The BBC licence free?
If the licence fee was to be scrapped, how much would you be willing to pay each year for the BBC in its current form?
iPM listener Pete Landells says, 'most TV isn't worth wasting time on but I would happily pay my licence fee just for those parts of the BBC Radio output I enjoy'.
It's not a new debate but the future funding of the corporation is clearly under review.
The annual cost of a colour TV licence is currently £139.50. A black and white TV licence is £47.
UPDATE: Thanks for your comments and emails. May we press you a little further? Can you pin down a figure that you'd be prepared to pay each month? This is what we're planning.
Email us
Our Twitter
Join our Facebook group
Listen to iPM
Technorati
Google
Ice Rocket
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~37~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
I agree with Pete Landells; I'd gladly pay for just a radio licence if I could.
(You're sneaky putting a picture of the lovely Kirsty Wark in there, but even the sight of her isn't enough to make me shell out for the rubbish on the telly.)
So... currently 38p per day... shall we say 25p for just the radio? About 90 pounds per year? Seems fair. As long as there's still no adverts.
Complain about this comment
Sign me up as well please - I'll pay the full whack.
The minute that the BBC is forced to go commercial and 'Public Service' is essentially scrapped, the benchmark by which all other broadcasting oufits are measured will be gone and it will be rapidly downhill all the way. This in no way underplays the recent problems at the Beeb which have been rightly highlighted.
And if forced to, I'd gladly pay half the licence fee for BBC Radio.
Complain about this comment
A whole massive enormous zero.
As with most pay media they would have their news channels/Internet for free. Or with advertisements. How else would they show people what they were missing.
So since the ONLY channel I watch is BBC News 24, I would be much better off. I am beginning to wonder if the politicians should be paying us to listen to their spin and fear mongering. As in a tax rebate, for the dim, that think that politicians blundering ideas out on the BBC actually means it is law.
As for radio. Until the FM band is phased out, they could not get any payment method for those transmissions.
Complain about this comment
I'm reasonably happy with the current amount.
I would not want advertising of any form - and would expect staff/contract employees salaries to be capped at a maximum of 500K per annum
Complain about this comment
Happy with what I pay just now. It is worth it. COuld get rid of expensive presenters and that would make more money to invest in new talent.
Complain about this comment
139.50 UKP equates to 11.63 UKP a month, or less than 40p a day.
Even if you only watched one programme a week, it still works out at tremendous value - especially as it funds all eight BBC TV channels, all 10 national BBC Radio channels (I assume World Service is BBC Worldwide), numerous local radio stations (useful if you want a local radio station not hell bent on attracting under 30s), plus the majority of the BBC's web content. Oh, and the license fee also contributes to the costs involved in digital switchover.
A subscription model would be unfair, as it could only affect digital TV viewers - even non-subscribers wouldn't be able to be barred from the radio and internet content.
On the other hand, paying for it from general taxation could result in even more political interference than resulted from the Hutton Inquiry...
And as for commercials, the revenue stream from advertising for ITV and pals is decreasing - why else do you think there are an ever increasing amount of premium rate phone "competitions" (or should that be "prize draws"? How many people are going to get "What date is Christmas day - 23rd Dec or 25th Dec?" wrong?) on those channels, never mind all the roulette / bingo / poker shows that increasingly fill their graveyard slots...
In addition, full commercialisation could lead to ever more pressure to abandon any bits of public service broadcasting that don't result in tens of millions of viewers...
-oOo-
But perhaps as an action plan for the future, the BBC could be more open about how it fulfills its mantra of "Inform, educate and entertain".
Especially as four regulars on a certain Saturday night show seem to have forgotten that at least 50% of their show is entertainment...
It's not 0% entertainment, otherwise the public wouldn't be involved. It's not 100% entertainment, otherwise they wouldn't be involved. However, they seem to have forgotten that the more emotionally involved they get with their critiques, the more the public will detest them...
Complain about this comment
The World Service is funded by a Grant In Aid from the UK government and, as such, nowt to do with the licence fee.
Which means we get free radio between the shipping forecasts at time-to-go-to-sleep time and to-early-to-get-up time. Well, free except for taxes, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Or even too-early. Dur...
Complain about this comment
And if the choice were based on the 20 people in the photos, I'd say I'd pay to watch four and to listen to one (who is on radio as well as telly. He has good guests.) Since radio is free, that's um, a quarter of the fee, let's round it up to 35 quid.
Complain about this comment
£150.
The BBC is wonderful and I rely on it for almost all of my news and most of my entertainment.
Complain about this comment
radio is worth every penny of the lot.
If we loose the BBC in its present format, we're in trouble. So much of commercial broadcasting is so rubbish, and no-one bothers with impartial and in depth news, public service broadcasting, football, cricket.
oh, and let's not forget Dr Who.
long live the BBC!
Complain about this comment
Easy - as much as necessary.... £400 ?
However, how would we stop the losers who won't pay watching or listening when this awful BBC they can't abide puts on unmissable stuff?
Complain about this comment
Nothing.
To get any money from me, you need to give me a vote on how the money's spent.
Complain about this comment
I would happily pay the full amount just for Radio 4 and 3. The quality is superb. I download podcasts for those programmes I miss during the day, and listen in the evening.... fab stuff....
Complain about this comment
I was MASSIVELY irritated that when I paid a UK licence, I still wasn't allowed to access iplayer from overseas. Appalling decision. I would be happy to pay 10 quid a month for full access from overseas.
Complain about this comment
Really it is such good value it seems churlish to argue but I would say for me I can afford it but if I was unemployed £75-£80 would be about the limit.
Brian Snellgrove
Dulwich
Complain about this comment
I am a non licence fee payer and if the fee were to be scrapped I would expect the corporation to refund me the £150.00 each year.
Complain about this comment
I have no objection to the fee as it stands - it's just that I'd like it to go to radios 3 & 4 and to BBC2 & BBC4 - the rest can go hang.
Complain about this comment
About £15 a month would seem fair to me. For that I'd get unlimited radio, podcasts, access to the BBC website, BBC iplayer, oh yes and odd bit of TV.
Complain about this comment
Not a penny.
We don't have to pay for ITV, so why the BBC?
Many of us are sick of paying for this bloated organisation that pays its own stars and managers millions of pounds, while trying to brainwash the public with left wing propaganda.
Complain about this comment
What a question. I'm Australian/British. Been here since early 80's. A few times I've considered returning to the sunner climes, but how could I live without Radio 4 let alone those fabulous TV period-dramas, documentaries and current affairs programmes? I'm still here and I play with pleasure.
Complain about this comment
I was discussing this in the last few days based on the fact that adverts drive me round the bend. I lived for 2 yrs in the USA and by the end we were watching virtually no TV atall.
I would hapilly pay the going rate and more for an advert free quality TV service. If going subsciption raised it to £500 - I'd pay it.
Although there is a an exessive amount of internal trailers these days on the beeb.
Oh yes - I don't want sport - unless it's truly free (even then I don't want it). Keep football on the pay channels and commercial broadcasters.
Complain about this comment
I'd gladly pay the current licence fee just to get Radio 4 - the only channel worth listening to, apart from most of the Jeremy Vine show on radio 2.
Complain about this comment
I think Pete Landells has it spot-on; treat BBC TV as a free bonus and the licence fee is fully justified just by Radio 4 (and a smidgeon of Radio 5 Live Sports Extra for the international cricket - scandalously not available on terrestrial TV!).
I also think that the website is a national asset which benefits indescribably from the lack of advertising - so 'tough' on the commercial whingers.
Keep up the good work BBC - despite all the naysayers.
Complain about this comment
I don't have a TV, so I don't currently pay for a license.
If the license fee were scrapped, I would be more than happy to start paying to insure the continuation of the National Radio services and BBC Internet sites, in their current high-quality, advert-free format.
I know the World Service is Foreign Office funded, however I would readily contribute towards this service too if there was some facility to do so.
Although I can see allot of the BBC TV programming is of great quality, I don't think I'm ever likely to get a set or a license.
Complain about this comment
I just can't think how anyone can object to paying a mere 38p a day for all the BBC provides. The fact that there is much that does not appeal to most of us is not the point. The range of radio and television programming is so great, that everyone must find some things that they enjoy. Personally I would be very happy to pay 38p a day just for Radios 3 and 4. The important thing is that the BBC is not constrained by having to keep advertisers happy by attempting to achieve high ratings and so can produce prgrammes for minority tastes as well as the more popular ones.
Complain about this comment
I am quite happy with the existing notion of the licence fee so if the arrangement were changed as seems likely, largely due to the forward march of broadband technology, increase in user-based content and devaluing of existing content (referring to the ubiquitous cable, Sky and freeview repeats), I would be happy to pay some form of replacement to a similar value.
Whatever may or may not have happened to the content or quality of BBC programming I feel strongly that the idea of Public Service Broadcasting is defended as much as free speech and democracy are in this country. I think that we were lucky to get the BBC that we did 80-odd years ago together with its development since, and the legacy that it represents in our culture is of great value.
The BBC has its flaws, and there are perhaps many, but I for one feel the organisation is absolutely priceless and any serious tinkering with the fundamental financial and possibly commercial structure could be terribly damaging.
The comments on this blog may only reflect the views of a radio 4 listening audience and therefore not be a truly representative picture of the media-consuming public, but the very fact that we able to participate in this debate in this electronic fashion is paradoxically an illustration of the sort of technological advances that necessitate such a question being asked in the first place!
Complain about this comment
Although there are a lot of programmes on the BBC which I would say make the license fee not worth it, there are a few that make the license fee well worth it. Drama such as Silent Witness, Waking the Dead, New Tricks etc.
I would happily pay half the license fee at least to see Formula 1 on the BBC, which will thankfully be coming back next year.
Another programme which makes the BBC very much worth everything is Top Gear, which is excellent!!
It would be good if people did not just get on the bandwagon, and complain about something they probably did not even see/hear!!
Complain about this comment
The answer is - zero, zilch, nowt, nothing. Why should people pay to support a bloated bureaucracy that specialises in churning out politically-correct propaganda and dumbed-down rubbish?
Some BBC programmes are OK, but the vast majority are not. I have stopped watching the BBC news as it has an inbuilt bias in favour of the government - ITV news is much fairer.
The licence fee is as bad as the poll tax!
Complain about this comment
I'm not prepared to pay anything. The BBC consistently wastes millions of our hard earned licence fee money by junkets to America, ("This week" BBC1), and quite a lot of other junkets, like why do they stand outside number 10 to give us news, complete with OB vehicle and other expensive employees and not in a studio? I won't mention Woss either.
Complain about this comment
Well I'm happy paying what I pay now, even though we hardly watch telly. You can't put a price on the sort of stuff we get on the radio from people like Melvyn Bragg and Andrew Marr, not to mention PM, WaTO and Today. Even if I don't understand half of what they're telling us, I still enjoy listening and marvelling at the intellects displayed.
Here's an (admittedly silly) idea for establishing the salary for the "top talent". An auction open to the public, along the lines of "how much would you pay to have afternoon tea with this person?" Their salary per year to be an agreed multiple of the eventual winning bid. Might be 1000 times larger, say. Then we'd soon see who was REALLY valued by the public, and just how much. The auction money raised could go to a charity.
So just how DID they settle on J Ross's salary then?
Complain about this comment
As someone who is absolutely committed to the idea of Public Service Broadcasting, it pains me to say that, these days, I would not pay very much.
Why?
The BBC seems to have abandoned the whole point of PSB - which is to provide a broad and challenging range of programming that includes everyone.
Instead there is a relentless chase after audience figures. That's what commercial broadcasters do. PSB can provide SOME high ratings programmes but much much more that appeals to 500 thousand or 50 thousand viewers rather than 5 million. Yes, and stuff that only appeals to 5 thousand too. We also pay the licence fee but we get almost nothing for it.
As for challenging - each week I scan the schedules looking for something that is not absolutely predictable. There's no room for programming that does not fit a time slot and an interest slot. Time was when the Beeb broadcast programmes that took as long as they took and fit no "genre" whatsoever. Whatever happened to unpredictability, excitement, risk, even (dare I say it) danger?
I would fight tooth and nail to retain the licence fee - I think PSB is vital to democracy - I'm just appalled at the tedium of what we get for it.
Complain about this comment
radio 4; five live; BBC web site; the world service when you can't sleep; 24 hour news, all justify the licence fee.
Less repeats on TV and programmes that commercial TV wouldn't provide would a real bonus!
Complain about this comment
The BBC have said that they have to appeal to a wide audience but I do not agree that they need to appeal to mindless idiots who watch the ignorant and obscene Jonathan Ross.
It is a matter of the lowest common denominator.
Complain about this comment
I am fairly happy to pay the license fee. I can't compare it to a Sky subscription, as to my knowledge they don't actually make anything.
My real problem is that if the BBC were not license fee funded, wouldn't it be simply another business and therefore required to simply make the most money possible.
Once at this point, I imagine that the BBC would dissappear down a vortex of ever more frequent showing of strictly come dancing - cooking - home makeovers - soaps.
There would be no point of paying any subscription whatsoever at this point. A movie subscription and online sources (subscriber or advertiser funded) would be the only way to go.
Complain about this comment
News 24 is the only programme i watch. It keeps you up to date with the latest news etc, but it does not(in my opinion) justify paying the huge fee for a licence to watch this. My wife however, watches soaps. so between the soaps and BBC. 24 i would offer a fee of £25. Sounds silly? Think about it. There are many folk like ourselves in the same frame of mind. If our viewing could be regulated and charged accordingly then ok but it would need to be priced fairly. If i had my way i'd get rid of the tv. but the wife has her saucepan at the ready. thanx.
Complain about this comment
After living in the USA for a number of years I feel although the programming here is far from good value for money, the alternative could be far worse if we follow the American way, the tv over there is unwatchable with commercial breaks making an hour long film last for two hours with breaks becoming more frequent as the film progresses. Its just like watching an American football game - a manic bit then a break - another manic bit ...and so on, whilst you sit there wondering what its all about.
Lets keep the licence as it is. The BBC should stop paying outragious wages and give us better value for our HARD EARNED money.
Complain about this comment
How much would I pay for the BBC? realistically I use the BBC about 50% as much as I use my broadband, so for the total TV package I'd pay perhaps 50% of my broadband so £5-£7.50. But I mainly listen to radio 4 (and Scotland) and I've probably spend £40 every couple of years on technology to listen in the car/home etc. So, perhaps £30 for Radio.
On top of that I'd miss the BBC website as much as radio.
However, a lot of the "licence" fee isn't for BBC TV, and to be honest only perhaps 1/4 of my watching is the BBC. So realistically in total I might fork out:
£40 for TV (mainly news)
£30 for radio (mainly R4)
£30 for internet (mainly the old today newsgroup - without which I'd drop that to £20)
Complain about this comment
Well, should we ever consider the BBC output alongside those of commercial subscriptions (and I have both Virgin cable and Sky in my household) - lets see what we would be paying for.
Multi channel TV complete with catch-up via iPlayer and red button, niche radio stations, the most superb on-line news/entertainment service.
If a commercial company was to provide these, I'd happily pay £10 a month, £120 a year. Thinking about it - I do pay more than that to other providers for a poorer service. How often do UK people access the BBC across the multi-media spectrum without thinking about it?
The recent Brand/Ross thing proved that the BBC is providing output for a huge audience. I may not want that output, but others do. "They" can hear rude radio, I can watch BBC3 and my kids get CBeebies. No other broadcaster can respond and provide to such a huge range of target audiences (SKY may try but are only copying). And occasionally that audience will cross over to other BBC outputs.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is one of the very best things about Britain. For the price the service is incomparable, though not perfect. I would happily pay twice as much.
Broadcasting in the UK is better than anywhere else in the world. Without the BBC the ITV stations, Sky and the Cable channels would be free to degrade their programming. TV and radio would resort to play lists of programs and tunes; the same homogenous pap you can see the world over.
I do think the executive have failed to respond effectively to the perennial gripes about the licence fee. The sniping about chasing viewing figures could be robustly responded to as could the comparison with the poll tax and its regressive nature.
