The BBC  permalink

licence fee

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 50 of 274
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by scott (U15795483) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Why r we forced to pay a licence fee even when u do not use bbc services.
    We r told to pay for a licence or b fined.I thought we lived in a country where we can choose if we want to buy something or not.I will never pay for a licence as i dont use any bbc services and i wil not pay fines for crimes iv not committed.I will go to jail every time if i have to before i pay the bbc 1 penny of my money and there r plenty more like me.
    The bbc need to wake up and come in to the 21st century and earn their own money like every other tv channel because the licence fee is the way a dictatorship works "PAY FOR OUR COMPANY OR GO TO JAIL" come on bbc get a grip

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    You are using a BBC service when you use this message board.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by zen cat (U14877400) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Although you might not use any BBC services, there's no doubt that the other broadcasters in the UK are of a much higher standard in their efforts to compete. In other countries, the standard of television is truly abysmal.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Actually, you do not go to jail for not paying the Licence fee. You only go to jail if, under certain circumstances, you refuse to pay a court imposed fine.

    The television licence is a general broadcast receiving licence which has been in existence since well before the BBC was in existence. The monies go into a government contingency fund, from which the BBC get whatever has been agreed in the relevant settlement.

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by susie-summershere (U10941938) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Yesterday I went to a BBC funded CBBC event with my grandchildren it was brilliant and free, for people on limited income who can't afford theme parks to have something like that was a use of the licence fee people don't see, everybody pays for TV and radio in some way be it advertising premiums on products or subscription I know which I think is best value for money

    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by Technicolour (U4590479) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Yesterday I went to a BBC funded CBBC event with my grandchildren it was brilliant and free, for people on limited income who can't afford theme parks to have something like that was a use of the licence fee people don't see, everybody pays for TV and radio in some way be it advertising premiums on products or subscription I know which I think is best value for money  It's a government tax. The licence is to watch TV whichever channel you watch. The fact that the government use some of the tax to fund the BBC is irrelevant.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by susie-summershere (U10941938) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    It's not a tax it's a public service broadcsting licence most countries have one

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Rosemary (U7231409) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Oh, for heaven's sake. Talking of getting a grip ...

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Sunday, 21st July 2013

    Why r we forced to pay a licence fee even when u do not use bbc services? 

    You aren't. You only need to pay a licence fee if you watch live broadcast TV.
    Perhaps you were thinking of ITV? Unlike the BBC, there's no way to avoid paying for other people to watch ITV even if you never watch it yourself. And a programme minute of "free to air" commercial TV costs you about the same as for the BBC.

    Apparantly, If I try to escape this ITV tax by, for example, not paying for a packet of washing powder now and again, I can go to jail! How outragous is that!

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 9.

    Posted by Annie-Lou est Charlie (U4502268) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Why r we forced to pay a licence fee even when u do not use bbc services? 

    You aren't. You only need to pay a licence fee if you watch live broadcast TV.
    Perhaps you were thinking of ITV? Unlike the BBC, there's no way to avoid paying for other people to watch ITV even if you never watch it yourself. And a programme minute of "free to air" commercial TV costs you about the same as for the BBC.

    Apparantly, If I try to escape this ITV tax by, for example, not paying for a packet of washing powder now and again, I can go to jail! How outragous is that! 
    Good point! And surely someone who can only communicate in text-speak does not own any thing so old-fashioned as a telly?? Isn't the OP watching on his smart phone or something?

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 10.

    Posted by BBC auto-messages (U294) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'BBC Television programmes' to 'The BBC'.


    Not about a specific programme, so moving to general BBC area.

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    It's not a tax 

    Yes it is.

    In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics [for accounting purposes] re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services... A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable”.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    The Income from the LF is paid to the consolidated Fund....

    The government who sets the LF then hands it over to the BBC - who have to apply it for a number of specific purposes
    - such as the 10% to Support Broadband rollout , and the two sets of £25M to help LOcal TV ...
    and now taking on the Funding of the BBC Worldservice.....
    and then what is used for BBC Domestic services - in TV Radio Web etc
    and certain other things that the BBC does as the leading cultural institution in the UK.

    It has not existing as long as the BBC - because the BBC Was a commercial Broadcaster - but it has been the way for funding the BBC since it was granted a Royal charter...

    Many have said that it is the least worse way of Funding the BBC but no one else has come up with the way of doing it .

    Ater all it is about a third of what UK households as a whole pay as an explicit fee for the provision of AV services in the home.......

