BBC and the TV licence fee.

[petercj]

Sky is well overpriced for watching repeat after repeat. The only thing I liked about sky was the sports channels. I think the licence fee is worth it just for the radio channels I couldnt listen to commercial stations all day it would drive me bonkers and they play a good variety of music on radio 1 and 2

I do think BBC radio is a different kettle of fish from BBC TV.

The issue I posted on is BBC TV, and what justification there is for it being funded by a mandatory tax imposed on everyone, whether they want to watch it or not?

The BBC is often passionately defended by the older generation, but in my experience, youngsters are less keen to prop up something that is rapidly going down hill.

Modern technology, i.e. tablets, lap-tops, and other mobile viewing devices, and wi-fi, mean that conventional methods of transmission are fading fast. BBTV has been held up by BT dragging its feet and rolling out the technology slowly to maximise profits, but things are starting to change: BB speeds are increasing, and as mobile viewing devices become increasing popular, so more and more people are watching TV by way of BB, and advertising is switching to the Internet. The future is about pay-to-view, or watch with adverts over BB, all of which is self-funding. So why should everyone who wants to receive live (instantaneous broadcasts) that are self- funding have the current BBC tax imposed on them by law?

 

[erpkid]

Technically as long as you do not watch live you do not need a licence. The missus and I tend to use iplayer and its equivalents a lot. However if everyone did it we would be losing something unique in this increasingly homogeneous world. The best stuff on discovery etc is actually BBC stuff. I get annoyed at some one being able to promote themselves on BBC morning news ( singer, author etc ) but they preach as appropriate apparently :wink5:

 

[Ray Stafford]

Its a good point PeterCJ.

I probably would pay for the BBC, mostly for the radio which I listen to extensively, and sometimes for live sport. It is still my "go-to" choice for news if anything serious is happening in the world, and although I don't kid myself that it is impartial, at least I understand it's likely biases.

The point is that I should have the choice whether to pay for it. And for those who choose not to, they shouldn't be forced to.

The old licence fee model made sense back in the day when only the Beeb could realistically invest in a nationwide infrastructure, but that hasn't been the case for some time now.

My preference would be to split it in two, with key services like BBC weather and news being funded by taxes, but entertainment and sport having to make their own way commercially.

 

[julesverne]

whilst i find the tv a bit naff they do have some gems like documentaries and nature programs blue planets etc are out of this world.

the radio service is excellent i listen to the radio 1,2 & 5. and imho the news is far superior to sky which is far more biased to murdoch's personal views etc.

 

[hammers4spanner]

Cant believe you lot have got time to watch t.v !!!

Cant be busy enough you lot !!