The country seems to have forgotten completely how much cheaper the community charge was than its successor or predecessor and what a remarkably democratic effect it had on all adults!
The peculiar situation of the BBC is to be cherished. The fee is not entirely regressive, just as the charge was not, but lessons should be learned from that debacle. A lower fee for young adults/students would be a smart addition to the free viewing for over 75s.
Also a comparison of the services provided and the annual cost compared to the cost of a Sky or cable subscription would be an eye opener to those who complain about regressive pricing and value for money.
Of course the ITV channels complain as do the other commercial media. They are under severe pressure from their long term commercial decline, made more acute by the current economic circumstances; the licence to print money is long gone and their management look for someone else to blame; and this despite the consolidation of the terrestrial commercial channels that has taken place over the past ten years.
You will not hear them supporting advertising on the BBC. In fact it appears they would like some of my licence fee for Channel 4!
What the BBC could do is to look at ways of decreasing the annual licence fee over the medium term. Having absorbed the cost of the digital switchover it should be able to expand its Worldwide activities, expand its program making and leverage its copyright portfolio and pre-eminence in English language broadcasting.
Alternatively, offer shares or debentures. The dividend would be not having to pay the licence fee!
Anything but adverts.
Complain about this comment
My Direct Debit is currently £11.67 a month.
That seems too much considering what I watch on the BBC. Somewhere around a fiver would be more appropriate. When my TV set breaks down I will seriously consider not having one. I reckon I can manage with all the News and INformation services on the Internet.
The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster. If it is a public service, like the libraries, I would not expect to have to pay any extra to use it.
The Licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC funded out of general taxation, out of the VAT receipts for example. Put an extra 0.5p on VAT if you have to. People who have money to spend would then fund the BBC.
The other advantage of scrapping it is that we wouldn't need the beauracracy that currently adminsiters the TV Licence, the detector vans, court orders, free licences for the over 75's etc.
Complain about this comment
I would be willing to pay £12 a year. That would be to support Radio 1, 4, 5 and Essex Radio. I think all television should now be commercial, the BBC had it's chance and got too carried away with outlandish salaries and controversial programmes.
Complain about this comment
I'm happy to pay between £80 and £120.
Its worth it to keep BBC commercial free. I cannot listen to any Radio station that is interrupted by irritating commercials. I am fairly happy with the television service although the standard issue argument of 'less repeats' 'better comedy' still applies. My day is built around the BBC, which might seem a bit sad I grant you however i'm one of those people that doesnt 'do' quiet time unless i'm sleeping. Wake up to Today, Switch to Radio1 during breakfast with my son (he likes the music), drive to work with Today, Wogan or Moyles, listen to various BBC podcasts during work hours, drive home with Radio4, cook tea with PM whilst my son watches Cbeebies, we are usually eating our tea with the 'bongs' in the backround at 6pm then back to watching BBC before bed. As a last resort when insomnia strikes I stick on another podcast to drift off to sleep....but in that instance i use the Guardian Football podcast, it works every time!
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see that one of the complaints about the BBC is that it panders to the government. I suppose it may be a little pro-government, but then even though it is technically independent, the Hutton saga showed what havoc the government can cause if reporting is too anti-government.
Besides which, if you listen to the more in-depth news programmes, you'll discover the presenters don't care what colour their guest politican is, as long as they've had a good grilling by the time they leave the studio...
If the BBC was funded out of general taxation, do you think the perceived pro-government bias would decrease?
As for Public Service Broadcasting, the BBC has to show a range of highly watched programmes in order to justify the license fee - if it concentrated solely on niche programming, there would be a lot more people complaining that there was never anything worth watching on TV, so feeling their license fee was unjustified. At the next license fee review, the government would probably then drastically cut it...
A subscription model could be one possibility, although all the staff and resources currently allocated to TV Licensing would probably be reallocated to maintaining encryption / collecting the subscription. In addition, unless DAB services were encrypted and the website became password access only, the subscription would only apply to the TV element - so to maintain the current range of programming it might have to ask for more money. Another problem with subscription is that it removes the principle of universal access - people on low incomes would be denied access to the BBC's services, unless the subscription cost was means-tested...
As for advertising, would you really want the BBC to turn into a clone of ITV? Whereby at least 1/6 of the output was advertisements, and (due to low advertising revenue) late nights turned into an orgy of bingo, poker and roulette (sponsored by a bookie or internet casino?)
-oOo-
I expect for most people, there's a lot of content on the BBC that doesn't appeal to them - but the same will inevitably apply to any other channel designed to cater for an audience as wide as the Beeb's. Everyone has different tastes, and you can't please everyone all of the time - and pleasing most of the people most of the time can be almost as difficult. Not everyone appreciates in-depth news analysis or high-quality costume dramas - and, much as we may hate it, millions of sports fans enjoy having the usual night's content replaced with the latest events from the latest international football/rugby/athletics tournament.
Although having said that, it still amuses me that children are supposed to be intelligent enough to switch over from BBC ONE to BBC TWO when their programming starts in the afternoon, yet sports fans aren't...
Would it be such a sin if, just occasionally, BBC TWO had higher ratings than BBC ONE?
Complain about this comment
I like the idea of separating out Radio and TV. How about separating out channels you would like, or even a pay per view. A one size fits all just doesn't work. £35 a year for radio and £65 for BBC 1,2,3 and News mix.
Complain about this comment
I'd ppay a tenner a month (OK, £9.99), which is a little less than the current fee, I guess.
Complain about this comment
A lot of this debate mirrors the type of rubbish people spout about taxes e.g. I haven't got any kids, why should I pay tax for schools, etc.
Personally, having seen the cack that gets spouted out of 99% of commercial broadcasters on TV, radio and online, the thought of not having the BBC there would fill me with dread. As someone who already pays out £40 a month for Sky (it's the only way you can see sport), I reckon £12 a month for all the BBC's stuff is pretty damn good value. The BBC is by no means perfect by it's by far the best thing we have in terms of quality media. Something tells me no commercial channel would ever make something as intelligent, interesting and thought-provoking as, say, The American Future.
Without wishing to sound like that old Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch ("I think the licence fee is far too low. I would willingly sell my house and all its contents to help the BBC") I think the BBC does a generally excellent job and this country would be much worse off without it in its current form.
Complain about this comment
ok, i pay my TVL in monthy payments and for what i get its good value, (apox £12). i use the radio, TV,Iplayer... i dont need anything else.... Yes if the BBC can have more channels then we would not need sky and virgin.....they cost to much for what you get....
the switch over is going to give us more channels and i think sky dont want it.
I just wish the BBC was not used as a govenment sound board but was more for the people...
Complain about this comment
The licence fee is very reasonable - especially compared to the cost of satellite or cable television.
I am happy to pay it and feel that the BBC offers value far in excess of 38p per day. I certainly get my money?s worth.
Complain about this comment
I don't have a TV and I'd like £20 back for the many letters and phone calls trying to convince the bullies at TV Licensing that I don't have a TV...
I would be happy to pay for a radio licence as this would keep the best bit of the Beeb going...
Complain about this comment
I think the Beeb is great value for money. Most of the tele is dreadful but each to their own and I will happily continue to pay to get a first-rate news and current affairs service, brilliant radio programmes and some very good TV drama series. I would love to see the back of ALL reality shows and soaps but the ratings prove me wrong (and my wife loves them!) so as long as the good stuff is still made to a high standard I will live with them!
Keep the Beeb independant and don't start taking advertising.
Complain about this comment
I would also happily pay if the license fee were voluntary. At it current rate or up to GBP300 or so a year. Living some of the time in another country - we really don't know how lucky we are. That the BBC has to put out lower quality pure entertainment programming to generate the audience figures that justify the license fee is fine with me. I don't have to watch anything I don't like and so long as they continue to make woman's hour, today PM etc etc etc I'm happy to pay.
Complain about this comment
I would gladly pay to prevent adverts on the radio. As Jason von HAartman says, subscription to commercial channels is substantially higher than the approx £12 a month than we pay, and I love the shows that I can download for long train and bus journeys, the listen again option for tedious work, the live news that keeps me informed about important things rather than celebrity gossip - and smooth-flowing, with a commercial break every 10 or 15 minutes. Definitely worth it!
Complain about this comment
If the BBC paid itself the "going rate" for all the adverts it puts out of its own services / shows / publications / recordings, the licence fee could be considerably less. However, I personally do not watch a lot of ITV, so am happy to pay a reasonable fee - say £100 a year - let J Ross pay the rest from his vastly inflated salary. One of the reasons they need to constantly ask for more is they pay too much to the likes of him.
Complain about this comment
Based on prevailing rates for DVDs, on line film rentals, cinema & theatre outings plus the cost of CD/iTunes for music I listen to and the impressive web provided news and comment, which must remain advertisement free to truly enjoy, I'd pay between £650 & £850 per annum for BBC provided services. However, I would baulk at any contribution if adverts or overt sponsorship spots started to appear.
Complain about this comment
I was going to say £15 a month, then I read some of the other posts and realised I was only paying £11.67 anyway. I use TV, FM Radio (local and national), DAB Radio, the website (Mac-based and mobile), lots of Podcasts, the iPlayer on Mac, iPlayer on iPhone, iPlayer on Virgin TV and I go and see radio shows being recorded occasionally. All for £11.67 a month? Blimey - I'm afraid to post this in case some realises I'm paying waaaay too little...
Complain about this comment
Well I must be one of the very few of us that has stopped watching television altogether, about four years ago after ten years of moaning ,about the falling standards and quality of the service , and the continual repeating of programmes. I gor rid of the television and switched back to the radio [DAB radio].
Even there, the overall quality has fallen, have you heard the stupid comedy shows and some of the drama programmes on radio4.
One has to pick and choose over the whole network to find some quality programmes.
But there are a few beacons of light which shine above the rest, namely the news and current affairs programmes, namely PM. [Is that worth a bottle of scotch Edie]. and a few of the music programmes . Luckily now I don't have to pay for them ,as wireless is not licensed
So if any of you out there want to come and join me -why don't you?
Complain about this comment
I've got rid of my TV as a) I'm not at home very often, and b) there's nothing on worth watching, and c) I can play DVD's on my laptop. Since I have no working receiver at home, I no longer pay, or need to pay, a license fee.
However, I do listen to BBC radio a lot when I'm driving - I won't listen to commercial radio as I dislike radio adverts even more than TV adverts, and read a fair bit of the bbc's news pages on the web, so I suppose a token fee, lets say the eqivalent of a B&W license would be acceptable.
*f
Complain about this comment
I had a licence until a couple of months ago but I resented paying it so much that I gave up watching or recording live tv in order to not have to pay it. My main reason for resenting it was that if I don't pay it, I can't watch any other television channel live on the television - yet the whole licence fee goes to the BBC. I also resented the aggressive and intrusive method of collecting the licence fee. So I gave it up. Then I found that I downloaded Spooks and Top Gear and Never Mind the Buzzcocks every week and I thought I would pay it again (I also wasn't hounded by the licence people, which was a pleasant surprise). However, then came Children in Need. I don't have any interest but my elderly parents do and every single year they are deeply disappointed because they have to watch the local BBC drivel when they are looking forward to the much-advertised treats that go on in the main broadcast. I don't know what the answer is. The licence fee is probably worth it just for Radio 4 but I can't bring myself to go back to paying it until everyone can choose not to watch local variations, or at least not while the rest of the country gets Spooks or similar! I am also utterly fed-up with 'dramatisations' instead of proper documentaries and with tabloid-style shallow news reporting. BBC television does not have to compete for an audience so it should use that luxury to take the space to put out more intelligent, in-depth programming.
Complain about this comment
I've not had the television on since Dr Who finished, and even then I ended up watching the last few installments on line.
Perhaps if the BBC started charging the rest of the world for access to BBC products there would be less burden on UK taxpayers?
Radio 4 is brilliant, and folkwaves on Radio Derby is a gem, but I could live without the rest.
You could probably get my entire listening on a DVD, so lets say £14.99
Complain about this comment
I would happily pay a fee if all the puerile reality shows and spurious competition shows were consigned to the cutting room floor where they belong
Complain about this comment
Despite a satellite subscription I really don't watch much TV at all - probably six hours or so a week, but I do think that the current license fee is good value for money given all the BBC Radio and on-line output that I use.
Complain about this comment
Thank heaven I'm nearly 75!!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
I would gladly pay around £200/year for fewer channels with much higher standards of production, a copper bottomed promise that no repeats would ever be transmitted and the public burning of most of the films that have been trotted out over the 'winter holiday season'.
A channel devoted to creativity could benefit the country better than
any interactive war gaming, if thats your bag - join the forces.
Complain about this comment
I wold be prepared to pay 3 pounds per week now that F1 is returning to BBC and as long as Spooks is featured!!!
Complain about this comment
Since moving to the U.S. four years ago i have come to realize just what i got from the Licence fee. Public Broadcasting here (PBS - TV and NPR - Radio) is nowhere near as diverse or innovative. Regular on air pleading for donations to keep broadcasting drive me crazy. There is no advertising but there is 'sponsorship'. I Still watch more British TV productions than U.S. ones here and thankfully the internet means that i can keep up with the news, enjoy great Drama, Comedy, Sport and intellectual discussion thanks to Radio Four and Five and the World Service. I wonder how many people who complain about the Licence fee are happy to hand over hundreds of pounds a year for Sky and Cable.
Complain about this comment
I make enough use of Radio 4, the website, and a small number of TV programmes to be confident that I'm getting good value for money for fee. I have also been grateful for the opportunity afforded my children to watch tailored programmes without the confusing interruption of advertising, on Freeview. But I'm sure the value would increase if all presenters' salaries were commensurate with other publicly-funded bodies. I'd also like to see my TV License number functioning like a proper "membership gatepost", enabling me to access the iPlayer from outside the country.
Complain about this comment
I suggest anyone who doubts the value of the BBC should find a cheap ticket to America so they can see what an all commercial television looks like.
I think doubts will be swept away if more people did this.
Complain about this comment
The more i think about it the more I realise what value for money the BBC is. If BBC America is an example of a commercial BBC then i am worried for the future.
However, the BBC does need to continue to investigate the globalisation of broadcasting. As we move further into the digital age TV and radio is no longer restricted by the distance a transmitter can send the signal. I currently pay a little less than the cost of the license fee (US$20) per month and only watch a couple of the cable only channels. I could certanly do without it if i chose to and just rely on the 'free' ad supported terestial broadcasters (CBS, NBC,FOX, ABC etc). In exchange I would be happy to pay the 12 quid a month for BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, News 24, CBBC, Cbbebies, Radio's 1 - 7, the World Service and the internet site.
Of course, if the cost was spread more widely to those of us no longer living in the U.K. the cost per subscriber (rather than licence fee payer) should reduce.
I already have a set top box connected to the internet. I just need the BBC to start sending the signal down my DSL connection.
Complain about this comment
"I would gladly pay around ?200/year for fewer channels with much higher standards of production, a copper bottomed promise that no repeats would ever be transmitted"
The trouble with that is, what do you do when you miss an episode, or other programme?
Complain about this comment
Having lived in the US and suffered endless "pledge drives" for public radio and television in my opinion the BBC with all its faults is priceless. Until you lived for any time without access to the bbc you'll never really appreciate what we all take for granted. I'd pay much more than the current licence fee.
Complain about this comment
The BBC licence fee is simply the best value around.
BBC radio alone is worth the licence fee, and worth much more that the Sky-high Sky tv fees.
The day we scrap the present system will be the day I realise we have lost all sense of value and gone barking mad.
Complain about this comment
I'd pay full whack if Jonathan Ross were paid a lot less. if not, then £50 p.a.
Complain about this comment
Competing with the BBC keeps the standards of the "advert" channels high; so even if you don't watch any bbc you're still getting your money's worth.
Have you seen American TV?
Trashy, lowest possible denominator rubbish, with as much advertising thrown in as there is real content.
