'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

A question about : 'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

Poll between 19-27 July 2010:

The TV licence fee costs Ј145.50 a year for any home with a colour TV, and pays for the BBC - that's TV, radio, regional programmes and BBC online and associated costs (full details).

Do you believe in the licence fee?

A. Yes. I think it's an important public service - 23% (6715 votes)
B. Yes, but it's far too high. It needs to be cut and scaled back - 27% (7959 votes)
C. No. I'd happily see ads fund it - 50% (14666 votes)

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email
Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers
FAQs
Privacy Policy
Past Emails
Unsubscribe

Best answers:

• I haven't voted because I'm not sure what to vote.
  I like the BBC for their nature documentaries and appreciate the way the programs are laid out with no need to allow for ad breaks and the inevitable recap which comes after ( like discovery and national geographic channels for example).
  BUT I don't think it should be a mandatory "if you want to watch tv at all you must pay even if you will never use BBC channels" heavy handed approach. I think it's this that gets people's backs up.
  If I want to watch Sky1 I pay Sky or Virgin for the privilege, I don't pay for Sky sports because I don't want to watch it, and Sky don't make me pay for it even though I want to watch their other channels so this is a better approach. The problem with this is that if it was somehow optional to pay for BBC then there might not be enough funding for the super documentaries they are renowned for, so I don't really know what the answer is. Maybe a minimal fee for everyone with a larger fee for those who want to access their other channels or their ondemand service which you can access even if you've not paid your fee??
• I believe the concept of the licence fee is outdated.
  I also believe the BBC could and should scale back on many of the things it does that have no bearing on its public service remit.
• I watch Sky to be honest, I would say probably 95% of the time, I also dont listen to BBC radio. My prefered option would be for BBC to be pay per view.
• 40P A DAY - great value.
• the bbc is superb, but its lost a lot of edge after the woss/brand joke
  Ј100 is enough, especially as it raises good money from selling DVDs and programs to overseas
  mind you Ј500 a year would be a bargain if it meant you never had to watch ITV, SKY1, C5 and Virgin 1
• The value of the BBC is not the issue.
  The issue is that all are forced to pay the TV tax if they wish to consume TV. Sky charges are not compulsary & ITV is advertising led and free at the point of use.
  I mean, you can be criminalized in the UK for watching TV if you don't pay for the beeb. The main targets of convictions are the poor.
  Would you accept a newspaper tax? That you could not buy a newspaper unless you first bought a copy of the guardian?
  Scrap the TV poll tax!
• It is value in my opinion. As robin banks says 40p a day for now 24 hour access to news, information and entertainment. Plus Susannah Reid.
  Worth 40p of anyone's dosh
• I'm happy to pay the licence fee to be free of ads. They destroy programmes on other channels. Not everything on the BBC is to my taste, and some of it is awful, but the documentaries on BBC 2 & 4 are well worth paying for. The website is also outstanding. Leave it alone!
• I would prefer to have the adverts and not pay
• I don't own a TV set as I would watch it for probably 2 hours a week or less, I might have one if I didn't have to a pay a tax for it but as long as I do it would represent pathetic value for money.
• hopefully when teh proper digital switchover is complete we should be able to choose wether or not to receive bbc services as we do sky packages. at the moment i think its ridiculous what is charged for teh tv license and then you read teh bbc has spent 1million quid of it on cgi hippos swimming.
  also i barely watch BBC. i watch doctor who and i listen to radio 1 maybe 2 hours a week on the bus which for me personally is no way near worth Ј150 and i could happily live without if i had teh choice.
  it annoys me that teh BBC basically force you to buy their product as its illegal not to have a tv license wether you watch BBC or not, in a way its like if microsoft charged you Ј150 to use Internet explorer for every PC user and made it the law that if u use teh net you have to pay teh fee wether u used firefox, IE or any other browser.
  For me personally i think teh BBC are worried about the digital switch over because they will lose too much revenue by peopel choosing not to have the 'BBC Package' and once TV is digital teh service can and should be implemented that if u dont want to receive it you shudnt have to
• My objection to the license fee system is that I'm forced to pay for these channels whether I choose to watch them or not. If Rupert Murdoch was to introduce such a system and spread it to everyone who owned a telly throughout the land, riots would ensue much like when the poll tax system was introduced. I want to be able to choose whether the Beeb offer value for the programming they offer and not have it forced upon me for merely owning a TV.
• If there had been a bbc on adverts this recession as well as the other channels then its certain that a few would have folded owing to lack of advertising. Not only that we would just have another channel which buys American progs and recycles old ones. Just how many more channels will put on startrek (and I like startrek) Just watch how many times a week the same film shows up day after day. Some progs are repeated up to 3 times a day. No lets keep the licence and get new, fresh progs. (yes I do know they repeat some, thats to pay for the likes of J.R.
• It is an archaic system and an unfair tax. Of course, the BBC is well aware that in the free ad driven market, they would not be able to compete as people simply would not pay the license fee and quite happily do without BBC, repeats and all. Surely, the BBC funding system is on borrowed time!
• I agree with the license fee. Rather than cut the license cost, I'd rather see the BBC maximise the money it has.
  For example, there seems to be so much competition between channels for sports matches. Why not let just someone else have them? It isn't like they're not popular and so no other channel will pick them up. However I think that popular matches should be on free-to-air TV. I think it is unfair for people to have to pay for Sky or similar for certain matches.
  Then there are films which the BBC has started showing. People who really want films probably already have Sky Movies and those who don't have a local blockbuster!
  The BBC also seems to have cut down the budget on many popular programs such as Doctor Who, Torchwood and Spooks to make room for reality TV. There seems to be loads of dance shows now which take up far too much time on the TV
• Seriously how can anyone deny the BBC of the license fee, it is one of the best organisations on the planet producing a huge amount of entertainment, Ad-Free!!!!!! If you don't know what adverts are turn on any commercial radio station and listen to half a dozen adverts after every song that usually involves the use of inane stupid catchy 1 line songs repeated so many times a day your brain is eventually filled with them. I'm sure I'm not allowed to repeat any on this forum but directory enquiry services and comparison websites are amongst the main culprits. They are appalling, verging on unethical and beyond irritating. The BBC is a godsend and let it live a long and prosperous life, at least until my hearing has left and I am no longer subject to the torturous lyrics of webuyanycar.com