But it only appears to fund the BBC and its channels/radio stations? If the BBC would just fund itself like other channels have to, then there would be no license fee :S

Everyone pays council tax and VAT.

Absolutely, no matter how people get their money, everyone pays tax in some form.
Although if your circumstances are right you can get full council tax rebate.

This Licence however is taken from all people except the over 75s.
If the BBC was made to be funded other ways then this obscene licence would not be in existence.

Everyone that wants certain channels are happy to pay subscription for that,I have no issue with that, Sky customers have to pay for packages of Channels,it is the BBC that wants to keep this daft licence and is the only real reason we still have it.

Well, not for me,I don't feel in any way the BBC is better a great deal of the time and in fact,I for one, don't even find them as good now as to certain programming.

This attempt to de-criminalise not paying the licence fee would go a good way to perhaps seeing the start of the end for the licence,for me that is a really good thing and way overdue in my view too.

Time the BBC was made to battle for viewers and improve its programming like all other channels and stop having its funding given to it on a plate as it has for far too long now.

The thing is though, engaging in a battle for viewers with itv will not improve its programming. It means more reality shows.

Most of the BBC's good output will start relying on viewing figures and be axed due to their low rating.

but the BBC already has Strictly Come Dancing, and The Voice, which is enough to make anyone want to quit paying the license fee...

let's face it, the BBC puts on a lot of trash, just as trashy as any of the commercial channels, it would be easier to defend them if they had better content...

newsnight, and Question Time are good, everything else is a bit iffy...

the Great British Bake-off is something you'd expect to see on a low end basic cable network here in the US... and the sewing -bee version of it wouldn't even make it to air here, even with 500 channels.

Do you live over here or are you talking about BBC America?

I never said they don't have their share of trash (they have to cater to all audience members after all) but there's a lot of quality shows that don't have to rely on viewing figures to survive that would just be axed completely if the BBC went commercial. BBC4 and all of their documentaries for a start.

Strictly Come Dancing and all that bollocks wouldn't have to worry, they pull in the viewers.

Edit - I see you're continually editing your post, but you're only including random shows that run for a couple of months a year on BBC 1. That's not even scratching the surface of the entire BBC. Pull your head out of the TV listings.

but most of the really high quality docu's the BBC does do, are co-productions with the Discovery Channel in the US, so they are using commercial money anyway to do the high end stuff... they aren't even relying on the license fee to make those really good documentary series...

Because the license fee is frozen and costs are rising and rising. Their viewing figures wouldn't even justify a co-production if they went commercial.

In 2012/13 the company saw headline sales rise by 3% to £1,116m - exceeding the £1bn mark for a fifth year

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/about-us.aspx

Is this all from British licence payers?... No,

Good post and good points with examples too lostalex, I agree completely.

:conf: That's not what I said. I said they'e relying on co-productions and other means of funding more and more because the fee has been frozen whilst costs rise.

No matter who is right and who is wrong, as it stands the BBC charge a licence fee whether we like it or not is immaterial. If you are dodging paying you are currently breaking the law and can be prosecuted.

You tell them Cherie. :fist:

I will Marshy :fist:

Not for much longer suckers.... :grin2:

Don't come crying when we have more X Factor/The Voice shows. :fist:

Returns to the BBC (not the international companies) - £156 million
License fee - £3.6 billion.

:hmph:

they get £3.6 billion from British licence payers?

You will have to subscribe for PM Questiontime, :tongue:

Yep. :hugesmile: But that doesn't go to Worldwide, which funds itself.

i used to listen to BBC "world have your say" radio program everyday, but they don't even give that for free online any more. BBC is getting cheap and going down hill even before they have their license fee taken away.

Yes, that's part of the crisis their facing. Where've you been? :laugh: BBC Three's been axed too. The license fee was frozen and costs are rising. Not to mention the Tories are taking the piss with forcing the BBC to pay for more and more besides.

Also BBC World News doesn't come from the license fee. That is subscription and advertiser funded.

Marsh are you Chris Patten?..... :joker:

Yes. :hmph:

This will mean adverts during doctor who and East Enders :'(

Omg I only like the BBC because they don't have adverts :/

Well you must like them for some other reason otherwise you wouldn't care if they had adverts or not.