No one wants to pay to make the kinds of programs you take for granted on the bbc, because no one wants to buy advertising time in these programs.
In the US you ONLY get the programs they can sell advertising time in.
Everything is pared down to the bone so badly that many small TV stations have to hold fund-raising events, FOR THEMSELVES, to stay on the air!
I'd pay double if it means we can keep the quality TV we have: and I only watch about 6 hours of the idiot's lantern a week.
Complain about this comment
I want to keep paying a licence fee specifically because that's what makes the BBC unique.
If it is funded in more conventional ways it will become just another conventional broadcaster - profit driven above all else. That would be very bad for all the values the make the BBC so special.
Whatever it costs, I'll keep buying that licence (oh, and no ads on the telly, radio or website please).
Complain about this comment
Nothing. I'm sick of reality tv, cookery programmes, costume drama and a lack of any decent sport. Good to see the F1 back, but they've lost the cricket, rugby, most boxing, football etc. The best bit is that I need a licence at my flat, which doesn't have an aerial because I have an internet connection which 'is capable of receiving live transmission' due to ITV streaming their channels. Thanks a bundle, I'm paying to watch advert subsidised TV!
Complain about this comment
Currently I am living in Austria. The only BBC TV I can watch is BBC Prime. This appalling channel repeats the same few programmes ad nauseum, sometimes several times in a single day. It shows old serials with the episodes in random order and every programme is separated by the same few dreadful fillers, such as educational films about Cardiff or paper-making.
This is the future of mainstream BBC if the licence fee is abandoned.
Complain about this comment
I would happily pay full whack for the licence fee if the BBC would broadcast Formula1 in HD on BBDHD in 2009! Oh and to be able to listen to the Now Show and of course PM.
Love it or hate it the BBC is a unique British institution and we would be much poorer without it.
It's cheaper than Sky; it's cheaper than Virgin. The quality of the programming is excellent (the Brand/Ross incident excepted).
Come on lets support the BBC before we lose yet another pillar of our culture and society.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is a unique and magnificent service which is the envy of the world.
Yes it has to be managed properly, which means not paying that idiot Ross millions, but aside from that, the value of an independant, non advertising service that does not pander to the lowest common denominator is priceless.
£140 ? I would happily pay that for the Website, Radio 4 and Doctor Who alone. A society only realises how stupid it is when it de-regulates television !
If the BBC were ever genuinely threatened I would happily pay £500 per year.
Complain about this comment
As I watch very little TV due to so much dumbing-down, I prefer to listen to the radio, but even there, there is too much rubbish - unfunny "comedy" and smut. What's that worth to me? Well, I can catch the programmes I really want to listen to on the Internet, so perhaps I am not really prepared to pay anything at all to finance the programmes on Radio and TV which insult my intelligence and my integrity. Perhaps a pay-per-view might be better in my case!!
Complain about this comment
I'd continue to play the current amount... But i'd want to be able to stipulate how it was used... for example no reality shows... no dancing with who or whatever and any other similar entertainment for the brain-dead
Complain about this comment
The B.B.C offers excellent quality advertisement free T.V, radio and internet and I would happily pay £250 per year just to maintain the current standard.
I like the fact that it is designed to appeal to the diverse range of people we have in our society and offers so much support.
I understand the arguments relating to unfair competition in a market economy but this is by far outweighed by the unique quality offered by the B.B.C. Keep up the good work. This uniqueness is recognised all over the world and is a fabulous 'advertisement' for the UK.
JB[Personal details removed by Moderator], Liverpool.
Complain about this comment
Two thirds of the licence fee go towards TV, a tenth on transmission costs, so radio and the websites account for less than 25% of the fee. If there was no longer to be BBC TV, I'd happily pay £40 per year for the radio and internet services.
Sadly, there are no figures for how much of the TV funding is spent on quality programmes, and how much is used to duplicate commercial stations and pay celebrities inflated salaries. I'd like to see a slimmed-down TV service with fewer channels showing public service programmes that can't be found elsewhere. Perhaps £80 for the whole lot would be reasonable?
Complain about this comment
I would pay for internet access to the BBC TV programs. I suspect the the reason this is not offered as an option is thathe BBC makes money on licencing their products to PBS and Knowlege network in the US an Canada.
As an aside, on CBC the overnight slot is filled by half hour slots from public broadcasters from all over the world. This gives a interesting glimps into world thinking.
Complain about this comment
I would subscribe to BBC if it was voluntary and pay £5/month. I deeply resent being forced to pay for what is really a poor quality channel. If Britons want to find out what good quality public radio is like they should try CKUA online. Fully funded by listener donation it's lean and thoughtful. A stark contrast from the mindless dribble we're force to finance on BBC.
Complain about this comment
If all these people would pay voluntarily then lets make it voluntary, by subscription. I think you'd find few would subscribe at the current rate. The only people that think BBC provides quality public broadcasting are those that haven't been exposed to good public broadcasting.
Complain about this comment
More than happy with what I pay for the BBC - but I think that in this day and age we shouldn't be forcing everyone to pay regardless of which channels they watch. BBC should adopt a subscription based model which is perfectly feasible once the analogue service is switched off. Then we can all choose to pay if we want BBC channels (don't worry - I'll be paying!)
Complain about this comment
To answer the question, I would pay, if it was by subscription, £37.50 per annum for a public broadcaster offering one TV channel and 2 radio stations plus local radio. In the broader debate about the BBC and the hypothecated tax that funds it, I have given up trying to think of tinkering reforms. I would hope that the next government would make it policy to abolish the BBC and let the market cope with the aftermath.
The Ross/Brand debacle has given people like me a huge fillip in our (until now) forlorn hope that anything could be done to kill this Jabba-like monster. Boy, have you got it coming! When I heard that pundit on the TV news last week in Oxford Street wring his hands with ?Christmas sales, January sales, closing down sales? as he eyed Woolworth?s and WH Smith?s bleak futures, I thought how prophetic of the short future of the BBC. ?Party conference pledge, manifesto commitment, Green Paper? perhaps.
Complain about this comment
I'm tired of people complaining about the BBC!
I am an Australian. We have a much-loved public broadcaster (the ABC) that has been starved of funds by successive Governments from both sides of politics. But the ABC is a mere shadow of the BBC. Believe me, you don't want to go down the path of making the BBC solely dependant upon Government funds. The licence fee - the guaranteed funding - is what makes the BBC so strong, and a model for public broadcasting around the world.
No, you won't like everything the BBC does. Nor should you. We are a diverse society, and the BBC caters to us all. I never listen to BBC1, nor do I ever watch CBEEBIES (or whatever it is called) - so what? The strong funding model supplied by the licensing fee is what ensures the BBC can be as diverse as it is. Just because you don?t watch it/listen to it /click on it does not mean it should not be broadcast or published.
In Australia, the ABC is now so starved of funds that the ABC now no longer produces any Australian drama ? it simply cannot afford it. Australian content on ABC TV is reduced to news and current affairs, with the odd (cheap) variety and comedy show. Staff wages are below industry standards, so moral is low. Staff numbers are skeletal ? many radio programmes, for instance, are done with just the on-air talent and a single producer. Errors rise as a result. The bulk of ABC TV programming is now largely imported. I can only feel sadness when I consider the breadth of programming the ABC offered during my childhood in the 1970?s.
You want a strong, independent BBC that can offer its audience interesting, challenging, entertaining, accurate and diverse content. You want a BBC which can meet the challenges of the digital age. You want a BBC which reflects modern British society. You want a BBC which respects it viewers/listeners/readers. You want a BBC which understands is history and its importance to the British public. Starving the BBC of funds is not the way to achieve this.
Complain about this comment
The sting with the license fee is that I have to pay it - full stop! And because I pay by quarterly DD it costs me more! It's just another pain in the neck for nothing tangible. Why don't the Beeb do an "All-in-one" broadband / license fee combined package and raise their revenue that way. As for PSB, I haven't seen any PSB apart from local news and it's better on "other" channels. Get a grip Beeb!
Complain about this comment
I think most people are missing the point. Its not whether its good value or not, its that if you have a TV you dont have a choice.
If most people think the fee is fair, then fine, but those of us who dont, should have the choice to opt out and pay for those other services we do like. The current system forces me to pay whether I want to or not.
What ever happened to democracy.
Complain about this comment
It's impossible for everything on the Beeb to be liked by everyone but I for one don't mind paying the license fee.
I listen to the Radio to and from work, use the BBC website throughout the day and watch the TV at home.
It plays safe with the likes of Dickie Attenborough and Alan Titchmarsh and takes risks with the likes of Russel Brand and Jonathan Ross.
I firmly believe that we as a nation are better off having this wonderful service.
Lose the Beeb and we lose apart of what it is to BE British.
I'll pay between the current £11(ish) and month upto about £15.
Complain about this comment
I don't mind how much we pay - the range of services is worth it. However, why do we have to pay £400 million a year to collect it when the government could pay the BBC as a 'proxy civil list'.
I'm sure there would be protests about the independence of the BBC but since most families have to pay this then to all intents and purposes it is a poll tax. It also takes a higher percentage of low earners income which apparently is bad.
I'd guess we'd need to put about 2p to 3p extra on income tax to replace it but if that is so unacceptable it might put the scale of the annual 'poll tax' in perspective.
Complain about this comment
Having been afflicted with US television for 4 years, I'm happy to pay "whatever it takes" to quote the chancellor, to keep the BBC going. If you want a number, my internet ISP subscription is currently 25 pounds a month so I think 4 times that, or £100 a month. That will preserve some British Culture in an increasingly fragmented and connected world.
Complain about this comment
£150
Complain about this comment
Divide the current licence fee by the number of repeats of Coast / week - that will give you an indication of the annual BBC worth.
As for Ross - I gave up watching anything to do with him long before the latest "dumming - down" incident.
Complain about this comment
The proportion of my total viewing that is BBC tv would equal about £1 a week / £52 a year. There is so much to offer on digital channels now its seems a good time to consider going commercial.
Complain about this comment
£20 a month sounds about right compared to the cost of broadband and mobile contracts - not to mention S$y.
I don't watch TV though - most of it is dire including the main BBC channels
Complain about this comment
BBC £140 per year vs SKY £500 and upwards per year. BBC fee about right.
Complain about this comment
I'm tired of Australians and Americans complaining about those who complain about the BBC!
I have to pay for it. You don't. Please don't assume I've not thought about my opposition to the "unique way the BBC is funded".
I am centre-right politically and for that reason alone I am a very unhappy camper. The BBC itself admitted a left-wing bias in 2006 at an "Impartiality Summit": senior executives, presenters and broadcasters; many recognised the left/liberal bias.
My views, though a member of two minority groups, are simply never recognised. And it looks like the BBC is somewhat aware of this. If you saw me on the street, you'd probably assume I was an old hippy hankering after the dismantling of nuclear weapons, wishing for the demise of Thatcher and a member of as many unions I could manage. I am not. And I believe that makes me, in the eyes of the BBC, almost certifiable, such is the attitude meted out towards the right.
Think about it, I have NO CHOICE but to pay the license fee if I only watch ITV.
If you HAD to purchase the Daily Mail when you bought a Guardian, you'd all soon complain.
Sir Anthony Jay recently admitted that, back in the 1960s on the Newsnight programme, he and his colleagues saw themselves as "clever in a stupid world" and naturally sympathetic towards communism and hostile to capitalism. So again, please don't assume I'm paranoid of Tonbridge Wells (near though).
If the BBC could manage to turn it around so it was impartial (not right-wing) then I'd put a voluntary figure of £50 per year on the BBC. I'd pay it happily if
a) I wasn't sent intimidating letters from the BBC
b) I didn't have to pay the tax on threat of prison
c) I saw true impartiality and not left-wing impartiality
Heck, I might even stump up some more. But let's see how it spends my £50. The Beeb would need to close off many of its superfulous operations like BBC3, Radio 1 and cease seeking to compete and push smaller companies out of operation as it is sought to in the field of local news.
I'd be chuffed if, in 10 years' time the BBC was still on the airwaves. If it makes it that long, then it's probably done enough to win my currently non-existent support.
As for people who assume complainants haven't thought though their grievance properly, please understand that this is the sort of attitude I see and hear day in day out on the BBC. It is why I am ever so slightly angry in the first place.
Thank you for inviting comments on this subject, PM is definitely one of the more balanced broadcasts.
Everyone's going to hate me now.
Complain about this comment
I live in Switzerland, where my husband insists we pay about GBP 33.00 per month for the dubious pleasure of a Sky TV package. I would gladly pay that, if not more, just for BBC Radio output.
Tout de bonbon,
Anne in Geneva.
Complain about this comment
We should have a choice about which channels we want to watch on TV. I personally would be happy to not pay so much to not listen to their radio/TV presenters (it's not just Ross who earns millions). It is unfair to make everyone pay for something quite a lot of people would choose not to. Sky and Virgin offer many more channels and telephone/broadband for their subscription, the BBC offers a few television channels and radio, if that was all Sky and Virgin offered they would be substantially cheaper than the BBC.
Every time there is a newsworthy subject in an exotic country, or North America the entire BBC news reporting/presenting/filming staff up and move on a junket en masse.
Make the BBC a commercial organisation, we will see then if they can stand up to the independants who have to earn their way, instead of being handed a golden pot at the expense of the public.
Complain about this comment
In its current form I'd be prepared to pay between £40-70. This is because I believe the original formulation in the 1920s of 'inform educate and entertain' to be way out of date and that there is little justification for a taxpayer-funded public entertainment organisation in a multichannel and multimedia world. The recent examples of the kind of thing the BBC is putting out as entertainment shouldn't be taken out of proportion, but only confirm me in this view. I don't know what proportion of the Corporation's programme budget is entertainment, but I'd guess half to two thirds, hence my range quoted above. Of course there'd be some things falling on the borderlines - e.g. high quality costume drama or major national sporting events, where the line should be generously drawn. But basically if it's entertainment, that should be a commercial matter, and now the BBC is a minority broadcaster it should retrench to informing and educating. If it wanted to do entertainment why shouldn't it set up a commercial channel or two of its own, with no cross-subsidy either way? I dare say some thinking BBC people would welcome a clearer remit more in tune with the 21st century than the 20th. It needn't mean the end of a fine organisation that 's gone to seed a bit lately.
Complain about this comment
Brits have been prisoners for far to long. Compromise!
Make it a cable company. In America we get three channels free. 4th high quality which depends on twice a year fund raising..called PUBLIC TV AND rADIO (SEPERATE)
i USED TO PAY FOR MY eNGLISH HANDICAPPED COUSIN TO HAVE A 2ND T V IN HER ROOM...HUSBAND WATCHING ON MAIN ONE IN OTHER ROOM.
SO TIME HAS COME. My sanity is BBC radio at night (WHICH MOST AMERICANS DONT KNOW EXISTS) ! And I pay 6 quide extra on top of my cable of 25 pound a month basic..for BBC AMERICA program. Get near 200 others for cable.
For those who like the English language, the BBC in my lifetime back home, was the way most foreigners LEARNT ENGLISH. Now the BBC tends to hire *motor mouths* a few times. IN THE MAIN, ITS OUR SANITY KEY TO QUALITY.
Think you dont like quality? have your eardrums banged with modern mess, you'll pay hundreds for some sanity!
Ex WRAF. Old Plymouthian.
Complain about this comment
I have not had a TV for years and I would strongly discourage all these people who are callling for a radio licence fee.
If such a thing were brought in it would have to be set at a very low level to not disadvantage the least well off. There are plenty of people for whom 25p a day is a significant amount of money - enough for a Friday night treat of a visit to the chippy, for instance.
How would you regulate the licensing? Many radios (in cars, on phones etc) are not linked to a specific address.
Complain about this comment
I don't see in this day and age why we have to pay a licence fee for the BBC. A licence fee to provide for the infrustructure or partially pay for the infrustructure seems reasonable. It is actually time that the BBC was supported by advertising.