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Bananas are the best (U15650112) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Sorry, what I meant was that the original statutory mechanism which underpinned the requirement for a licence was the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1904. That, in and of itself, would not necessarily have been used to fund the BBC.

    The first Broadcast Receiving Licences were introduced in November 1922 and were 10 shillings.

    www.bbc.co.uk/presso...

    en.wikipedia.org/wik...

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 9.

    All this user's posts have been removed. Why?

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 14.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    10 shilling then is roughly
    £ 21.30 using the retail price index and £84.20 using average earnings in 2010
    (Measruringworth.com )

    Looking at www.bbc.co.uk/aboutt... which has the 2010/11 figures

    BBC Radio now with 10 UK wide and 5 National and 40 LOcal stations cost about £13 a year ...

    BBC TV costs are About £100/year/ License..

    and the £2 cost of a TV Licence in 1946 is roughly
    £64.70 using the retail price index
    £177.00 using average earnings

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    BBC Radio now with 10 UK wide and 5 National and 40 LOcal stations cost about £13 a year ...
     

    Excellent vfm, well done Beeb smiley - ok.

    BBC TV costs are About £100/year/ License..
     

    So I have to pay a hundred quid a year to fund that load of tripe, give me a refund!! smiley - doh

    Seriously, it's time most of the BBC TV channels went subscription - their PSB content is virtually nil.

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by susie-summershere (U10941938) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    BBC Radio now with 10 UK wide and 5 National and 40 LOcal stations cost about £13 a year ...
     

    Excellent vfm, well done Beeb smiley - ok.

    BBC TV costs are About £100/year/ License..
     

    So I have to pay a hundred quid a year to fund that load of tripe, give me a refund!! smiley - doh

    Seriously, it's time most of the BBC TV channels went subscription - their PSB content is virtually nil. 
    Anyone can make the usual reactive "BBC is a load of tripe" comment it's so childish, watching the news alone costs less per day than a newspaper, wildlife programmes are second to none, childrens programmes excellent without resorting to cartoons for cheapness and drama without ads every 10 minutes is a joy. then you have radio, iplayer and internet all for less than the cost of the Daily Mail: think about it

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 18.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Err, I have thought about.
    If you'd read my post before replying to it, you might have noticed that I acknowledged BBC radio was 'excellent vfm' (value for money)..

    As for BBC TV, it is largely tripe - and more expensive than a Netflix sub.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Only in your opinion though.

    Millions of people in this country - and abroad - enjoy BBC programming, and it's widely considered to be some of - if not the - best in the world.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Only in your opinion though.

    Millions of people in this country - and abroad - enjoy BBC programming, and it's widely considered to be some of - if not the - best in the world. 

    Yes I'm sure that's right.

    So why can't the BBC stand on it's own two feet, without demanding money from those with who don't want its services?

    Why is the BBC afraid of the subscription model?

    I reckon the big-wigs think the licence fee is easy money, but they might have to up their game to attract subscribers.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Ah, it's not the BBC that decides whether there's a licence fee.

    It's the UK government who decides.

    Didn't you know that Huckerback?

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 22.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Err, I have thought about.
    If you'd read my post before replying to it, you might have noticed that I acknowledged BBC radio was 'excellent vfm' (value for money)..

    As for BBC TV, it is largely tripe - and more expensive than a Netflix sub. 
    Netflix obviously don't think that BBC progammes are tripe as they broadcast an awful lot of them. In essence it is a repeats service.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 24.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Furthermore the only new progamme broadcast by Netflix is based on a BBC progamme.

    Report message25

  • Message 26

    , in reply to message 22.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Ah, it's not the BBC that decides whether there's a licence fee.

    It's the UK government who decides.

    Didn't you know that Huckerback? 

    Yes Peta, I did know that. smiley - smiley

    The BBC lobbies to retain the licence fee.

    (Hopefully that much can be said here smiley - erm.)

    Report message26

  • Message 27

    , in reply to message 26.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Have you got a link that proves this as a fact or is it another of your 'personal views'?

    Report message27

  • Message 28

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Phil-ap (U13637313) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    The reason we have a licence fee is because elected governments over the years have decided that is how it should be. It's called democracy.

    Report message28

  • Message 29

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    One example is from then BBC Director-General Mark Thomson's 2010 MacTaggart lecture:

    "... do not believe anyone who claims that cutting the licence fee is a way of growing the creative economy or that the loss in programme investment which would follow a substantial reduction in the BBC's funding could be magically made up from somewhere else."

    Report message29

  • Message 30

    , in reply to message 28.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    The reason we have a licence fee is because elected governments over the years have decided that is how it should be. It's called democracy. 
    Democracy permits debate.

