BBC License fee is it worth it?

[rod]

The BBC license fee is �112 per year total funds �2.3bn. Do you think they spend the money wisely or do you think the BBC should start advertising and abolish the license fee? Are you happy with the BBC as it is? 

[kazza12345]

i never really thought about it much untill today, when radio 5live was all recorded rubbish, and i realised i would probably pay the liscense fee just for that (with a bit of little britain thrown in)

i love the breakfast show and also 5livedrive, and occaisionally i get to hear a bit of simon mayo.  There is also something glorious about listening to sport on the radio, as they are so eloquent, and you can really counjour up the pictures

[stevie21]

I think it's reasonable. We all moan about the repeats etc. but a tenner a month is nothing. I rarely watch TV and I don't mind paying it at all.
It's worth it just for a tiny selection of TV shows such as Never Mind The *********. Does it fund radio too?

[THECORBYLOON]

The Licence Fee pays for The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, over 50 local TV and radio services and bbc.co.uk. not bad for 34p a day-and it's frog-free...... 

[flashpig]

I would be apalled at the presence of adverts. It is one of the things that is best about it. I don't like the simpsons half as much on C4.

I feel you get what you pay for with the BBC. The programs are of a high quality on the radio as well as tv, and the news in my opinion is the best.

[RogK]

Yes, worth every penny. It's a precious thing and musn't be lost. We take for granted the lack of commercials, but imagine never being able to get away from them. But the Beeb must brush up some things, such as trailers and terrible end-credits covered in announcements about what's on next. Radio is a precious commodity, too, but on the whole: very good, but must do better.

[VINNY100_2]

But please dont let students pay,My sons going to uni in september and its costing a small fortune,If they have to cant they pay it back when they start earning!!

[londondave]

I used to be very against the licence fee until this bloody Crazy Frog came on, now I hardly watch commercial channels

[stevie21]

If students can't afford the TV licese then they possibly can't afford TV's and should go without. If it means that much to them (and in fairness, a great many of them live in shared accommodation and can spread the cost) then they can spend the 34p a day cited earlier.

I've never met any student anywhere (myself included) who could not afford something like a TV License and also could not, therefore, afford beer every weekend.

Also, from my earlier answer, it seems that buzz.*.*.*.*.*. is edited out??

[smudge]

stevie21 - Try 'Never Mind The Buzzc0cks'!

[VINNY100_2]

Yes stevie,If it was 34p a Day payed daily but it isnt . Its �112 upfront .He has to pay �104 a week rent with no meals.plus hes got is own tv which he had for xmas.And yes he will have to find part time work,But dont assume every student is a clone of your self .Every body is in a different  situation.There are 46,000 students where he is going would you claim to know all of there finanancial predicaments!!

[OBonio]

I pay �35 a month to a certain satellite provider. It's rubbish. Adverts every 10 minutes. Long live the BBC!

[jake-the-peg]

Yes! Especially the way ITV has gone downhill faster than an elephant on a skateboard.

Celebrity wrestling? Celebrity Love Island?

Have they totally lost the plot?

[slimjim]

Test Match Special, Andrew Marr, 5Live on a rainy Saturday afternoon, Terry and his TOGs, HIGNFY, Paxo, Concerts on R3, Everything on R4, Royal weddings, The Sky at Night, New comedy, Dr Who, The World Service on a cheap tranny on a beach in West Africa, Blue Peter, Jools Holland, etc, etc, etc. It's the greatest broadcaster in the world. �112 is a bargain. Rupert Murdoch can't even give us a tenth of the quality for a lot more money.

[oxeyedaisy]

i think they should advertise as i also pay for sky every month and then it starts working out more expensive..we dont really watch much on the bbc so its not worth it to us..i am sure everyone would be happy if they advertised as that money would be better in our pockets..

[jake-the-peg]

The point about advertising is that it is a driver to simply cater for the biggest most "advertiser friendly" audience.

If the BBC were forced to advertise it wouldn't be long before we'd loose the high quality, lower audience coverage that they do.

I'd think Radio 4 would be first against the wall.

If you've ever been to America and seen their television you'll know where that road leads.

The real future for the BBC lies in pay per view on demand access to their archive on-line.

Imagine being able to browse that and have it streamed to to your TV set when you want!

[benjiboo]

VINNY100_2: You can pay monthly by direct debit, so there's no need to think of it is an 'up front' fee. It's the price of 4 pints a month and it can provide as much knowledge as a textbook.

The licence fee keeps the quality of British TV and Radio up as a whole. If commercial networks didn't have the BBC to compete with they'd be free to aim for the lowest common deniminator to maximise advertising revenue, knowing that everyone else was doing the same thing too.

[wellhungjock]

What�s a TV license? 

[bernardo]

The licence fee will continue to be well worth it for as long as the amzingly beautiful, gorgeous, handsome, attractive lovely James Alexandrou stays in "EastEnders".

(whj - presumably you are outside the UK: the licence fee is a flat-rate tax which has to be paid each year by each household owning a TV set.  It is ostensibly to fund the BBC, which is for public service broadcasting and does not have commercial advertising.  It was OK in the old days when the BBC was the predominant channel watched by most people, but it has become increasingly unpopular in recent years because of the proliferation of extra channels and more diverse TV services.)

[Hippy]

Far from being a spur to competition and quality standards in other broadcasters, is not the licence fee anti-competitive, as the BBC does not have to "earn" the income from what is essentially a Government tax?

Let's all be up front, Policticians and broadcasters alike, and fund the BBC out of general taxation whilst maintaining the precious political independence.

Of course the government would have to increase some tax somewhere to do it, as nothing comes for free, but let's ditch the idea that it is a "licence" in other words a fee to operate the equipment, paid only by the equipment owner. Let's all taxpayers chip in and let it therefore be related to personal income and expenditure.

[jno]

Bernardo, it's just barely possible that whj is hinting that he has never paid for one.

I have, however, and think it well worth it, though the loss of the cricket to Sky will be an unutterable calamity presaging the death of the sport.