Complain about this comment
£500 per year for Today, PM, and The News Quiz on Fridays. Oh yes... TV: Anything with Stephen Fry in it, anything amusing that might feasibly have Stephen Fry in it, plus some good drama, travel progs. Fantastic value. I would give another £500 to avoid even even inadvertantly watching reality TV or Jonathon Ross... or listen to The Archers (just to confirm I am not a walking stereotype)
..and seriously, what are we all quibbling about?.. the world would be a poorer place without BBC journalism. If I was to go all patriotic and then be asked to define one thing that made me proud of my country, BBC journalism would be right up at the top of the list of possibilities, but hey, might be pipped by Falmouth Working Boats
Complain about this comment
For the BCC in its current form?
Nothing.
Change the business model and I would willingly pay something.
Currently the BBC has a near monopoly due to the licence fee - which is a tax on owning a television (whatever you watch).
The BBC's near monopoly has damaging effects on this country, far beyond the sphere of television. The BBC's 'issue bias' (a point of view that's poltically correct within the BBC) whatever the subject/issue, stifles debate and progress (especially in the field of politics).
Have the BBC funded by subscription; for television, radio, local radio, website etc where people pay for which medium they use.
In this digital age, this is possible.
Complain about this comment
I believe strongly in public broadcasting, and would pay up to £20 a month - provided the science output was increased and returned to the standards of Horizon of a few years back, and that Play for today, or similar, was reintroduced. Also, the now forgotten promise of at least one foreign language film a week on BBC4 was reinstated.
I don't watch soaps or reality shows, but if the arts and sciences was strengthened, then I have no objection to contributing to all types of programme.
Complain about this comment
I believe the licence fee is one of the best bargains in the whole world - there must be many countries that wish they had something like it. I would pay whatever was necessary for Radios 3 and 4, BBC4 and the better bits (news, comedy, wildlife, to name but three) of other channels. I also don't mind paying for stuff I don't care for,as I know the BBC has to serve the whole population, though I don't think the Beeb would be seriously damaged by not paying obscene salaries to the likes of Ross and Brand.
Above all, the licence fee frees us from the tyranny of advertising, that blight on every programme, good and bad, produced by your competitors. Those who argue that the BBC should be financed by advertising, like everyone else, just don't realise that it's the licence fee that makes British broadcasting, all of it, better than probably anywhere else in the world. If you don't have to worry about ratings all the time you can go for the excellence, and innovation, which still characterise the BBC. The others follow your lead when they realise that the good and the new can also be popular.
Complain about this comment
I'm very happy with the fee and would accept a rise of as much as 30%. Although there is much on the BBC that does not appeal to me, there is a great deal that does. What is palpable of almost all the BBC's output, whether it appeals to me or not, is its quality. Personally, I would like to see a great deal more intellectually challenging programming and I am not at all convinced that the BBC budget is best spent trying to directly compete with commercial television - ITV should do soap, BBC should do public service. The most important thing however is the independence of the BBC. As long as it is paid for by the licence fee, contributed to by all, regardless of background, politics, race, colour or creed, then that independence should resonate and be assured.
Complain about this comment
I'll happily pay £250 a year.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm prepared top pay £10 a month for a mobile phone service which I use for about 5 minutes a day... It hardly seems overpayment to aprt with the same amount for at least 2 hours of radio on a work day, 3 or 4 each weekend and the option of a wisp of TV here and there - not to mention online access to news, weather and financial reports 24 hours a day. That makes a regular £120 a year. £12 a month would not really hurt; that makes £144. If I were in the habit of watching Strictly Celebrity Big Oliver Factor, surely it would be worth more to me? Or would my brain have atrophied beyond retrieval as a result?
Complain about this comment
£139.50 for ad free entertainment. What a bargain. I would pay more.
Complain about this comment
BBC TV has become far too politically motivated from London. If they want to justify the licence tax, yes another tax, then they've got to justify it! We live in a day and age where we, as consumers, have a choice of what broadcasting media we wish to listen to or watch.
I refuse to pay nearly £140 a year to help fund an agenda the BBC wants i.e multiculturism and global warming etc.
At least BBC radio doesn't harbour such nonsense and I'd gladly pay a smaller fee to keep this valuble service going.
Radio five live is the best sports radio broadcaster going.
Complain about this comment
For endless liberal left, pro labour, pro EU middle class propoganda!
For crap like Strictly come dancing!
For Jonathan Ross!
£0 I think.
High time Browns Broadcasting Company was privatised, and the Television tax abolished.
Complain about this comment
Pretty good value really. You only have to look at the garbage that is pumped out in the US to realise Auntie is a good thing.
I suspect the BBC has dumbed down a bit over the past few years.
The rise of the second AD in white trainers - no longer brown brogues - it's probably all intertwined with a slightly more popularist news etc.
But on the whole Radio 2, and 4 are superb.
For just under £140 a year, we're lucky to have this Royal Charter. If it wasn't for the likes of old Paxman and Humphries, we'd be a much poorer nation.
Oh and for once (Mr Peston included), poorer doesn't equate to the economy!
Complain about this comment
I agree with beachhutman. Despite paying a TV licence fee in the UK, where I am 50 days per year, I cannot watch the iPlayer content here in France where I live the other 315 days (and where I pay 116 euros per year TV licence for pure merde).
I would gladly pay 10 pound/month for full access to the internet broadcasts.
Complain about this comment
£50pa for radio. £50 for the telly I never watch anyway but I'd probably miss if my partner didn't watch it. So much anger if the BBC was ever removed from my life and replaced with commercial substandard inmitations.
Complain about this comment
The licence fee could be reduced by allowing internationals access to Iplayer and premium services that the BBC offers for a small fee. With Internationals paying a contribution towards the running of the BBC, the cost could actually be reduced in the UK.
Im in Australia and the TV is terrible. They have no licence fee and commercial TV is chock full of ads - BBC programs running with adverts in them - awful.
The ABC is ad free however, but has only 2 channels. No news channel. No freeview. All the radio stations are much the same, hardly any variety.
They hardly make any drama - everything is imported from... The BBC from 10 years ago. Its rubbish.
The BBC might be a political football. But believe me its a little jem.
You need to learn to appreciate it by experiencing the dross elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
I used to live in the US where public broadcasting is woefully underfunded. NPR is the only quality radio over there with any sort of balance (hence described as liberal bias). From living over there I could see clearly how precious our BBC is, without it, you end up with Fox or MSNBC dominating with one sided debates. Over there, $200 donated to the local public station was money well spent defending liberty. Maybe that's what the license fee is as well.
Stop knocking the BBC - we'll miss it when it's gone.
Complain about this comment
While the BBC continues to employ the likes of Ross and others on 6 figure or above (or even top half of 5 figs)pay deals then the licence fee is way too much.
The BBC needs to raise its game on standards, give up the chasing down of standards from the lewd, to the appalling speech, incomprehensible accents, and political bias, by news selection.
Currently they are not worth £1 a week.
Complain about this comment
A thousand a year if I had to. It's just about the best value you can get. Anyone who has endured the output in other countries must know this.
Complain about this comment
My licence expires in a few weeks time and the 'only' £139.50 that renewing it would cost will have to go towards paying the vastly increased gas and electricity bills I'm faced with this winter.
It's no real loss, most days I don't even turn it on, plus my now 28 year old TV is showing its age and I can't afford a new one. So I will go without TV altogether. It's an expensive luxury and the most I'd be prepared to pay for it is nothing.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm currently paying a quarter of the licence fee for this property, and even though the only thing I've watched regularly in the last year is Doctor Who, I think it's worth it. If I were sharing a television between fewer people, perhaps not. As a student, and someone with no regular income apart from that I will have to pay back one day, I'd say I was prepared to pay £5 a month for something I did not know whether it would be of use to me in future.
There are other things that can be done with televisions than just watching broadcasts, which the BBC contributes nothing to. It would probably be more expensive than the licence fee to find a way of playing my consoles that did not require the fee.
Having said that, I spent a long time relying on BBC radio - both national and local - and I would be happy paying £5 a month for that, too.
Complain about this comment
I pay my £140 a year to the BBC and I also pay my £600 a year to Sky. There are things about the BBC that drive me crazy - left wing bias, terrible daytime programming, repeats of dross but lack of repeats of some of the excellent mini-series of the last 20 years - but I reckon my BBC subscription is better value for money.
I agree with most posters that I would miss the website and the radio at least as much as the TV offerings. I also agree that having seen what Americans have to put up with - 10 minutes TV, 2 minutes ads - we get a good deal.
I think people get irritated with the multi-million salaries paid to "stars" who the public perceive as talentless - not just Ross and Brand but many others; they also get fed up reading about the huge salaries and vast pay increases that BBC management effectively awrad to themselves - it's public money so why should people decide their own pay rises paid for from the public purse?
Complain about this comment
I am sick to death of repeats on the BBC.It has now got so ridiculous that they are showing repeats of the repeats.
I would'nt mind but they are really new programmes that they are repeating and when I have written to the BBC to complain they give you the old stock answer that "this is done as result of viewers requests".
I would be happy to pay on a pay per view basis whereby you only pay for the programmes you watch and given the amount that I now watch on the BBC they are not going to get much money out of me.
Complain about this comment
I think it's about time that the licence fee was scrapped. Continual re-runs, repeats whatever you wish to call them. I do agree that the Beeb does produce some interesting an entertaining programmes but we are seeing too many "omnibus editions" of programmes that align themselves to "Council estates" No in it's current format I would not want to pay a penny in fees.
ps How much did this blog cost me...?
Complain about this comment
If I had the CHOICE, I wouldn't pay it.
If it meant I didn't get any of the BBC TV or radio channels, then that is fine with me! I only use my TV as a 32" PC monitor (http://badgerfruit.homeip.net/mypics/tv.jpg) and CDs in the car.
The only BBC content I use is the BBC News website which at £12 per month is NOT value for money. I'm pretty sure I could live without that too.
SCRAP THE TV TAX and offer BBC as a subscription service - afterall, there are enough posts on here that would gladly pay the current fee so let them, but I don't want it so why should I be FORCED (under a threat of a £1000 fine!) if I don't even watch the damned thing?
Complain about this comment
Although I do not watch much television I feel that I do get value for money with the licence fee. I simply adore the BBC radio stations and find the iPlayer a great source of entertainment. The BBC website is my homepage of choice and often the first place I choose to search for information.
I am happy with what I currently pay.
Complain about this comment
If the licence fee was scrapped I'd celebrate! The BBC already gets £150 out of me a year in DVD sales.
Providing I could pay-per-event for sports coverage and pick up my DVDs for Ashes to Ashes, Robin Hood, Spooks and Doctor Who - NOTHING would make me happier than seeing Aunty waste away in her dotage.
Seeing News24, BBC3, most of digital radio, IPV 'ambition' and the exorbitant salaries of so-called 'BBC Talent' go up in smoke would please me no end.
The truth is the majority of people are fed up with paying the BBC a fortune to feather its own nest. When most of us are stuck on £14,000 a year, we don't take too kindly to seeing 'media professionals' raking in £20,000 for running a 'blog' or £6 million for making threatening phone calls.
The BBC should go pay-as-you-use and we'd soon see the obscene behemoth of Aunty cut down to size.
Complain about this comment
Licence fee?! Why should the BBC be granted a huge windfall each year when all around has to work really hard for every bean we get.
How about reducing the fee, and adding adverts inbetween programs, rather than between programes like the independants do.
The adds are so annoying, I tend to not watch the independant broadcasters as it ruins a film for instance. Put the adds at the end of a program not inbetween.
It does seem an ancient idea to subsidize a broadcaster when really there is no need to at all.
Having said that Iplayer is really really good, best thing BBC have done for ages 10/10. HYS has got to be the worst, moderation is so inconsistant.
Complain about this comment
I'm happy with what I pay but I would pay more if various current offerings were removed. So, lose Eastenders and related moronic serial offerings (except possibly The Archers provided I don't have to listen!). Dump all reality TV aimed at the "brain-dead". Excise any programming aimed at searching for the next "here today, gone tomorrow wannabe West End musical star". Consign to oblivion trashy "celebrity ballroom dancing" and the like. Oh, and relegate all televised sport to commercial pay per view TV. I'll gladly pay toward the rest...even the stuff I don't like!
Complain about this comment
I used to be a fervent anti Tv Tax person. That was until programs such as Dr Who returned. Now i would pay £10 per month just to have the BBC stay as it is. However there really should be a cap on these runaway salaries. Jonathan Ross anyone? I admit I'm not a fan of the man. Never have been and doubt I ever will be but people do seem to like him. Surely though the wage he gets is just exorbitant. Same for Wogan. Reel in the silly wages and Im sure people wouldn't mind half as much.
On a side note I dont agree with the way that the money Debited from your account. No one has been able to sufficiently explain why I paid 300% more per month in the initial months before it dropped. Why not just a flat monthly charge of for instance £10 starting from when you sudmit the form.
And the whole TV license fraud campaign thing. Really. Come on. We are not children so please don't try and threaten us. A simple notice of what the license is, what it costs, and what it funds. Simple. No brow beating.
Complain about this comment
Life without the BBC would be a darker place. It is renowned throughout the civilised world for its independence and objectivity. The BBC website and Radio 4 alone are worth the current licence fee and personally I would be prepared to pay a lot more to ensure the BBCs continued existence.
Complain about this comment
If someone could work out how much it is costing me to pay for TV advertising on the commercial channels I watch, then I would pay that amount for the Licence.
Complain about this comment
I consider the current fee to be good value for money however, I object to the vast amounts paid to the likes of Jonathan Ross, Terry Wogan etc.
Complain about this comment
I dont listen to any of the BBC radio stations, although my fiance occasionally listens to BBC Radio 2. Almost all the stuff on the BBC is mindless idiotic rubbish, strictly, eastenders, holby, lottery etc...
In my opinion i only watch about 10% of the programs the BBC screens, our lass listens to the radio on occasion, and i suppose that some money needs to go to supporting the infrastructure. So i would reasonable want to pay £20 for my TV licence, about £10 for the radio and lets say £20 for infrastructure, so in total £50 sounds good to me.
I dont mind spending £150 a year, if they show programs that are good, i dont want to watch people arguing on tv, i have a fiance who can provide that for free :D
Complain about this comment
Nothing at all. I'm sick of being forced to pay for the dross on offer. The BBC used to be a standard bearer that showed quality programming rather than the constant bottom-fishing we see on commercial channels.
Now we have phone-in votes (just like everybody else), mindless pap masquerading as "entertainment" (just like everybody else), endless repeats (just like everybody else), etc etc etc.
The only way I can tell I'm watching the BBC at all is that there are no adverts, although frankly at least an advert break on commercial TV gives me the ideal chance to make a cup of coffee or visit the bathroom.
Complain about this comment
The licence fee should now be scrapped and the BBC should go onto pay as you View so that would give people a choice of to view or not to view without the extortionate costs for not viewing
Complain about this comment
I am more than happy to pay the licence fee as it stands. You just have to take one look at the ITV output to see why we must never scrap the licence fee.
Also, I can think of one commercial radio station I can listen to for more than 5 minutes without going insane. The same 15 chart 'hits' and the same adverts over and over and over again. Argh.
Long live the BBC.
Complain about this comment
ThoughtCrime2008 - buy a PVR and you can go to the bathroom whenever you want.
Complain about this comment
The BBC knows that there must be a problem with the cost of the Licence - since they constantly chase those that do not have one. These people are not 'Licence-Dodgers' in the main.
Most of these people don't have one, simply because they cannot afford it.
As far as i'm concerned - not being Rich - 1.50p per week for Colour TV, seems fair.
The BBC should also note, that with the 'Recession' and loss of employment etc, they are likely to lose many more of their Licence-paying customers.
I don't have a TV by the way, I can't afford the Licence...
Complain about this comment
The justification for the licence fee is to enable the BBC to produce programmes that wouldn't be done by a commercial channel. So why doesn't the BBC stick to that and leave the pandering to the lowest common denominator to the commercial channels? Even programmes that were once challenging (e.g. Horizon) are now dumbed-down. And the BBC should be politically neutral - not left-wing, pro-EU as present.