    Report message30

  • Message 31

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Every-time this question come up Huckerback there you are with your subscription model

    So come on tell us all how this would work, how much it would cost to set up and what the charge would be to the consumer

    At the moment I get quite a bit for my £145 per year-that is all the free to air tv-channels ,radio stations,web-sites etc can you scheme beat that?

    Report message31

  • Message 32

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    At the moment I get quite a bit for my £145 per year-that is all the free to air tv-channels ,radio stations,web-sites etc can you scheme beat that? 
    I'm happy you get quite a bit for you £145 - what do you say to those who don't?

    Report message32

  • Message 33

    , in reply to message 30.

    Posted by technologist (U1259929) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    The reason we have a licence fee is because elected governments over the years have decided that is how it should be. It's called democracy. 
    Democracy permits debate. 


    And as the BBC only exists for ten years at a time
    there is a formal process to decide if it should continue to exist
    and in what form ... Resulting in the charter and agreement .
    The agreement and LF can be altered by the government ..
    And parliament can also PSB's legislation affecting the BBC .

    Report message33

  • Message 34

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Monday, 22nd July 2013


    So why can't the BBC stand on it's own two feet, without demanding money from those with who don't want its services?

    Why is the BBC afraid of the subscription model?
     

    So why can't ITV stand on its own two feet, without demanding money from those who don't want its services?

    Why is ITV afraid of the subscription model?

    Report message34

  • Message 35

    , in reply to message 32.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    At the moment I get quite a bit for my £145 per year-that is all the free to air tv-channels ,radio stations,web-sites etc can you scheme beat that? 
    I'm happy you get quite a bit for you £145 - what do you say to those who don't? 
    So you answer a question with a question and so dodging the question.

    Good politician's answer

    What is the problem -don't you know the answer??

    Report message35

  • Message 36

    , in reply to message 31.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Every-time this question come up Huckerback there you are with your subscription model

    So come on tell us all how this would work, how much it would cost to set up and what the charge would be to the consumer

    At the moment I get quite a bit for my £145 per year-that is all the free to air tv-channels ,radio stations,web-sites etc can you scheme beat that? 
    Good idea.

    So Huckerback - what would you propose?

    A subscription fee? How much and what would it cover?

    TV - all 9 stations or would you cut some? Red button? Radio - all of the national stations, plus local radio? The website? BBC News? BBC weather? IPlayer? BBC Mobile? World Service?

    Why don't you pull your ideas together and start a new thread? That way people can share their views on your plan.

    We'd need to know how much the subscription fee would be and how many ads there would be if you were planning to have those in addition.

    This is what we have with costs at the moment.
    www.bbc.co.uk/aboutt...

    You'd also need to build in costs for collecting the subscription fees. Would the elderly still get it for free, or would they have to start paying?

    And what would it be? A public company? Board of Directors? Or some other structure?

    What would the main remit of this new organisation be?

    Report message36

  • Message 37

    , in reply to message 35.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    At the moment I get quite a bit for my £145 per year-that is all the free to air tv-channels ,radio stations,web-sites etc can you scheme beat that? 
    I'm happy you get quite a bit for you £145 - what do you say to those who don't? 
    So you answer a question with a question and so dodging the question.

    Good politician's answer

    What is the problem -don't you know the answer?? 


    What was the question?
    "...can you scheme beat that? " <---- was it this one??.

    The answer to that is I've no idea - depends on your tastes; but I'm trying to consider the matter from the pov of everyone, rather than a specific individual.

    On the matter of 'how would a sub service work' - I guess it could be similar to BBC America.
    (I think PSB programming would need specific funding, but it would probably be too small a budget to fund through a licence, the money could come from central taxation.)

    But I'm more concerned with the injustice (as I see it) of the licence fee, rather than whether it gives me personally VFM - you could search "adam smith funding the bbc" for a proper discussion of funding options, including subs.

    Report message37

  • Message 38

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by Peta (U24) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    BBC America?

    They show programmes made by the BBC - so who would make the programmes?

    What about all the other bits - radio, news, website, iPlayer. etc?

    Report message38

  • Message 39

    , in reply to message 1.

    This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the House Rules in some way.

  • Message 40

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    But I'm more concerned with the injustice (as I see it) of the licence fee, rather than whether it gives me personally VFM  

    Surely the injustice is far greater with ITV? At least the licence fee is optional and without one you can still watch tonight a travelogue about India, Univeristy Challenge, Only Connect and Burton & Taylor.

