Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

A question about : Is the licence fee worth it? Poll discussion

Is the licence fee worth it? This poll took place between 31 July and 7 August 2007

The TV licence fee costs £135.50 a year, for any home with a colour TV, and pays for the BBC - that's TV, radio, regional programmes and BBC online.

Is it worth it? Which of these is nearest to your view?

A. Yes. The BBC consistently produces quality output. 7% (895 votes)

B. Yes. Mainly due to BBC radio though. 2% (283 votes)

C. Yes. Public service broadcasting as a concept is important. 5% (621 votes)

D. Yes. It's a good buffer against government and tabloid power. 1% (148 votes)

E. Yes. If nothing else just so I don't have to watch ads. 3% (390 votes)

F. Yes. All of the above. 13% (1538 votes)

G. Yes. Other reason. 1% (73 votes)

H. No. It's too costly, halve the price and its budget. 8% (996 votes)

I. No. The BBC does nothing for me, I'd stop using it to save £135.50. 12% (1500 votes)

J. No. I pay for Sky already, it's ridiculous. 11% (1378 votes)

K. No. Only BBC online is good, and I'd happily see it have ads. 2% (286 votes)

L. No. It's another tax, why should the BBC be so special? 18% (2145 votes)

M. No. All of the above. 13% (1610 votes)

N. No. Other reason. 3% (317 votes)

Total Votes: 12119

Thanks to everybody that voted

Best answers:

• There are a few too many options on this poll and none of them match my view on what is a complicated issue.
  In principle, I object to having to pay for the privledge of having a tv set, which is effectively how it is administered. If I pay for Sky / Cable I should be able to opt out of BBC and not pay the fee.
  In reality I like the BBC channels and would continue to pay the fee for them, but I still disagree with the way it is administered (i.e by effectively licensing tv sets).
• There are only a couple of programmes I watch on BBC these days. Probably the main good thing about it is if there is a good film on (which is v.rare for BBC) there are no adverts.
  It bugs me when I have paid a ridiculous amount for the licence only for the BBC to show repeats of shows from years ago such as Open all Hours.
  Also hearing in the news that actor X has just signed a Ј3m contract with them and all the bosses have given themselves a payrise/bonus - its ridiculous!
• I think it's a waste. I don't watch BBC at all. Ever. I watch all of the channels with commercials. I would rather watch commercials and have good programming than have crap like Eastenders with no commercials. The BBC is rubbish. I'd happily get rid of all BBC channels to save Ј135 a year. I can't even receive most of the BBC channels anyway.
• I really think its worth it - for the radio alone - I really cant stand commercial radio ... also heroes is on bbc2
  Yes it is alot of money but what the hey! I do think we should have a choice though
• The BBC (at less than 40p a day) gives us:
• world-renowned natural history programmes (Planet Earth anybody?)
• brilliant drama: Spooks, Rome, Hustle
• I've lost count of the number of radio channels
• not to mention the BBC web site

The licence fee is worth it for the above, but almost as importantly, to avoid the wall-to-wall dodgy phone-ins, reality shows and credit company adverts.