I'd pay £200/year for decent programmes and no bias, as it is I resent paying so much to get what is too often rubbish presented by people who are paid far too much.
Complain about this comment
Can someone prove to me that if the BBC replace their "advertisment replacements" e.g. the swimming hippos, with real advertisments, the quality of BBC programmes will suffer?
If the BBC was ONLY delivering "quality" unavailable on ITV then there would be NOTHING on the BBC. My licence fee only duplicates what is free on ITV, both the "quality" and the rubbish.
Who demonstrates more editorial independance - the advertising subsidised Washington Post in Watergate, or the BBC in it's pathetic defence of Andrew Gilligan - it's own employee? The BBC outbids ITV for the "rights" to the Olympics - who benefits? It often outbids for imported programmes, where production costs are already paid for by US advertising - who benefits? And how is Eastenders any "better" than Corrie?
I can see the benefits of a British equivalent of New York's channel 13, where "quality" programmes are paid for by voluntary subscription, donations by "content owners", non-intrusive commercial sponsorship, and one-off public grants. Or a "FilmFour" which saves me the cost of a DVD film rental, paid for by advertising. Not a BBC licence fee.
Complain about this comment
I don?t have a TV so don?t pay a license fee. However I do listen to BBC radio and use the BBC website almost every day of the year.
A broadsheet newspaper is about 70p per day. This would be a price that I would be happy to pay for the services I use.
Complain about this comment
I dont mind paying the full amount. What I object to is being FORCED to pay it for watching any TV, BBC or otherwise. Any other monopoly would be investigated.
Complain about this comment
End the BBC Licence Tax.
I resent being forced to pay for this garbage. I do not want your services, thanks very much.
Complain about this comment
I think the most telling thing about the BBC was that they recently stopped people from putting champagne on expense accounts. Prior to this the British public were forced to buy champagne for civil servants. I'm amazed people have put up with this. Any programs that are popular would be picked up by commercial stations if the BBC was abolished. I'd love to see all the champagne swilling BBC employees on the unemployment line where they belong.
Complain about this comment
The BBC used to be the finest public service broadcaster in the world then you hired host of people dedicated to serving themselves and their political and social bias, not to mention their financial greed, while ignoring the public who fund them. I feel that you have deviated so far from your public service roots that you no longer deserve to be funded by license payers.
This forum is a small start in listening to the public but you have a long way to go to regain the status you threw away!
Complain about this comment
The Beeb stopped being a public service broadcaster when it entered bids for commercial products, football, horse-racing, Christmans films (and so on). It serves a purpose for the news and makes the odd fab programme, which can be seen on the commercial and web channels. As such, and whilst people who cannot afford it are criminalised, I'm prepared to pay no fee. (I did say people who can't afford it, who have the money earmarked for wasteful items like food etc. Not on fines when they are criminalised.)
Complain about this comment
I would happily pay £365 a year for Radio3, Radio4, Radio5 and Radio5Live extra ( to preserve TMS) . Television is less worthy - just one Channel is probably enough , though a sports channel which includes live cricket would be a great improvement.
No reality television, nothing that traffics in public humiliation, or the promotion of individuals with over inflated egos would be a welcome improvement.
Pollyiam
Complain about this comment
As I only watch Countryfile on Sunday mornings, and access the website, can I have pay per view. That seems fair.
There are no other programmes or radio stations belonging to the BBC that I use. As the BBC advertises it's own products already, I cannot see why it just doesn't take the money on offer, and advertise generally. Saving us all yet another bill.
This is a business (like all other TV companies) and I don't see why it should be a compulsory payment from every household in the UK that keeps it going. Is it because it would not stand up to the competition out there?
Complain about this comment
Keep the fee as it is: BUT donate 50% of it to the NHS to cover the costs of all those who suffer depression and stress after watching Eastenders.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't miss it one jot.
Complain about this comment
I'm happy with what I currently pay.
Apart from the grindingly depressing Eastenders, the mix of programmes reflects most parts of society and CBeebies is the best childrens TV around.
The downturn means there will be much less advertising revenue around so ITV and the other commercial channels will have much less to spend.
And the BBC is one of the few things that maintains respect for the UK in this world.
Be careful what you decide to throw away!
Complain about this comment
I think 10p a day is about right; that's £36.50/year for those of you who were educated under New Labour.
Also politicians should pay to appear on programs such as PM.
Complain about this comment
The license fee, a regressive tax, is all but over.
In a multi media age the BBC cannot justify its preferential market position utilising a tax in a free market to gain competitive advantage.
The BBCs legendary culturlally liberal left bias di for me & the license fee 2 years ago - I threw out the TV yet still get aggressive letters & threatening phione calls from TV licensing demanding access to my property so they can see that I am not a liar.
The BBC must be carved up into profitable enterprises that can be sold off & the public service programming that must be scrapped.
Lets face facts here - if the BBC is as good as it says it is it will survive just fine standing on its own two feet & selling broadcasting content to the world -instead of giving it away for free after the British have paid for it.
One thing is for sure - I am not alone in throwing out the TV - & I am not alone in not having one back into the house until the regressive TV tax, collected under threat of prison if refused, is scrapped.
Complain about this comment
It's about time a political party put forward the abolishing the license fee as a platform plank. Not only would it be a vote winner but a major boost to the economy, freeing up 6 billion/year that's currently lost to the real economy.
Complain about this comment
I would be willing to pay about £50 per year. we already have sky and pay monthly. I would pay for some of the good programmes and the radio. I dont agree with highly paid people in tv, neither do i agree with sending hundreds of people to cover elections/events thousands of miles away. Oh and by the way i would expect a channel that reflects my political views, instead of the right-on PC multicultural multi this and that. Good old fashioned commonsense, this country was a better place then. So BBC can you make a Fox channel for me please? for your £50.
Complain about this comment
Not very much; particularly as the BBC likes to be portrayed as a ?National Institution?, whilst gratuitously paying its ?Managerialists?, and presenters, far too much, claiming that the BBC has to pay the ?going (market) rate?; On top of which, we have the BBC?s output of so much ?marketised? drivel; how about £25 per year?
Complain about this comment
The best of the BBC is the best broadcasting in the world and I would be prepared to pay the equivalent of the license fee to maintain it and keep advertising out.....subject to a clear out of the top management and the current members of the BBC Trust...termination of Jonathan Ross's contract (without compensation) and a new code of conduct to clean up the foul language that has become the norm in some productions...you know which they are.
Without these reforms...the BBC can be wound up as far as I am concerned.
Complain about this comment
I want all the services of the BBC for nothing! All the TV stations which I say I never watch but actually I do. All the radio I say I hate but actually I couldn't live without. The online content I despise so much that I'm on this website now, telling you about it. And because sometimes people swear or say things I don't like it's my right to deprive everyone else of the whole cultural and journalistic resource! What I say goes! Okay! It's outrageous that I pay less for this because it's shared among all the households in the land. What a ridiculous idea! Let's throw it into the market place so that it costs double or triple and we lose all public accountability!
No - I want to save £139.50 so that I can spend it on two and half west end theatre seats, or a single ticket to see the Rolling Stones, or less than a fifth of the cost of a season ticket to Old Trafford.
Seriously the BBC needs to take hold of this debate because it's a no brainer. The License fee is incredible value.
Complain about this comment
How much one should pay is beside the point. The real question is whether or not one should have the choice of having the BBC or not.
In our household - and I do not believe ours is unique in this respect - the BBC is rarely watched. The news coverage is generally inferior to that of Sky although most of our news intake comes from the web.
For general entertainment we tend to watch DVD - the BBC's insistence in injecting smut into everything has put us right off their 'quality' programmes.
I think we should have a choice.
Complain about this comment
There is so much dross on the BBC from Jonathan Ross to soaps to reality shows. I'm afraid I'd only be prepared to pay £5 a month. There's so much that could be scrapped from local news programmes which only repeat the national news to those expensive (£500,000) logos which are totally unnecessary. Bruce Forstyhe is not funny and should be allowed to go and Andrew Neil on the daily politics is also no comedian. Gettin rid of them both would save millions.
Complain about this comment
I would be happy to pay around £100 for the combined tv and radio license, the BBC was the best broadcaster until recently, and could be the best again. What they seem to forget that it is the public who pay their saleries. Therefore they should be scrupulous in maintaining a balanced political platform, there seems to be a definite political bias creeping into the BBC. They also seem to be losing their standards of decency as demonstrated by their failure to remove from their payroll all the participents involved in the vile phone call incident involving Ross
Complain about this comment
I think it should move to a subscription basis, like Sky. With the move to 100% digital, this would be quite possible. Then maybe the BBC would listen to its customers a bit more. The current BBC is excessively politically correct, but you can tell from 'have your say' that many of its customers are not.
Complain about this comment
You wanted an amount. As long as it was voluntary, £17 to £26 a month, like SKY, would be fine. What sticks in my throat is the compulsory aspect of the current licence.
Complain about this comment
I'm proud to be British when I talk about the BBC. I know it's not perfect but it is pretty fair reporting and mostly a good service. I would not want to see the BBC commercialised, however a rise in the licence fee would be in my opinion unjustified in the current financial climate. As we are now out of work due to my wife's redundancy and my health paying more would cause more hardship.
Complain about this comment
Most of the population do not mind paying the licence fee. However, what we do mind is constant repeats of similar formatted programmes,e.g. Strictly CD. When we have seen one we have seen them all.Same with reality programmes - utter rubbish whatever channel they are on - but we do not expect the BBC to copy commercial TV programmes. Programme time is wasted through the constant advertising of forthcoming programmes used by the BBC to cut down on programming. I would not like the Beeb to be independant -13 ads in every break (Freeview and commercial channels)during films etc is diabolical.
Complain about this comment
I recently gave up my subscription to Sky Sports. The BBC licence fee is less than that, and gives so much more.
If the BBC's television programmes were a premium subscription package, I would have no choice but to subscribe. There would be too much that I wouldn't want to miss. And it would be very good value compared to what one does get on commercial cable channels - much of which is stuff that one originally watched on BBC! And then there's Radio 4 and iPlayer!
I would happily pay £180 pa.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely nothing. Give the people the choice and then see just how much the "real" lovers of the BBC would be prepared to pay when the rest are not subsidising them.
Complain about this comment
Although it is independent, "state funded" broadcasters around the world are very important.
Aside from anything, it keeps everyone else honest. Look at Fox News in the US, or the state of our newspapers. Sky News would be exactly like that if the BBC didn't counterbalance it, because there would be nothing to contrast it with.
Of course we are not talking about getting rid of the BBC, but not having it freely and universally available and free from commercial pressures would undoubtedly change it for the worse.
I don't even watch that much TV, and I hate the BBC's highest paid entertainer, but when I do watch TV it's almost always the BBC. No doubt it's expensive but worth it I think.
In response to 167, I think HYS if infested with Daily Mail reading foaming-at-the-mouth types, who don't represent the majority (or at least I really hope not). In fact, I'd say Nick Robinson is actually giving the current main news bulletins a right-wing slant.
Complain about this comment
I don't watch BBC TV but I am forced to pay a charge to support it, therefore that is a tax on ownership of a tv set, not a licence. If the BBC shut down tonight it wouldn't bother me. If I was asked would I pay anything to keep some of it going I'll agree to £10 per year to keep Radio 4, and I think they could throw in Radio 3 as well. As for BBC tv, let it get money from advertising, subscription or any way it likes, but stop stealing it from me.
Complain about this comment
This is an unfair question implying the public should take the BBC on an all or nothing basis. I appreciate much of the BBC output and its worth the licence fee. But only if it concentrates on doing what public service broadcasting should be about. It needs to focus on quality products (including this website) that inform and entetain, and on maintaining standards. It needs to stop being drawn into making products that fall short of these previously high standards. For example, I can accept bad language but not when it is gratuitous and offensive.
Complain about this comment
I'd pay £15 - £20 a year for the website. I haven't watched a BBC TV programme for a couple of years now, or listened to BBC radio for a year or so, so I'd pay nothing for those. It might help if the BBC sometimes remembered that the first word in its name is "British", not "English".
And I don't agree that TV programmes abroad are vastly inferior as several people here claim. From what I've seen of television in the U.S. and Spain, it's actually much the same.
Complain about this comment
What would I pay to hear Fi Glover on saturday live say `T_ _T' on radio 4? Nothing.
What would I pay to maintain Terry Wogan, J Ross and the others? Nothing.
What would I pay to continue the witch hunt for people who have no tv, no tv licence, but constantly receive threatening letters through the door and telephone calls? Nothing.
Get rid of all the bad language, big salaries, big brother type surveillance and I'll pay something.
Complain about this comment
well, I don't watch any BBC TV. I listen to BBC Radio Wales now and again, and visit the website (just for news).
I don't mind paying say £20 a year for radio subscription. The web can have a few banner ads to pay for it. I'm not paying £140 for the likes of Johnathon Woss though, or X Factor Cum Dancing whatever they are. It's trash. I'd rather watch the History Channel (which I pay for via Sky)
Complain about this comment
Given that you've got a picture of Jonathan Ross there, I'm reminded of the inflated salaries that my money helps pay.
Since I only watch a couple of programmes, and use the website occasionally, I'd pay about £30 a year, given a choice (which I don't).
Complain about this comment
European Union law states every country is entitled to receive for FREE one news channel on radio and TV. This service can either be paid for by the state or by advertising as long as the population do not have to pay for it directly.
UK is the only country that does not provide this freedom.
I like the BBC website and listen to 5live but do not watch BBC TV and do not see why I cannot have the freedom to pay for services I want. No one else writes me hostile letters telling me in red ink that I MUST buy their product and I resent the BBC threatening people the way they do for such a sub standard service.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I think a 100.00 would be fair, mainly watch news 24 or bbc2 and radio. Not at all interested in the cheap entertainment programmes dished out. More films would be nice. If you start taking adverts, I would not want to pay anything except a nominal fee for radio.You should also not pay ridiculous fees for presenters.
Complain about this comment
Personally I would completely scrap the License fee and go commercial. I reluctantly pay for Sky, but I get many tens of channels for my money, the BBC simply is not value for money at the moment. If we had to pay a monthly fee, I'd say about £5 would be reasonable.
Complain about this comment
it's not the size of the licence fee that bothers me it's the fact that I have no control over what I'm getting in exchange.
don't like announcers talking over end credits?
don't like programmes being cancelled for overruning sport?
miss an episode of medium because it runs later than billed and can't see it because it's not on iplayer so is there any chance of a repeat?
tough! or so the bbc seems to say.
you need to be a little more accountable
Complain about this comment
It is not the licence fee per sé, but the way in which it is spent that I object to. There is little justification for the number of channels which are run using our money, nor is there much justification for some of the content. For example, why was Bill Turnbull sent, with the accompanying OB unit, to the US for their elections? We had perfectly sufficient for the news broadcasts already there. And why do the BBC need to run so many television & radio channels? I know the encumbent editors and production staff will find ways of justifying their own existences, but at the end of the day they can also be wrong. We could have fewer but far better programmes with a bit of judicial pruning. It's not as if they really have to compete, there is no other organisation anywhere in the world like the BBC, but they seem to have a strong desire to become just like any other media company by lowering standards & quality while boosting the number of programmes. I also agree that the government bias is becoming very obvious. This is not what we expect from the BBC, and is not what we should be getting.
Complain about this comment
There is a 'concensus' among the politicians that the BBC Licence Fee should go. They are aided in this by the Murdoch and the other right wing press.
Anyone who objects to the licence fee should take a short trip to the US and watch their TV for a few days.
Utter drivel, with adverts every 5 minutes.
Or stay at home and review the tosh on Sky, the only good stuff on it is recycled BBC programming.
Complain about this comment
as much as the bbc is good value for money, is it fair to be charged for programmes being sold on?
don't some countries view bbc programmes for free? why do we have to pay, then other countries have it free?
i have to say the bbc have some excellent programmes but are low budget compared to the competition.
what would be wrong with a smaller fee per tv in each house i.e £30 per tv. If their are tv enthusiasts they can pay for it, i don't want to subsidise high users and I don't use the radio or iplayer.