    There's no way I can avoid paying for ITV to produce its unwatchable staple of repeats and soaps. Seriously, is there anything at all on ITV1-4 tonight that you would consider viewing? (I literally have some paint drying in the hallway to which II would rather attend.) Why must my hard earned cash be used to generate stuff liket that?

    Report message40

  • Message 41

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    BBC America?

    They show programmes made by the BBC - so who would make the programmes?

    What about all the other bits - radio, news, website, iPlayer. etc? 
    To put it bluntly, Peta - I don't care. smiley - shrug

    I want to get the BBC of the backs of those who don't want it, but are forced to pay for it.

    If it can't find a way to survive after that, it'll be because it isn't as 'much loved' as it thinks it is. Not my problem.

    Report message41

  • Message 42

    , in reply to message 37.

    Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Huckerback, have you watched BBC America in the USA? If you have, how did you enjoy the commercials?. For myself, it was included in a PAID satellite package of mainly Discovery, and like programmes. The screening was shot through with commercials, if that's what you like, or can stomach, the BBC is certainly not for you.

    If it were not for the BBC in the UK the commercial channels would have a field day, commercials would be the main topic of entertainment or information.

    Report message42

  • Message 43

    , in reply to message 39.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    It probably feels like that because, from my perspective, I've tried explain
    (ooh - a trailer for Dara Ó Briain's Science Club - excellent news. No science on ITV of course) that it's ITV we're forced to pay for, not the BBC but with no response.

    Surely if you walk into a forum and start making factually incorrect statements, you might well expect to be enthusiastically corrected?

    Report message43

  • Message 44

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    There's no way I can avoid paying for ITV to produce its unwatchable staple of repeats and soaps. Seriously, is there anything at all on ITV1-4 tonight that you would consider viewing? (I literally have some paint drying in the hallway to which II would rather attend.) Why must my hard earned cash be used to generate stuff liket that? 
    ITV is a bit off-topic and two wrongs don't make a right and all that; but, at least, when you fund ITV, you get something in return - washing powder, or loo rolls or something else you actually want.
    The licence fee doesn't offer the same guarantee of getting anything worthwhile back - it could be money straight down the drain.

    Report message44

  • Message 45

    , in reply to message 38.

    Posted by rhmnney (U14528380) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Peta, was 'Footballer's Wives' a BBC production? Frankly, the offerings by my tastes, apart for the comedians 'BBC America' was the lowest form of entertainment I had ever experienced on TV, even when I used to watch American commercial channels, which I haven't watched in years since the number of American PBS stations has increased.

    Report message45

  • Message 46

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by Huckerback (U14411634) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    It probably feels like that because, from my perspective, I've tried explain... that it's ITV we're forced to pay for, not the BBC but with no response? 

    I have replied - but I'm being pre-moderated, hence the delay from my side.
    Sorry about that. smiley - blush

    Report message46

  • Message 47

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by puppydogeyes (U14659366) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    Huckerback

    Is there absolutely nothing at at all on the BBC that attracts you?

    Nothing at all?

    If that is the case -you are not forced to buy a tv licence,ditch the tv, watch odd bits on catch-up problem solved

    But you know all this already

    Report message47

  • Message 48

    , in reply to message 44.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    but, at least, when you fund ITV, you get something in return - washing powder, or loo rolls or something else you actually want. 

    I'm sorry, but that's exactly my point - I get LESS washing powder in return for my money. What I get more of is Emmerdale or yet another repeat of an American import.

    Since you accept this is wrong, perhaps we can agree that all television should be funded by subscription only? I'll pay the BBC for tonight's helping of Victoria Coren-Mitchell and you can pay the same amount of money for a "Murder Shw Wrote" rerun. We just pay for content we watch.

    Report message48

  • Message 49

    , in reply to message 46.

    Posted by sanity (U2808238) on Monday, 22nd July 2013

    I have replied - but I'm being pre-moderated, hence the delay from my side 
    Ah! I didn't realise that. No apology required - the apologies should be mine.

    Report message49

  • Message 50

    , in reply to message 43.

    All this user's posts have been removed. Why?

Back to top

About this Board

The Points of View team invite you to discuss BBC Television programmes.

Add basic Smileys or extra Smileys to your posts.

Questions? Check the BBC FAQ for answers first!

Go to: BBC News Have your say to discuss topics in the news

Make a complaint? Go to the BBC complaints website.

BBC News: Off-topic for this board, so contact them directly with your feedback: Contact BBC News

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.


Mon-Sat: 0900-2300
Sun: 1000-2300

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Recent Discussions

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.