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net...oBBg_460sa.gif

I can accept to a good number of people the advertisemants would be an annoyance, however I rarely watch the BBC myself so since watching more commercial channels,I find the adverts not a problem at all.

In fact I welcome them as I can,for instance, let the dog out when a break comes if I am watching something I really am concentrating on.

For me, I would rather have adverts on the BBC and not have to pay nearly £150 a year to watch the BBC in my own place on the TV I have bought.

What I normally do to take the pain out of adverts is to let the programme start and immediately put it on live pause for about 10 mins then start watching it. Every time adverts come I fast forward past them and wind down the 10 mins of recorded programme.

Usually by the end of the programme I am back on live broadcast after the last of the adverts.

Or I guess you could just record the whole programme and flip through the adverts when they come on.

Exactly! Although these days I find an hour long show needs more like 15-20 mins ad allowance. Things like X Factor often need 30-45 :o.

Does anyone remember when Ant & Dec used to say "see you in two" before ad breaks? Now it's "see you in five"!

Both the TV licensing and Commercial versions of broadcast television are pretty broken these days. The future is downloads, OnDemand and live streaming. Scheduled TV is hopefully on the way out altogether.

Agree the whole idea of somebody scheduling programmes for you or in the case of the BBC for a whole nation is a bit old fashioned.

With a more Multicultural society the diversity and range of programmes being watched could never seriously be scheduled by one single broadcaster.

The future has arrived with downloads, YouTube, Pay TV, Satellite TV, Cable TV etc..

We have so much choice over what we watch and the medium through which we watch. The idea of somebody deciding a shedule of programmes is now a bit quaint.

I usually cherry pick the programmes I wish to view record them and watch them as I please fast forwarding through Ad breaks.

So I think the BBC needs a massive revamp and the idea of a TV licence is now not sustainable. Better perhaps to charge a fixed monthly fee like Sky or BT and then at least people have the choice to pay for BBC programmes or not.

I couldn't be bothered scanning viewing guides and pre planning a schedule, if I catch it I catch it, if I don't I don't :laugh:

The problem is, they're afraid that not enough people would be interested in signing up for them not to have to massively scale back. Lots of people would sign up to receive BBC programmes, sure, but... Definitely not the entire country. Probably not even half. Lots of households would happily do without BBC shows.

And that says it all really. We're all being forced to pay for a service that isn't actually justified by public demand. The quality of BBC television isn't SO high that people would willingly pay a monthly subscription for it. So how can a "licence" fee be justified?

Plus all of the big-selling properties would be snapped up if the BBC went under. Something like Doctor Who would have purchase offers stacked to the ceiling, its worth a fortune. There are essentially a FEW good shows scattered amongst endless hours of mindless dross that often verges on propaganda.

To showcase the point: Channel 4 might be in the pan currently, but take a look over the last 10 to 15 years. They made some of (the bulk of, in my opinion) the best British TV shows ever made. Production quality, acting, humour and "edginess" that the BBC has not come close to with the majority of its shows. Even now they have a couple of shows that are above most BBC productions on many levels.

...and dont even get me STARTED on the quality of BBC "journalism".

Yes I think the BBC would have to look at which programmes it could sell to the public and like the other mainstream TV channels include adverts or product placement but a lot of programmes would have to go, but at least supply would reflect demand and the quality of programmes made would have to kept high in order to compete with advertisers and viewing figures.

The days of Public service broadcasting have I think now ended. The BBC would survive in the long run as it does have a massive back catalogue of programmes and a wealth of quality, expertise and resources to allow it to continue to make good programmes.

But it will look so different to the overbloated behemoth it currently is.

If ever change was needed at the BBC it is now

New carpets at BBC's £1bn HQ... just 18 months after it opened

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2wbHILOX6


Fecking Bloated BBC burning public money

Easy going. That's the way to be.

They've been doing that for ages in my view arista.

The Times has how they want to block TV signals to Non payers
if they are on sky or virgin.

Not sure if that would work.

And I am sure they could not block a house from getting Freeview or Freesat
as it would block other homes near the non payer etc.

They guy in charge of strategy was interviewed on 5live yesterday evening he said it would not be possible to block signals, he never mentioned Sky or Virgin subs holders.

Yes but lots of Ideas are being put Forward
Blocking is still under debate.


Soon The MP's Vote changing
the Non payers from criminal to civil