Complain about this comment
There's a bizarre logic going on in some of these posts. The idea that the license fee we pay is only worth it if we enjoy the whole of the BBC output. According to an alarming number of correspondents if we only use a proportion of that output then we should only pay a proportion of of the fee. This mentality is embarrassing. It shames us as a nation that such tight fisted people display their meanness so proudly. So, do these people feel that they should pay less tax because they don't use every public service the state or local authorities have to offer? Do they demand a rebate on their NI because they didn't get ill last year? Do they write to Murdoch and demand a rebate on their Sky subscription because there's a premiership team they never watch or some movies they didn't catch? Do they only put half the cost of a newpaper down on the newsagent's counter because they never read the sport or financial sections? It's a completely bogus logic which says more about the person who expresses it than the integrity or the value for money offered by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely nothing, as what I do watch are the channels I pay Virgin Media for. Why should I have to pay twice ? 38p a day is over £2 a week for a service that I only use about 40 % of. Scrap Radio 1, there are a whole host of better commercial stations, and get rid of over-paid so-called celebs like Wossie, Wogan and all the so called specialist correspondents on BBC News. There are too many of them.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the BBC is it's bureaucratic arrogance. Inasmuch that it continues to live on it's past reputation for excellence and high standards and considers itself above any criticism. Have you ever complained about anything only to receive some condescending and patronising reply.
It believes it has a divine right to receive ever increasing amounts of tax payers money to indulge it's various whims and pay outrageous salaries to an increasing amount of so-called celebrity broacasters, presenters, so-called entertainers and rubbish entertainment. ( I wont mention Ross and Brand).It derides it's commercial rivals but at the same time seeks to compete with them for the cheap end of the entertainment market.
It has become a PC left wing organisation, particularly in it's news coverage. For example Today on Radio 4, it's coverage of the Middle East and recently the American election. It is a proponent for evolution, global warming and all of the trendy liberal issues and points of view. And why exactly do I need 24 hr news? Even period costume drama has begun to descend into a revisionist, dumbed down soap.
And how much does it spend on trails promoting it's own programming?
It's time it was broken up into categories and we could then pay for what we wanted to watch or listen to. I for one wouldn't want to pay to watch so-called entertainment such as the rubbish served up on a Saturaday night and East Enders etc.
It has become like the NHS. Yes we need it but it needs a radical overhaul and no longer truly serves the public as it was originally set out.
As I watch very little TV and listen to even less radio I would be willing to pay £100 pa for it. In it's present form. It would then be forced to address it's programming priorities and staffing levels.
Complain about this comment
One of the biggest problems I have with the license fee is the "We know where you are" type of threatening adverts. Yes I know some people do not pay the license fee, in the past the method was to persuade and cajole people into paying by pointing out the benefits we all received. The tone of the adverts is now pay up or else!!!
I along with many others find this offensive and at the same time indicative of the contempt with which the BBC holds it viewers
Complain about this comment
I don't mind paying a licence fee if was used wisely. The NHS, Local Authorities and other taxpayer funded bodies are all strapped for cash and have to tighten their belts yet the BBC seem to have carte blanche in doing what they want and, more importantly, paying highly inflated salaries to "stars" who are not very entertaining! So what - let them go to ITV for more money.
Complain about this comment
The anger in me toward the antics of the BBC including its far left bias makes me want to say I do not want to pay any licence fee. The sensible part of me accepts that this would be a mistake therefore I believe the way forward is for the BBC to change its whole approach and go back to its core value of quality programmes without political bias. In addition it should not try to compete with the commercial world in Sports coverage and paying grossly inflated fees to mediocre people such as Jonathan ?Tosh?.The local programming should be developed and educational contributions such as understanding sound financial management and caring for children. I recall my French teacher saying ?this is how it should not be done? and then asking me to stand up. I suppose we could invite Gordon Brown to contribute on ?this is how it should not be done? and I will do the ?this is the way to do it?.
Complain about this comment
They do have truly outstanding orchestras but the television is largely rubbish. I recently complained about a show that stated that Greenwich was at 0 degrees latitude a mistake most 12 yr olds would be ashamed to make. I think the reason the quality is so appalling is that they don't have any commercial pressure to improve. It's amazing to me that people associate the BBC with pride in Britian. The BBC is one of the things about being British I'm most ashamed of. It's a complete embarassment.
Complain about this comment
sorry guys - £0
much the same as houses, cars etc - it's only worth what you are prepared to pay for it.
the BBC is a business but never seems to account to us the public - all we see is highly paid 'celebrities' and re-runs of dad's army'.
although the argument against the BBC is Sky TV but at least you have achoice to pay for Sky whereas the BBC is compulsory
I don't agree with the previous comments that say that the BBC is 'commercial free' - all I seem to hear and see is commercials on the BBC for Dr Who, BBC three, Chris Moyles, Merlin - they might not advertise anything else but a lot of time is spent advertising the BBC itself - which could be replaced with outside producs and reduce our licence fee.
BBC drama - please compare the quality of Bonekickers with Boston Legal, The Wire, even Family Guy and tell me which is worth paying for....
Complain about this comment
What people fail to realise is that advertising-driven TV is NOT free. We all pay for commercial TV via the products and food we all buy, not only that but we are also paying for the very expensive TV advertising industry! I suspect that the net cost to us for ITV/Ch4/Ch5 etc is far in excess of the BBC license fee, but with the added point that people have to pay whether they watch TV or not.
That said, I would prefer to pay for just the BBC radio service. Most BBC TV seems to have gone a little downhill, and in any case I seem to pay for the good bits of BBC TV by buying their DVDs when they are released.
Complain about this comment
It would be interesting to have someone compile an estimation of the cost built in to the price of good we buy that funds the so-called "free" channels such as ITV/Ch4/Ch5. I suspect that on average we each pay far more for the free channels than for the BBC fee. After all, it has not only to pay for the programs, but also fund an immensly expensive TV advertising industry.
Perhaps the BBC license is the most cost-effective method of funding after all!
Complain about this comment
...and another thing, why is the quality being driven down so much? The BBC used to have flagship ducumentaries and science programs (remember the early days of Horizon, or Tomorrow's World). Similar programs I have watched recently have been more of an attempt at "style" over content, with deliberate camera shaking, intentionally amateurish zooming in and out and focus shifting, silly pointless soundtrack, and over-dramatic narration. And trivial points stretched out to pad out the programme, then repeated several times just to add insult to injury.
Painfull to watch, in fact, and I have rarely stuck with one more than ten minutes even when the subject was one that interested me greatly.
Once people the likes of David Dimbleby are gone, the loss of their influence for quality of content and of presentation will mean there may be very little worth watching on BBC TV
Very sad indeed.
Complain about this comment
I would happily pay the licence fee (if I wasn't at uni and therefore don't have a TV) - you just have to compare the BBC to ITV to see the difference.
Complain about this comment
looking at alot of the comments it seams as though most of you will be happy to pay more for less content, are you mad.
i am tired of paying for a few tv channels and i don't listen to the radio the bbc have been riping us off for longer than i can remember, i don't have to pay for ITV, Channel 4 or Channel 5 as they are self subsidised and i don't have access to freeview and get all my tv viewing through Virgin Media at a high cost.
Complain about this comment
I would be very happy to stop paying a licence fee and to carry on having my television and radio but without the BBC channels, it wouldnt impact on me at all and would save me a fair bit of money.
Complain about this comment
I would have no problem paying a license fee if the BBC were impartial and so offered a balanced source of information for anyone in the UK.
But it doesn't. Not only is there a complete lack of impartiality in the BBC's reporting their isn't even any diversity in opinions of journalists.
This is mainly due to the BBC only placeing job adverts in the guardian, why is that? Could it be that guardian readers are likely to make journalists that tow the BBC's left wing agenda?
Ironically given the BBC's extreme left wing stance on most issues you would expect it to be all for 'diversity' but it seems the BBC thinks diversity comes from people who look different but all think the same.
I would argue i could fill a room with far more diversity than the BBC could only using people who all had the same coloured skin, ironic isn't it?
A good example of this inherant bias was the recent U.S elections where the BBC virtually created a barrack Obama party politcal broadcast for the weeks leading up to election day, i would assume to attempt to sway U.S voters who the BBC hope look to the BBC for reliable news, how wrong they are.
James Whale lost his job when he told voters in the London Mayoral elections to vote for Boris johnson yet the BBC are far more guilty of being pro Obama during the U.S elections. I just don't know how they get away with it.
And then of course their is the Israel question, bias BBC reporting makes it seem as though no Palestinian has ever fired rocket or blown themselves up and are purely victims of Jewish dominance. Hence the Balen report a report that shows this bias and a report that the BBc have used large amounts of our money to fight against despite the fact the report used the freedom of information act to get its information and despite the fact the BBC uses the freedom of information act itself all the time in its reporting.
The BBC is a disgrace and in its current form has absolutely no right to a penny of my money, it doesn't represent me its not impartial and it has an agenda.
Complain about this comment
I'm quite happy to pay for the excellent Radio and (slightly) above average TV from the BBC.
Presumably if ITV get their way and manage to 'steal' a percentage of the license fee to make up for lost advertising revenue during the current economic down turn -they will be happy to pay the same percentage back to the BBC when the economy picks up again! Some how I doubt it!!
And for all those who claim that they don't have to pay for ITV, actually you do, its just that the money is paid by the advertisers from the money that they put onto every item you buy!
Complain about this comment
By any standards, the licence fee is excellent value for money even taking into account the rubbish that is also put out. It must be remembered that the BBC's programs are revered and respected the world over, witness the awards they continue to gain. It's news gathering, conflict and political analysis is second to none and is at the forefront of broadcast media anywhere. Many countries that receive the BBC's news censor or delay transmission simply because their politicians fear criticism or don't want their people to know the truth. As a pensioner, I will gladly pay whatever licence fee is determined and if anyone pooh pooh's that, I challenge them to watch or listen to broadcasts in other countries, then comment.
Complain about this comment
"I just can't think how anyone can object to paying a mere 38p a day for all the BBC provides."
Because we are FORCED to pay it.
I think the BBC is worthy, and would voultarily pay a max of about £10 per month, I already choose to pay more for Sky
But, that's the point, I can make a choice about sky, or virgin, or whatever else, I have NO choice but to pay for the BBC.
Complain about this comment
The archaic license tax, sorry, license fee should be scrapped. It is a relic from a bygone era.
The BBC should move with the times, and start gaining their revenue via advertising, the same as everyone else has to.
I do not watch much BBC television, as these days the BBC appears to be nothing more than a mouth for liberal/left political agendas, which I have to say makes me feel sick.
Complain about this comment
I do not own a television or a radio, and I pay no license fee whatsoever. I often get letters about it, sometimes demanding money from me with menaces, which I put down to incompetence at the license fee department.
Any television I want to watch or radio that I want to listen to (which is altogether very little) I do so for free, by using the internet. I can download most HD content via torrents, and of course the BBC provides its radio and some tv content free of charge on the net anway. However, these "official" internet packages are often at very low quality, so I would rather opt for pirate torrents, which are usually at very high quality.
Complain about this comment
"I just can't think how anyone can object to paying a mere 38p a day for all the BBC provides."
I can. Many resent paying a TV tax for owning a television to watch ITV, Sky, CNN, Setanta, DVDs, Videos, etc, but not BBC.
Imagine if BBC made soap powder, and charged every owner of a washing machine £140 each year, even if they never used BBC's detergent! Nobody could possibly justify such a system, yet that's exactly the system we have with the TV licence.
Complain about this comment
I would watch it if its there and not if it isnt. I would like to say I'd pay lots because then perhaps the license fee would be dropped! But thats unlikely to happen.
The fact is, I'm single, I have to pay a full license fee and 90% I would never want to watch. Of the other 10% I would pay to watch 1%.
I dont pay for sky1, or any of the other channels.
So ideally I would like to pay as I watch. That would stop me from watching rubbish distracting me from the more healthy life! Might even buy a newspaper.
I think its a scandel that I have to pay the bbc to watch itv.
Complain about this comment
I don't want to pay a tax to watch my television and I don't like the BBC adverts which threaten people if they don't pay it. Even if I never watch the BBC I still have to pay the 'telly tax' - it's offensive and intrusive to tell people "We know where you are."
I would rather have the BBC as a commercial station - it would then have to pay its way rather than be given huge sums of money no matter how awful the output is.
Complain about this comment
Well, it's certainly isn't worth £139.50, the BBC needs to be cut back severely on all fronts.
The BBC is far too big, too many chiefs and far too greedy and the cost will only increase! This company never ever thinks twice about the unemployed or those on poor incomes and should be ashamed of themselves.
They are legalized robbers because you only need a license for the BBC, preventing many people from watching other stations, while they pay exortionate fee's to people like Jonathan Ross.
If the BBC went Pay Per View, boy they would be struggling to survive.
The BBC only owns the BBC and not the entire airwaves, the only answer is sell it off or go PPV, or at least produce TVs that do not tune to the BBC - this is bullying at it's best.
Sorry.... but the BBC didn't invent television either!
Complain about this comment
As someone who doesn't use any BBC services except the website (which has been greatly stripped down of late anyway) I would be willing to pay nothing.
I use nothing so why should I pay for everyone else? And why do people overseas get BBC services for free?
I do not listen to BBC radio, nor do I watch TV (bbc or otherwise). I DO own a TV of course as I have a Console and DVD player.
The BBC should have an opt out option (especially after the digital switchover). I would gladly lose access to all BBC channels.
Complain about this comment
If people think they are paying too much for the BBC, just look how much people pay for all the Sky rubbish. (I don't work for the BBC!)
Complain about this comment
I think £20 per year would be about right - enough to pay for Radio 4, Have I Got News For You and Mock The Week and to make sure the overpaid, unfunny waster Jonathan Woss isn't wetained a moment longer!
Complain about this comment
Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nought - and that would be too much. How about paying me?
Complain about this comment
I think £125 a year would be reasonable. For that I'd expect:
A top quality website with up-to-the-minute news coverage;
Content on iPlayer available for 2 weeks rather than just 1;
Consistently high quality television programs, rather than the occasional pearl shining through a mass of mindless dross that we currently get.
Complain about this comment
I don't think we should be paying anything for the BBC. If ever there was a case for privatisation, the BBC is it. It should be paid for through selling advertising like all the other broadcasters.
They carry on about "Public Service Broadcasting", but what does this mean? I've never read or heard a definition of it, and very much doubt that it would be convincing even if I did.
Complain about this comment
Having worked in the bbc and seen first-hand the waste, the jobsworths and croneyism I won't ever pay another penny. Good tv is still comissioned by the bbc but there are plenty of alternatives. Time for the dinosaur to be put in a museum.
Complain about this comment
What's wrong with the current funding model? It's not going to make me happy if TV on all channels gets littered with more and more adverts. So somewhere between £120 and £240 seems to be a fair price.
In an ideal world each channel would have a price, plus a basic charge for having the TV. So if I didn't watch BBC4 for a month I'd get a discount. I doubt we'll ever get that level of usage based pricing. (The current bundled channel packages pricing model is one of the reasons I refuse to have Sky. Don't want sport (especially not soccer), don't want films but I can't get the science and stuff without those.)
The thing that needs to be controlled is the excessive fees paid to B-list celebrities (for some reason Ross and his millions comes to mind). I don't mind paying, I do mind paying for crud.
It also strikes me as crazy the plan to move the BBC to Manchester, why is that money wasting still on the cards?
