BBC License - Why?

[bev888]

Could someone please explain to me why it is reasonable that I should be obliged to pay nearly £150 per year to the BBC, even if I do not wish to watch the BBC, but that if I don't pay I am not allowed to own a television and therefore can't watch any other channel?

How many businesses would just love an arrangement like this - a huge guaranteed customer base, and seemingly no accountability for what they do with our money, allowing them to pay exorbitant salaries to people, even rewarding the incompetent ones?!

Imagine that the government took another of life's pleasures, say cake, (something which we can do without, but which makes life more pleasant, just like TV) and told us that the first £150 we spend every year on cake had to be paid to a certain company, which would then supply us with their choice of cake (quantity and quality not guaranteed) and then that company could pay their employees whatever they chose. If we declined, we would be banned from buying cake from anywhere else. To my way of thinking this would be exactly the same as being forced to support the BBC.

Isn't it time this practice was stopped, so that the public were no longer held to ransom over this and the BBC would have to compete with the other channels on it's own merit?

[mccfluff]

no adverts. natural history programmes. mastechef etc etc. im happy paying it just for thoae

[factor-fiction]

I'd like to see it go too but I think it's very unlikely as all governments have needed the money and in theory use it to fund the BBC. It must be worth about £2 billion a year.
If you stopped it you'd have to put in place transitional arrangements as licence periods end at different times- or just cancel it immediately and sort out immediate refunds.
The government has frozen the licence and I think that may continue. I think they could be bolder and gradually reduce it by say £10-£20 a year until it disappears.

[factor-fiction]

I should add that I would hope we could continue with the BBC- I'm just talking about how it's funded.

[EDDIE51]

I agree with most of what you say, but the alternative is yet more advertising , or 'pay per view'.
I find the constant advert breaks make watching commercial TV almost impossible .

[bev888]

That's fine for you McFluff. But what about freedom of choice for those of us who are not happy to pay?

[mccfluff]

but then we get adverts

i hate adverts as much as desktop loves them

[bev888]

I just deal with adverts by muting them with the remote and do a few crossword clues in the break.

[jackthehat]

http://www.theanswerb...search/?q1=RebelSouls

You'll find a lot you dis/agree with if you trawl through these......

[pastafreak]

To be honest,I'd rather see adverts than pay an ever rising 'licence' to support a channel that I may or may not watch.
Maybe there are other ways that advertisers/corporations could fund the BBC without obvious and constant ad breaks.
Besides-we need breaks for the loo,tea making...etc. ;-0

[cazzz1975]

A television licence is a legal permission to install and use television equipment to receive or record television programme services. This applies if you use equipment to receive or record BBC 1, BBC 2, ITV, Channel 4, Five, satellite, or cable programmes.

[factor-fiction]

It's just another form of tax, bev888, in this case (ostensibly) to fund the BBC. We can't pick and choose (sorry tilly2) which taxes we should pay- we pay to fund NHS and schools whether we use them or not.

[commoner]

NEVER watch the beeb bev?....I would say that you are missing some fine programs....and ad free too..must be worth 3 bob a week....

[Zacs-Master]

£3.66 billion actually Factor. Just a point of order: you don't actually pay your license fee to the BBC you pay it to the government whe then pay it, via an appropriation act, run by the treasury. I'm more than happy to pay this figure for an advert free channel who produce excellent quality programmes and are free from commercial pressures to produce dumbed-down opiate for the masses.

[factor-fiction]

The government announced in 2010 that the fee is being frozen for a period of 6 years
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...ainment-arts-11572171

[bev888]

I'm not saying that I never watch BBC. I am just amazed that they have the right to say that if I choose not to, I am not allowed to watch the hundreds of other channels available from other sources. I know that they cost money too, but shouldn't I be allowed to choose where I spend my money?

Couldn't the channels that are covered by the license fee be scrambled so that only if you've paid the fee will they be available to watch? That way we would be allowed to own a TV and subscribe to other channels if we want to and not be forced to pay for something we don't want.

[factor-fiction]

And of course the BBC also has to pay for those wonderful advert free radio stations such as radio 4 and local radio. Do you think they should be scrapped/privatised too, bev?

[cazzz1975]

read my answer bev, it doesnt matter what channel you use.

[cazzz1975]

http://www.tvlicensin...legal-framework-AB16/

[factor-fiction]

I can see some merit in scrambling BBC TV services to paying customers, although you couldn't do that for BBC radio. It would be interesting to see what people would pay.

[bev888]

I can honestly say that I NEVER listen to the radio, factor30, but I am not suggesting that anything should be scrapped - only the fee. Those that want to pay can do so and then the BBC could cut their cloth accordingly.

Given the choice I would stop paying the license fee mainly because of the ludicrous salaries paid to the so-called stars like Jonathon Ross etc. Totally ridiculous.