TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
You're focusing on a very narrow field of view of the services BBC offers.
And "...it not existing makes no difference to anyone other that it being one less source of entertainment." is clearly incorrect given their news, education and world services - even i remember using their 'Bitsize' school resources, which really helped me with certain subjects, and that was a long, long time ago.

Still waiting on your proposal for a workable solution to the funding of the BBC though...

Why is that our problem? The BBC should not be funded through general taxation. They need to work out the logistics behind getting their products to their customers though some kind of paywall. Other companies in the private sector manage it and if they cannot work out how to sell their services, or do not make enough to cover their expenses then they go under.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only person here who doesn't mind the license fee and doesn't see £15 as a big deal?

Obviously I'd rather not pay it if it's an option but I think the service the BBC provides is very good and not an ad in sight, bliss.
 
Am I the only person here who doesn't mind the license fee and doesn't see £15 as a big deal?

Obviously I'd rather not pay it if it's an option but I think the service the BBC provides is very good and not an ad in sight, bliss.

Time and time again the price is broken down to a monthly or daily price and proclaimed as "great value" or a "national treasure".

Well it depends on how each person values the services. The only BBC broadcast I watch is snooker from time to time.

Am I happy paying £159 for that? No not especially
Would I pay £159 if it was a subscription model? Nope
Would I pay for £15 a year if they offered a snooker only contract? possibly

I might use the BBC website for weather. But if they shoved it behind a paywall I would happily use another forecast.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only person here who doesn't mind the license fee and doesn't see £15 as a big deal?

Obviously I'd rather not pay it if it's an option but I think the service the BBC provides is very good and not an ad in sight, bliss.

So what's the problem with the BBC having to fund its self the same way as everyone else?
 
Time and time again the price is broken down to a monthly or daily price and proclaimed as "great value" or a "national treasure".

Well it depends on how each person values the services. The only BBC broadcast I watch is snooker from time to time.

Am I happy paying £159 for that? No not especially
Would I pay £159 if it was a subscription model? Nope
Would I pay for £15 a year if they offered a snooker only contract? possibly

I might use the BBC website for weather. But if they shoved it behind a paywall I would happily use another forecast.
BBC weather is rubbish these days, since they stopped using Met Office for their data.
Met Office website is far more accurate I find.
 
Not an equivalence.

Would you expand that for Netflix?

One equivalence is that there are plenty of people who don't feel the NHS is value for money, in the same way that plenty don't feel the TV license fee is.

If the BBC wanted to move to a subscription model like Netflix etc I'd consider still paying it. I have Radio 6 on most days, use the news and sport website daily, and enjoy some of the programmes on iPlayer.
 
Would you extend that argument to the NHS?

This doesn't hold.

The BBC isn't essential. I'm never going to need it.

The NHS is very different. Most if not all of us use it/need it. And many would like it scrapped for a USA system.



Back years ago, I can see why the BBC etc was needed. Times have changed. You can't place it in the same area as schools, NHS, bin collection etc
 
I sometimes forget that people on the internet like to take a statement and then run off with it in a completely different direction... Explaining to me the differences between the NHS and the BBC isn't necessary, I'm not 6.

One of the many problems with the BBC becoming a private company (which is what people seem to suggest it should become) is that the content will be even less impartial.
 
I sometimes forget that people on the internet like to take a statement and then run off with it in a completely different direction... Explaining to me the differences between the NHS and the BBC isn't necessary, I'm not 6.

One of the many problems with the BBC becoming a private company (which is what people seem to suggest it should become) is that the content will be even less impartial.

It'll die if it becomes private.
It would not be able to afford its pension commitments, salaries etc. Even laying people off would cost a fortune.

I wonder how many people would a pay 150-200 a year just for the BBC?

50 percent?

And I expect that would tank when people realise how little they'd be losing.

I have no idea on the number. But if people are cancelling Netflix etc. I suspect the BBC would suffer huge drops.

It would be effectively overnight as well if this was suddenly switched on
 
Back
Top Bottom