Complain about this comment
I am not sure if the UK is the only country that requires its citizens to pay for receiving news by television. My understanding there is a bill before Parliament to scrap the tv license fee by 31 December 2012 and I hope it becomes effective sooner. In my honest opinion I would not pay for the BBC due to its anti-American and Anti-Isarel bias in reporting. At the present time I believe the fee is too much and with the economic problems I hope the fee is reduced if not eliminated this year. Probably the most flagrant waste of money by the BBC besides paying all of the fines it has been hit was the 60th Anniversary Special dedicated to the birth of Israel. That special showed the BBC's anti-Israel bias by neglecting the fact that Israel before it became a country was acutually a terroritory of the UK, it neglected that Israel's neighbors swore its destruction, and neglected the proposal of the two state solution which was proposed by the UK though rejected by the Israel's Arab neighbours in 1937. In my opinion the time has come to make the BBC compete with other station by scrapping the license fee altogether.
Complain about this comment
I am more than happy to pay my licence fee, the current charge is not unreasonable and the quality of programmes is still far above any of the terrestrial or other competitors.
My only real gripe is that when I have paid my fee I want to be able to access the content, no matter when and no matter WHERE I am.
Every licence should come with an availability for me to view, as well as listen, when I am abroad.
The iPlayer is currently a waste of time for anyone out of the country for more than 7 days.
Why can I not pay in the UK, but access worldwide? Surely that technology is not beyond the BBC?
Complain about this comment
To have no adverts is such a joy.
One hour of so called "Freeview" will give a taste of what could be.
As for capping salaries then yes. There are only so many other places the "high earners" can go. So the argument that you pay the highest to get the best does fall away. If all the "best " went to the commercial area there would not be enough room for them.
Dare I say there are more things to cinsider than just money...
Complain about this comment
Having analyzed this week's output, I find it hard to see how the BBC's spending the 3.4 billion it raises.
The continuous TV output for this week, after eliminating repeats (ie already paid for), basically boils down to a continuous news stream, about a day's worth of heaviweight production and about the same of lightweight interviews.
To that we must add the radio output, which is, with the exception ofthe World Service which has separate funding anyway, predominantly fresh output.
The lightweight TV production is the work of a producer, a cameraman and a sound engineer, and should take maybe nine man-days work, travel time included.
The heavyweight TV production is the work of a producer, several scriptwriters, about a dozen performers, about the same number of technical crew, and a food wagon. It again is about 3 days' work for one days' output.
The output is the work of about five engineers, working shifts.
On the radio, it takes about five staffers to provide continuous cover for one post. To achieve the level of output takes about four posts, times
four channels means radio uses the serious work of around 2800 man-days per week.
Dividing the 3.4 billion gives a budget of 65 million a week. The weeks' output took about a maximum five hundred effective man-weeks. That either means an average cost of £130 000 per man-week, which is ridiculous - the only other conclusion to be drawn is there's huge amount wasted on inefficiency.
Complain about this comment
With today's technology it is easy to identify exactly what channels each person wishes to pay for, and they only then get that.
For example I would only pay for BBC1 and BBC2 as I do not watch BBC3 or BBC4. The internet and Radio I would continue to pay for as there would be no way I can see to track my usage, eventhough I only listen to Radio1 (not the other countless stations BBC has).
This would therefore reduce my fee, but if was finding I was struggling I could forego TV and reduce my fee temporarily.
Complain about this comment
I'm more than happy with the license fee system if it means we have some broadcasts and channels that are commerical free. We need spaces that don't bombard us with products. However, the BBC need to get back to the route of their public service broadcasting. The comedy output for example is a superb example of it, as are shows that are entertaining yet informative like Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe, but all these reality shows? They should be left to ITV to do, instead of using the licence fee in order to pedal Lord Webber's latest venture.
And one thing the BBC had better not do is try and force computers to have licence fees because of iPlayer. I'd rather have iPlayer as a fee based service you subscribe to individually, then be forced to pay extra because the BBC have decided to enter that realm.
Complain about this comment
I watch BBC News and 3 - 4 BBC TV programmes a week I know this means I am only paying a small amount per programme but look at the size of your audience and the police state way of making sure that it is paid, taking this into account I think you are overcharging, I would like to see one channel for sports only and one channel for all the best programmes and no sport then scrap all the rest and lower the licence to £50.
Complain about this comment
In its current form I object to paying anything at all for the BBC as it's a blatantly commercial enterprise and ought to funded as one i.e. pay per view/subscription channels, adverts etc.
However, get rid of anything that can be done equally well by a commercial organisation (e.g Radio1, some of Radio2, most of BBC1 and 2). Scrap the useless TV channels no-one watches and go back to being a quality public service broadcaster. As the BBC's income does not depend on audience numbers, the focus would then be exclusively on quality and not on ratings.
I'd then be prepared to pay a maximum of £100 per annum.
Complain about this comment
I believe there is a fairer system in which people are given the choice to subscribe to the BBC by paying a monthly or yearly fee to their service provider like they do in America for PBS. If they do not pay the fee then they cannot receive BBC programming. At a time when every pence counts paying a tv licensing fee is daft and it should be scrapped. For me I can think of a lot of things that my yearly tv licensing fee can buy. Hopefully this year BBC executives will freeze their pay and not take bonuses in order to keep the burnden off of the consumer.
Complain about this comment
I don't really watch a great deal of television (BBC or any other channel) so I do find the current fee excessive. However, I'd happily pay £50 a year for BBC radio and internet services and maybe a one off, pay-as-you-view fee to watch specific programmes.
Complain about this comment
For the most part, I like the BBC. Let's face it, it is a world class broadcaster and it is worth the current licence fee. However, I am getting a bit fed up with the obscene amounts being paid to some of its idiot presenters in the commercial areas (Ross, Brand, Wogan - by the way, did he do Children in Need for nothing this year?). I am also getting fed up with the obscenities that are becoming widespread and unnecessary in many BBC TV programmes. For these reasons and the fact that one also has to pay for cable or satellite charges to benefit from HD for example, then I would question having to pay at all.
If I could, I would like to pay for Radio separately. Radio 4 is outstanding and Radio 2 is pretty good too (when Ross and Brand aren't on it) and my children love Radio 1, as I did many years ago. £24 a year would be a good figure.
Complain about this comment
If the BBC is half as good as it thinks it is, it could change to a subscription service and enough people would subscribe to keep broadcasting.
I would not subscribe, as the BBC offers too little that interests me, and I would thus save £139.50 for which I receive nothing but which I have to pay under threat of imprisonment.
Complain about this comment
I would not pay anything, why should we ? what have people seen for their money over the years ? Not a lot to be quite frank except endless repeats and money wasted on overpaid Z list celebs like Jonathon Woss. Boring soaps like Eastenders which are very cheap tv to make and fill hours and hours which I dont watch. The BBC has next to no sportings rights inc premier league football and they put MOTD on at silly o clock so pointless and being honest how much bbc programming do people watch ? I for one can count 1 programme I watch on the bbc and certainly isnt worth being held to ransom for £160 a year for !! I would rather have all my BBC channels cut off and not pay anything. I hope theis lousy government do one good thing and axe the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
It's not how much I pay that worries me but what it's spent on, every person has his or hers opinion on what is worth while, however over inflated wages to pay for over inflated egos doesn't help in reducing the cost.
I like the Beeb for it's radio, yes I would say 70% of output is detritus to me but someone else is paying for the stuff I like R4/3 some comedy, drama etc.
Like it or loath it at least we have it! I do want a reduction of £3.65p since in their wisdom they took of the music that divided the world service from R4 in the mornings. That was my alarm call.
Complain about this comment
Please can you make it possible for overseas viewers/listeners to pay a licence fee?
Currently when I use the BBC website I have adverts on it, which are very annoying. I'd happily pay £50/year to have access to the site and streaming radio without adverts.
Complain about this comment
I have traditionally been a big supporter of the licence fee, but I'm beginning to have my doubts. The benefit - apart from keeping programmes free of adverts - is that the BBC should not be under the same commercial pressure as its broadcasting rivals. This should enable it to "take chances" with programming. I must stress I do not mean this in the sense of unacceptable or tasteless programming a la Ross and Brand, but in the sense that in order to be made a programme should not necessarily have to have demonstrable mass appeal. In such an environment, more niche and/or high quality programmes become possible.
In reality, the modern BBC do not take advantage of their unique funding stream, but instead simply pack their schedules with the same low quality drivel that the commercial broadcasters do. We can get this sort of stuff free by turning to ITV, so what are we continuing to pay the BBC for?
Complain about this comment
To subscribe to the TV, radio and web site I would happily pay £5 a week, which would be good value.
None of us is going to like every programme but so long as we like enough that's fine.
Complain about this comment
i dont mind the £12 per month as for what i do watch on the bbc is pretty ok. i have major issues though with some wages paid to so called celebs. Rdio 4 isnt my cup of tea nor is radio one, as its more about the over inflated ego's of its presenters more than the music, also they are too safe at time with music. i feel a full overhaul is required, too much flog it and old repeats which to be honest do not appeal to many viewers, i mainly watch sky, listen to xfm albeit the adverts wind me up, but it outweights the guff bbc1 show - i mean eastenders really is pretty bad
Complain about this comment
Whatever arguments are used to justify the licence fee, people should remember that the BBC sells its programmes and other rights around the world, which brings in vast sums of money. Therefore, there is no valid reason for continuing with the licence fee.
Complain about this comment
As i do not like or watch soaps,reality programs,very poor drama programs but I do like some nature and some drama programs(which are in VERY short supply).
£50 per annum would be my maximum.
Complain about this comment
I would be happy to pay a radio-only fee : RADIO 3 and 4 are worth it. The website is pretty good too, though how do you charge for something that is a www "broadcast"? Subscription fees?
I havent paid the TV licence fee for 25 years because I refuse to have a TV in my house that would just bring in a load of junk programmes, getting more junk by the year.
Complain about this comment
£10, biggest load of rubbish ever. If they got rid of their 'flagship show' Eastenders and put something original and credible with real actors, I'd consider paying more.
Complain about this comment
I am a reasonably successful writer! However I would be a great deal more successful (not to mention prosperous) if, every time someone purchase a book the law said they also had to pay for one of mine, irrespectove of whether they wanted to or not.
This, of course, is an absurdity but it is the logic that supports the TV licence.
Complain about this comment
I pay about what the biased Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is worth, balancing some good programmes against all the lefty propaganda, but that is because I am 81 years old!
Just as advertisers pay to have their message put on commercial television, so should the lefties somehow be made to pay for the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Is it really a case of how much I would pay for the BBC. I don't object to paying for the BBC but what I do object to is paying for a service I might not want.
If I sign up to, say Sky, I still have to pay the TV licence. The TV licence IS good value if you watch the BBC a lot but all I watch is the news and a few other programs.
I was signed up to Sky for a year at about double the cost of the BBC. I'd have signed up to their full package if I hadn't had to pay the licence fee. And to be really honest, when signed up, my viewing of BBC generated channels was very limited.
Sorry but it really is time the fee was scraped. Or at least have smart cards etc that enable the end user to have what they want and pay for it on a pay per view basis. That way the BBC can stay advert free and who knows, you might even find a worldwide audience that wants to pay too.
Complain about this comment
My wife and I think the BBC is great value for money which is proved by the fact that over 90% of our viewing is from the BBC. What is it about this country that we have to dumb down something until its gone and only then will it be missed. You can't even get a basic subscription from the other major provider for the monthly cost of a TV licence.
Complain about this comment
I'd happily pay double for TopGear, Life on Mars, Spooks and other good dramas & BBC 2,3 & 4
I'd expect a big fat refund for SCD, anything to do with toadying up to Andrew Lloyd Webber, Songs of Praise, The One Show, BBC Breakfast (Glad its not called "News" anyomre because its just one big plug for your Sat night shows.
I'd expect a double refund for moderation techniques on HYS. No left wing bias there then eh?
Complain about this comment
#207, I'm in a similar position, and I suspect there are quite a few of us. I haven't had a television for years and of course pay no licence fee.
I get U.S. dramas by bittorrent and watch a very few BBC programmes on the iPlayer. Anything I miss there can usually be found on bittorrent. You can play the resulting file on a media player suited to your OS and in good quality. I acknowledge that the iPlayer is a great achievement in its way but it's not the best TV experience you can have on your computer. Meanwhile I have a friend who simply goes to the BBC binary newsgroups. If I wanted to watch more telly I'd be curious to find out about non-English programmes, and the internet is the best place for that.
So I doubt I'd pay a licence fee for television. Sport might be an attraction, but there's less and less on terrestrial. Actually you can generally find that on the internet. With other programming, it's clear the BBC tailors some output slightly for the U.S. market. That's fine, but I wouldn't like to pay for it unless I actually lived over there. This trend hasn't gone unnoticed across the Pond incidentally, where I have relatives.
I'd consider paying for BBC radio. The wannabe tendency is less evident and the output is generally great, particularly on 3 and 4. If the licence fee goes then hopefully BBC radio would be remodelled into something like the also excellent NPR. Any subscription element would be fine by me.
Complain about this comment
I say about half of what we currently pay now would be more than enough. Even so, i don't think the public should be forced to pay what is essentially a tax on having a t.v. I am forced to pay for a licence even if i never watch any of the B.B.C. Make it subscription and show the occassional advert to make up the shortfall in the predictable drop of subscribers.
Complain about this comment
£1200 per year seems about reasonable, that's £100 per month, so about £3.30 per day. Considering we get iPlayer, the website, TV, Match of the Day, the Rugby, many interesting Documentaries, and many other things as well.
Complain about this comment
I would pay nothing. Seems to me that most people here are happy paying a license fee just to avoid adverts. Well I'm not one of them. This is a capitalist society where essentially the best product, based on its merits succeeds and BBC is not worth it. I'm aware I fund other channels by buying products they then use to advertise but that is my choice. To be threatened with jail for not funding a TV channel which only acts as a sounding board to Lefties stinks. To anyone who thinks BBC is in the same ilk as NHS, social services ie a neccesary public function or institution worthy of compulsory funding, then you are deluded. When the main News channel instructs it staff to label islamic terrorists 'millitants', gives sole airtime to only one candidate in the US elections and introduces feminism to a 'factual' tv drama set 300 years before the concept was even dreamt of, then its clear that there is an agenda for a few paid for by the majority. As a white, hetrosexual male, there is virtually nothing on tv aimed at my audince except top gear and MOTD. So in summary £110 per month for roughly 6 hours of shows i actually watch is not worth it. BIN THE BEEB!!!!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I would willingly pay £100 per annum for Radio 4 alone.....
Complain about this comment
£ 15 to £ 20 per Month ' provided ' the money does not go on Higher pay packets for Ross and Co.
Overall the BBC is Fantastic value but there is no justification paying massive pay packets to certain ' stars '
I would like to see more money paid to BBC7 { now called BBC Radio 7 } and Radio 4 they both do a fantastic job { as well as this BBC World service }
I mainly watch BBC Two BBC Three and BBC Four so love not having to endure Commercials
As I live on my own I pay the exact same price as a family of ten { or more } so it would be a lot more fair if they scrapped the direct license fee and put 1/2 a penny on Income Tax { or whatever it works out at } and this would have a knock on effect as there would be no need to hunt out evaders as everyone would be taxed on a pro rata basis.
So funding through general taxation should be fairer for everyone.
Complain about this comment
£20 per month once their house is in order.
Thin out all the newscasters. The 24 hr news channel could provide all bulletins for TV and radio.
Scrap Radio 1 and all local stations. The pap that these churn out are well covered by commercial radio.
This would save millions.
Divert some of these funds to Radio 4. Extend listen again coverage so they can stop repeating on me!
Complain about this comment
Happy to pay, but as a careful C-------n I won't put a figure on it. Why do you meddle, time & again? A licence is a thistle, by any other name! Just leave it be. My BBC is 1, & 2 (largely Paxman @ 10.35), News 24, Parliament Channel (to monitor the activities of the incumbent lunatics), Radio 4, the World Service, and the Website. I know I daren't mention the word God, so, Heaven Forbid I must suffer adverts, no way, at all , EVER. Get shot of Radio 1, all the Brands and Ross's, but, please, keep the Glossy Posse.
Complain about this comment
I would only be willing to pay for those programmes that I watch and given the amount of rubbish dross and repeats that the BBC is currenty putting out I guess I would owe you about £5.00 per annum.
