better services you subscribe to, it isn't FOX news is it?

I do hope its not the dreadful SKY.

 

[stevieb15]

have you ever listened to radio 4? please tell us which better services you subscribe to, it isn't FOX news is it?

Unless things have changed you dont need a licence to listen to radio so although I mentioned radio it I accept it adds nothing to the debate
I do accept though that radio 4 is generally very good and unique in its quality and content

 

[stevieb15]

An imposition, maybe. But intolerable? Hardly.

If you were forced to pay for goods you didnt use surely you would regard that as intolerable.
Perhaps if you received a bill from Tesco for groceries which you neither ordered nor wanted but were legally obliged to pay for,you would regard that as intolerable, I would!

 

[stevieb15]

I do hope its not the dreadful SKY.

Leaves BBC behind on every level
News excepting local/regional, sport, education, films, you name it, it ticks the box.

 

[MercFanUk]

What i hate is the tax feel about the TV license. I get why it's needed etc, but it's simply a tax on owning a TV. I have recently started to watch a lot more BBC content, the new stuff they are making is fantastic - but being forced to pay for something whether I watch it or not is not the way to go.

Imagine for a moment that Google was run in a similar way, that if you have an internet connection, you have to pay a Google license, whether you use it or not? Seems wrong to do it this way.

I'd much prefer it to be taken out of taxes, even if this meant a slight rise. That way I'm less likely to notice it, and it wouldn't bother me so much. Also, this covers all of their other stuff, like those who just browse online and don't have a TV.

Then maybe if you don't pay taxes, you'd still need a license.

 

[RobertoMercini]

Considering I'm not in work til the afternoon, the last three hours of TV on the terrestrial channels sums up why I would happily pay twice as much for the licence fee as it stands. Not to say that BBC daytime tv is much better, but what they do with the rest of their airtime is often far, far superior to that of the others. Sky do make some excellent prgramming, but with a seemingly bottomless pit of money to throw at it, its no wonder.

Those that want to scrap the licence fee will be left with the rest of the freeview tripe... or to pay up to 5 times more a year for Sky. Then I think they'd no doubt see the error of their ways.

Unfortunately making it pay per view would mean it wouldnt survive in its current form, and thats for the same reason that the Sun is the country's biggest selling daily newspaper. Do you really want to be watching TV thats aimed solely at that particular demographic?

Those that are paying the licence fee whilst grumbling are making the world a better place for the rest of us - so enjoy doing your good deed for the day!

 

[Scott_F]

Leaves BBC behind on every level
News excepting local/regional, sport, education, films, you name it, it ticks the box.

I think that you must have a different Sky subscription to everybody else.

Their news broadcasts are pure tabloid TV compared to BBC terrestrial news broadcasts and despite their greater resources Sky simply can't produce news programs of the calibre of Newsnight or provide a forum such as Question Time to analyse current issues in depth.

 

[Dryce]

Considering I'm not in work til the afternoon, the last three hours of TV on the terrestrial channels sums up why I would happily pay twice as much for the licence fee as it stands.

From almost 30 years ago:

YouTube - ‪Points Of View‬‎

 

[Dryce]

Their news broadcasts are pure tabloid TV compared to BBC terrestrial news broadcasts and despite their greater resources Sky simply can't produce news programs of the calibre of Newsnight or provide a forum such as Question Time to analyse current issues in depth.

Newsnight is a shadow of what it was back in the 80s. And this side of the border we get screwed by cut and switch to the awful local version.

Question time has slipped too. Even more sanitised and now they stick luvvies on the panel as well.

If the BBC were to bring back the original less studio bound format for Newsnight that in itself would be worth a huge chunk of the licence fee.

But saying that Sky News is so much worse than BBC shouldn't let the BBC off the hook. Being best of a bad lot just means you're still bad.

 

[joshmerc]

yeah - i love Jeremy Kyle as well, its not difficult is it! ;-)

 

[davethemus]

Unless things have changed you dont need a licence to listen to radio so although I mentioned radio it I accept it adds nothing to the debate
I do accept though that radio 4 is generally very good and unique in its quality and content

but of the license fee is axed how will they fund radio 4?

 

[RobertoMercini]

From almost 30 years ago:

YouTube - ‪Points Of View‬‎

Too young for that, and I don't work for BBC marketing honest

 

[stevieb15]

I think that you must have a different Sky subscription to everybody else.

Their news broadcasts are pure tabloid TV compared to BBC terrestrial news broadcasts and despite their greater resources Sky simply can't produce news programs of the calibre of Newsnight or provide a forum such as Question Time to analyse current issues in depth.

They dont produce anything like Newsnight because no one watches it!

 

[stevieb15]

I appreciate that you are airing your view and fully respect that.

Like you, I do indeed prefer the BBC to Sky and other broadcasters.

They are far from perfect and are often extremely profligate but they do offer something that no other broadcaster can.

If funding changed to pay-per-view as you advocate, then the BBC would have to chase ratings and customers and would too often be forced down a purely commercial route.

Also, other broadcasters can raise large sums from advertising and so the BBC would be at a competitive disadvantage from the start. It's subscriptions would have to be higher and there would be less money to spend on programmes so the quality would often be compromised.

Plus, it's worth funding the BBC as we currently do just keep Rupert Murdoch at bay !

For those of you with such a blinkered view of the world I'm sure this is true, but why should those of us who don't watch BBC subsidise those of you who do?

 

[grober]

Because the presence of an alternatively funded TV service keeps the price of the commercially driven subscription television you watch down. Look on it as a "pre-pay" SKY discount.

 

[Deker]

I must get a different BBC to most, I can't remember seeing anything on my version worth watching - I've even just been through all of the channels on the BBC website and out of today’s offerings there's only one thing worth watching and that's also on a freeview channel!

I'll be glad when BBC becomes a chargeable optional package on sky which I can avoid like the music package.

edit: Free channels don't have to have adverts, why can't they get sponsors for programmes like Channel 4 did a few years back (Stella sponsoring movies to avoid adverts), I'm sure there'd be an interest in prime time slots (and the Samaritians could get a free plug for Eastenders! )