• The licence fee is the biggest rip off going!!!!!
  No other company is allowed to forcably charge for their services, whether you use them or not. Just owning a TV (could be just to play video games) puts you under suspicion of needing a licence.
  Why does the fee only go to the BBC - there are hundreds of channels now - not all good, but loads that can easily rivel the BBC?
  The only company that is backed by the goverment and able to fine you even if you don't watch their programmes
  Just take a moment to think how absurd this is!
  Just imagine Channel Five turning up on your doorstep and fining you for having a TV, even though you don't watch their channels and then being forced into paying them a monthly fee. Yes - absurd isn't it, so why do we let the BBC do it!
  Yet, just because we have grown up with this, we except it
  At the end of the day they are just a bully. They try to push you around and force you to pay them. In any other country they would be called the !!!!!
  Rant over...
• I think it's extremely important to have a forum for information that is not in thrall to big business and at the mercy of the advertisers. For that, I thank the BBC, and I do think that it's good value for money, especially considering that it pays for so many radio stations as well. Paying channels such as Sky etc are far more of a rip-off because you pay for them and the advertisers pay for them too, and you have to waste good telly-viewing time watching ads for stuff you don't need.
  However, you only need to pay for the TV licence if your telly has the capacity to receive a signal. You can keep the TV as long as you're only using it for DVDs. My boyfriend and I never watched telly any more, so we recently cancelled our cable, disconnected our ariel, and saved ourselves a lot of money each month which we were paying out for a service we didn't even use. Instead of TV, we have the internet, and we spend lots of time talking, studying, reading, and listening to music. Far more productive, and more conducive to a good relationship than hours absorbing mindless pap.
• For all you Sky viewers that pay around Ј500 a year for programmes that you saw on terrestial TV up to twenty years ago, good luck! Me, I'll stick with freeview digital TV that gives me all the programmes I want except major sporting events which Mr Murdoch with all his money can rip you off by charging extra for anything that is remotely important. He'll not get a penny of my money! You deserve to pay a paultry Ј135 a year as a penalty for signing up to Sky!
• The Fee is totally outdated and should have gone a couple of decades ago.
  They produce as much rubbish as ITV and Channel 4 these days.
  If they were more realistic with their spending, cut back some of the costly services and the fee was say Ј50 a year, I think I'd be content, but at about Ј140 odd, it has to go.
  Has anyone thought of starting an online petition on the PM website and making a national campaign of this?
• I think the BBC is great but I agree they should cut back a bit and reduce the licence fee to a more reasonable amount.
  Maybe they could start with Jonathan Ross's multi-million pound salary. I like his show, but I'd happily watch it on ITV if it saved a few quid.
  The Beeb should stick to the stuff no one else does...can't imagine ITV doing anything as quality as Planet Earth etc.
• Why should the BBC have the right to make us pay to watch tv? Fair enough if they want to charge us to watch BBC like other channels do, but at least the other channels give us the option. The majority of the tv I watch is recorded anyway so I can fast forward through the adverts so BBC has no benefit to me. If it's the case that I could no longer watch EastEnders to save me almost Ј140 per year then so be it!
• As an actor, I've probably got a stilted view on this, but I do think that the licence fee is worth it. However, I don't necessarily agree with the way the BBC uses it.
  For instance; the government cuts the TV licence fee to under the rate of inflation for the next five years. the BBC responds by saying it will have to make cuts. Will this be to the big stars salaries or the executives, the shareholders et al? Of course not, it will be at the expense of those lower down the food chain.
  I do think it is a big insult to the public when they see that Jonothan Ross has been paid that amount by the BBC, but he won't be receiving as much as the execs and their chums.
  I do think that The licence fee IS worth it though for the sheer range of programmes that the BBC produces, top notch comedy both on the main channels and the freeview channels (The Mighty Boosh, Monkeydust, Roman's Empire, The Smoking Room, etc etc), Great documentaries such as Planet Earth, dramas, current affairs etc etc.
  I do think their programmes are of a higher quality than ITV or Channel 5 and satellite channels. I can't think of anything worse than an evening of ITV television to be honest. And at least the content of their programmes I not affected by their "sponsors", or companies buying advertising space unlike the other channels.
  However, I do think they could do less splashing of their cash so publicly and maybe be a little quicker improving their coverage, and maybe even supplying subsidised freeview boxes so more people can receive the extra channels.
  Also you pay when you go to the cinema, the theatre, a concert, so why not when you watch a programme that has taken just as much effort to be produced?
  The BBC has not forced anyone to go out and buy a TV to the best of my knowledge.
• The worst thing the BBC does - and sometimes it looks like it's the only thing it does - is copy everything the commercial channels do.
  That includes the dodgy phone-ins.
  I don't want to find myself changing over from the live Toilet Cam on a commercial channel only to find the BBC showing Toilet Academy as a Public Service alternative. You know?
• Does Martin get paid by the BBC for his appearances? If so, his site has technically started a debate about whether one of his employers should remain in business!