If you are going to show repeats make sure that they are not repeats of repeats of repeats.I guess I now know all of the scripts of Dad's Army etc etc off by heart.
Complain about this comment
Quite frankly I am not impressed with certain aspects of the BBC.
1. Some of the salaries paid to so called celebrities are absolutely extortionate.(£6 million annually cannot be justified for one particular so called personality).
2. Some of the salaries paid to some BBC staff are also too high.
3. It appears that the BBC has taken on the mantle of becoming responsible for defending the Labour Party. It may be because many of your staff have obvious socialist leanings; but they should remember under the BBC Charter, they have a duty to remain neutral.
Unfortunately, their Labour support has become too overt in recent years and upsets many viewers and listeners who are not socialists. (Remember only 32% voted Labour at the last G.Election).This fact has been noticed by all the other political parties and they will certainly consider taking action when Labour lose the next General Election.
4. Should this attitude continue, there is a ground swell of opinion growing in the country for removal of The Royal Charter from the BBC.
5.Removal of the Charter will negate the need for a Licence fee.
6. The Board of Trustees under the Chairmanship of Lyons, does not seem to be doing an effective job in giving guidance. Standards in public broadcasting have drastically fallen in the last two years. This must not be allowed to continue.
7. Right now, a reduction of at least 50% in the licence fee would necessary to placate adverse public opinion anout the BBC.
8. In the difficult times of this awful credit crisis, the BBC licence fee is seen by many as a tax, not a licence for pleasure and interest.
I hope you will take onboard my comments because there is a great possibility the BBC will lose its Charter.
Complain about this comment
I don't have a TV so I don't pay for a licence, but would happily pay for the website, iPlayer and radio stations 2, 4 and 6.
I think a monthly fee for these would be better rather than an annual licence. I'd happily pay £10 a month just for the non-TV services, it's good value. But as other posters have said, stop paying people exorbitant wages such as the amount paid to Jonathan Ross, he is barely worth a fraction of the obscene amount his contract gave him. I'd rather than money went on the wesbite and the iPlayer content!
Complain about this comment
A stupid question as no one wants to pay for anything.
-oOo-
But good points -
I access the BBC through the TV, radio and internet probably every day.
I am satisfied that my children do not watch the tripe on some of the commercial channels.
I have practised my french for my holidays.
AND no adverts.
Absolutely worth the money I am forced to pay.
Needs to be more eclectic and eccentric
Negatives -
Too many repeats, repeats, repeats and reruns, watch agains, classics etc.
People do not just watch telly in the winter. Have some decent programmes on over the summer.
-oOo-
And the comparison with commercial tv?
Free - declining quality due to dilution of advertising over 100's of channels.
Subscription - Every increasing multiplication of channels to try and suck more and more money out of people. I can remember when there was not umpteen sports and film channels.
PLEASE DO NOT FUND from taxes or adverts it would only get worse
TV Licence BBC may not be the best solution but it is the best of the solutions so far provided. If we did not have it what would commecial tv measure itself against?
So worth the full licence
Complain about this comment
I live outside the UK and would happily pay the existing license fee to be able to access not only BBC radio via the I-Player (thank you thank you thank you for that!) but - oh joy - BBC tv too. I am sure I can't be the only ex-pat/anglophile who would be up for this - so may I suggest a parallel survey? How many people outside the UK would be willing to pay the license fee (or some other fee) for the privilege of having BBC tv?
(And please, don't even mention BBC Prime...)
Complain about this comment
Thirty-five years ago, if you criticised BBC television in public (in a pub or at work), a good proportion of those you were talking to would disagree with you. Nowadays, that same criticism is almost unanimously supported.
It seems the only friends the BBC have are those on its payroll.
Complain about this comment
I think the BBC's monopoly of the License Fee has lead to corruption through out the Corporation; not necessarily financial, but certainly an unacceptable culture of staggering arrogance and disregard for good taste amongst other issues has been allowed to develop unhindered.
Time for the BBC to be broken up, it is long past its prime. It no longer serves to inform and entertain, instead it is a self propelling monopoly that bites the hand that feeds it.
I think the licence fee should go the same way as the BBC; time for Government funding to be distributed amongst all broadcasters for PBS obligations - there is a lot to be said for not having the Government finance broadcasters directly, but look what happens when there is a lack of control. Good commercial values would fix the BBC.
Complain about this comment
Why should the people of the UK fund the world wide use of the BBC website? Why should we fund services for English speakers in Dubai or Peru? Why should we fund BBC America? The only thing the license fee should be used for is for the 2 terresttial TV chanels, and possibly News24. And even those are debateable.
Complain about this comment
Someone (Near the top) said we don't pay for ITV, why pay for the BBC? Has anyone ever counted up what proportion of a shopping bil goes on advertising which in turn supports all non-BBC stations along with printed press? It must be a frightening sum.
I don't grudge the total figure of the license fee but I do like the idea of paying for what I actually watch or listen to, to be able to say "None of my money is going to make up J.Ross's £18m" would be quite wonderful.
Complain about this comment
I have no problem with the licence fee if it is used correctly. Insteasd of showing endless programmes about, huge people, chefs, eating disorders and general freakish behaviour, we should be making more documentaries like Planet Earth, evolution, discovery, real world things that are worth knowing about. The BBC is full of useless programmes that aren't worth even 1p a year.
The biggest insult to licence fee payers is the extreme left wing bias in the BBC, especially the BBC News. People from all political backgrounds pay for the BBC and it is wrong for the BBC to then push one political view point. The BBC acts as the Labour party's media arm. It attacks the Conservative party at every chance it gets, it uses language that creates negative images in its headlines and it drags out non stories... But, it does not do this to Labour, it gives then an easy ride, doesn't ask difficult questions of Ministers and allows them to get away with the most unspeakable acts in a modern democracy. I dont want the BBC to lean centre-right at all, I only want it to be centre. The fact that we all pay for it means it should represent us all.. Taking our money to push a view is corrupt and the BBC Trust should make dealing with this their top priority.
If I came to power, I would tell the BBC that either is fixes this or I will remove a portion of its funding to go to a new TV organisation that is balanced in the opposite view. That would be fair. Then every year it doesn't fix its game, another chunk of funding would go to the second company. This would go on until the money was split equally between them. If the BBC did put this offence right, both companies would then merge and the BBC would be able to run as it should.
About 8 out of 10 BBC reporters are left wing. We need to get it down to 5 out of 10, otherwise we should get our money back.
Complain about this comment
At the end of this year we are getting rid of the TV. Over the years we have have found less and less worth watching, indeed we now watch only about half a dozen programmes a week, of which, only two are on the BBC. I would be happy to pay for what I watch but with the pathetic state of television as a whole, this would not be much.
Complain about this comment
Nothing.
The BBC ought to be able to get full funding from the CIA, since it relentlessly rebroadcasts the CIA's views.
Complain about this comment
I am happy paying the current fee.
However, I would like to pay less on the basis that I don't watch a great deal of the populist programming. If a non-news programme has high ratings, then it typically does not appeal to me.
I would like it if at least one BBC TV channel tried to produce high-quality pogrammes; that is, programmes which are worth viewing several times. Examples: 'Bremner, Bird and Fortune', Niall Feguson's 'The Ascent of Money', and Alain de Botton's 'The Consolations of Philosophy', all broadcast on Channel 4.
If the BBC could match Channel 4 on this, and even exceed it, I would be happy to pay more for it.
The advent of the iPlayer should lead programme makers to take a fresh look their audience and to produce more challenging programmes.
Complain about this comment
There are actually at least two 'state owned' broadcasting organisations in the UK: the BBC and Channel 4. The World Service might be a third (really a 'commissioned service'), maybe and BBC Worldwide which is owned by the Corporation though independent (Brits can only see it on holiday!!) and some countries have a special version like BBC America...... all advertising funded. Channel 4 have withdrawn from radio which is a pity: otherwise there could be a real choice..... the BBC and Channel 4 with Channel 4 partly funded a proper Public Service remit directly out of taxation
The capitalist sector is ITV and Sky and some minnows.
There are probably room for only two broadcasting 'platforms' in the UK and I suspect they are BBC/Channel 4 and ITV /Sky. They would have as many channels as they like. They would be funded by advertising, some tax money and subscription PER CHANNEL if not by programme. This would include charging for catch up (the iPlayer etc).
So come 2012 I was expect to pay NOTHING for a licence and maybe a lot more for programmes like premier league supporter3 do now.(up to £400pa)
There would of course be no duty to educate or entertain only to 'balance news' and, only the other current legal constraints on content.
Complain about this comment
We are lucky to have the BBC. If we did not have it, we might end up with privately owned, mainly heavily politically biased TV, like that in the USA.
The BBC should work to maximise its audience worldwide, in accordance with its motto. It would be worth a larger fee, say £200 per annum, to facilitate this.
The BBC should certainly make iPods available internationally, even if this means that they would have to reduce their charges for foreign use of their material.
Complain about this comment
Nothing - the BBC should go cap in hand to the Labour party for its funding and not expect us license payers to fork out for unbridled Labour party propaganda. Virtually all programmes are slewed towards the left - we need an urgent purge of all BBC ranks to assure a fair unbiased coverage of topics especially the news. Long since are the days when the BBC was regarded as a great British institution - unfortunately the current regime have brought it into serious disrepute. There is far too much nepotism and patronage between BBC and government ranks.
Complain about this comment
I don't object to the license fee but I do object to the BBC's paying £6M to one artist - not just Mr Ross. Let the commercial companies have them, and don't bother about competing for that sort of expensive talent.
Complain about this comment
I understand that the BBC now receives over 3 £Billion from the licence fee.
And yet, a quick look through the Radio Times shows that around 80% of programs are repeats.
They admit that over 50 employees are on over a £million per year. (to do 20% of programs??)
And a public service?
Why are all of the taxpayer funded, (to the tune of £ 150 million per annum), government adverts shown ONLY on the independent channels, not the BBC?
It seems to me that the BBC has grown into "the elephant in the room".
It no longer serves the public, only itself.
Complain about this comment
Twenty five years ago, my elderly mother, who did not have television, suffered from the same sort on harrasment described by your listerner. This caused her a great deal of distress until I wrote threatening to SUE. This worked she had no more problems.
Complain about this comment
The chap who has been plagued by TV licencing cowboys for 25 years...
Do as I do. Keep all their letters by the front door, held together in a rubber band. When an "investigation officer" pushes his card in your face, present him with the wodge of letters and tell him to take them away, as you have no need of them.
I also each time present the man (once a woman) with a "statement", (keep it in the rubber band) which reads as follows:-
_________________________________
COPY OF STATEMENT ISSUED ON...(Date of last but one visit)
RE-STATED ON....(date of last visit)
Address...
Date to be added by recipient......( I shall keep a note)
T.V. Licencing.
My existence, even the existence of this house, is none of your business UNTIL such time as I might choose to operate television receiving equipment on the premises.
Should I ever decide to do so, then, and only then will I give any thought to the consideration of obtaining a television licence.
And No, You do not have my permission to search my house
The Occupier.
__________________________________
So far, they have always taken away their rubbish.
have fun,
Bob
Complain about this comment
I agree with Pete Landells. That the BBC terestial is not mainly worth watching.
I too have not paid for a TV licence for almost ten years now.
Even though I informed licencing that I would not renew due to the fact that it had broken and I was in the first year at University; I get many threatening letters as there is no record of a licence at my address, and to be interview under a police act.
I have not replaced the TV.
I have had two unanounced visits form licencing, the first I was in and the ID card was flashed at me, presumably these people do not want to be identified.
On both occasions they did not even have the decency to knock on the front door but use the back garden as a way in!
I think that the BBC spends too much time on regular sport. Anti social behavoiur is broadcast on programmes like soaps eg. Eastenders.
Remember that for ten years I only see these programmes occassionaly at friends homes.
I see domestic violance becomming the norm (made acceptable!), on the TV and those watching on a regular basis are behaving badly, even speaking badly, I wonder why?
Full praise to the BBC RADIO, Radio 4 of course!
Complain about this comment
Forgot to say...The letters are returned un-opened
Bob
Complain about this comment
The short answer is ... nothing.
I have always been a strong supporter of the BBC and a lot of what it does is excellent. But recent events have changed my mind. I really, really object to millions of pounds of licence payers' money being spent on self-satisfied so-called 'celebrities' like Jonathan Ross to get away with completely unacceptable behaviour on air. I am amazed he wasn't immediately sacked. After all, what is a multi-million pound salary supposed to buy? Instead I understand his company is currently receiving huge payments of licence payers' money in 'compensation' until he returns to the air in the new year. I have considered withholding my licence fee but of course I do not have that option. Where is the accountability to licence payers for the money we are forced by law to pay?
There is a lot the BBC does that is completely unnecessary and unsuitable for a 'public service' broadcaster - for example, why do we need the BBC to provide Radio 1, a lot of the TV output and so on.
Increasingly too the world has moved on and it is now possible to watch all BBC output on the internet without having a TV at all. Will a licence be introduced for internet connection? No, the licence has become an anachronism.
Like your other listener, at the times in my life I have decided to do without a TV I have been pursued and treated very aggressively by the TV Licensing people. This is another unacceptable face of the current system. People should not be constantly forced to justify their decison not to have a TV.
So I have come round to the view that the BBC should be run as a membership organisation - members could then decide what sort of output should be funded by their membership fees - which of course would be voluntary. And no-one would be forced to fund Jonathan Ross or Russell Brand any more.
Complain about this comment
I really don't watch television any more, if there is something good on, I wait for the DVD and buy that.
Radio 3/4/5 interest me and I would pay for those, happily, as long as the endless accursed trails are reduced, for they are a POX.
I would pay one hundred pounds per year to be able to listen to the output of R3/4/5 on the internet.
brendan (atlanta-mostly)
Complain about this comment
My BBC TV viewing ranges between 1 hour a week to about 4 hours(at the moment it seems the few things worth paying for are all being broadcast currently).
My radio 4 listening a few hours a day.
I listen to more radio in the week than watch TV output in total (ITV - zero, Ch5 - 0, Ch4 - maybe 1 hour a week at certain times of the year).
Dave/ITV4 - a few hours a week(old re-runs of still great drama).
How much would I pay? The full amount if they stopped trying to be hip and trendy and not put visual flashiness above programme content on the TV.
At the moment, about £60...but only if they don't get rid of the stuff I watch and listen to...and isn't that the crux? Can you be sure your programmes wouldn't get axed? Though they wouldn't get rid of Today and PM, and Top Gear makes so much money for the Beeb that woudn't go so £60 it is.
Complain about this comment
kingjohnwood wrote:
"Increasingly too the world has moved on and it is now possible to watch all BBC output on the internet without having a TV at all. Will a licence be introduced for internet connection? No, the licence has become an anachronism."
Your current licence DOES cover watching the BBC output over the internet. So you could be prosecuted if you got rid of your TV but continued to watch BBC (or any TV output) via the internet when they are being shown 'live'.
Watching via i-player 'on-demand' does not require a licence.
Complain about this comment
On Breakfast TV this morning: an advertisement for a BBC radio, interviews with Spooks star and that dancing show. Not only is this not a news show its certainly not commercial free. If we allow ourselves to be forced to pay for this crap we don't deserve any better.
BBC appeals to the lowest common denominator. It couldn't become any worse if funding was removed.
Complain about this comment
What sort of question is this? It must surely be obvious that the BBC would not exist in its current form if the licence were to be abolished.
Whatever the proposed funding feasible options may be, voluntary contributions from PM blog aficionados is unlikely to fill the gap.
Complain about this comment
I'm happy to pay the licence fee: I can't stand advertisements on TV. If I'm ever watching a commercial channel, and my programme is interrupted by adverts, then I switch over. I'm therefore so glad to watch programmes on the BBC which I can enjoy without interruptions.
I do, however, have a suggestion for all the people who want to see the licence fee abolished. All the "reality" and "celebrity" television programmes can be relegated to a special channel just for those people - leaving the rest of the licence payers to enjoy proper comedy, drama and documentaries!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS