Is it time to get rid of the mandatory TV licence?

Like The Roman · 11-09-2007, 10:23 PM

Now we have the technology, is it not time we replaced the licence fee with a subscription fee for the BBC. Those that don't want to watch biased, multicultural propaganda thus wouldn't be forced to pay for its production.

I actually feel pains in my chest whenever I seem to sit down to Question Time nowadays, and certainly don't see why I should fund what is essentially a platform for views diametrically opposed to my own.

Perhaps we could establish a petition stating just this?

Britannist · 11-09-2007, 10:29 PM

Yes, it is time to get rid of the compulsory television licence which funds the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

In my view, the alternatives are:

1.

Viewers paying subscriptions to watch one or more BBC television channels. A 'pay-as-you-watch' system could also be introduced. The licence fee would be abolished. The problem for the BBC is that, the moment people do not have to pay the BBC (i.e. when it becomes legal to watch other non-BBC television channels without having to pay the BBC for a licence fee), many will not pay them a penny (i.e. not enough people may sign up to subscription to watch the BBC or BBC pay-as-you-go - in other words, a self-financing BBC could go bust).

2.

The BBC abolished and the channel slots it occupies are passed to independent broadcasters.

3.

The BBC becomes a commercial broadcaster (relying on advertising) with the licence fee being scrapped. Some argue that the BBC has no right to public money just because it was there first.

4.

The BBC becomes partly commercial - receiving a reduced licence fee and carrying advertising on some programmes. This might result in ITV and other independent broadcasters losing advertising revenue meaning the possible closure (or reduction in the hours of transmission) of some commercial channels.

5.

The BBC sells off some channels (television and radio plus some internet services) concentrating on just certain areas (it has previously proposed that BBC Radio 2 could carry advertising or be sold off) - the licence fee is reduced as a consequence.

6.

The BBC raises a part of its revenue through sponsorship with the licence fee being reduced as a result.

7.

The BBC is funded through variety of methods - sponsorship, advertising, subscriptions of various (but not all) programmes - and partly from a reduced licence fee.

8.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state (i.e. from Government funds). This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. The annual income of the BBC is currently £2.3 billion. The Government could use some of the money in collecting the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

9.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising.

The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

10.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising.

The cost of running the BBC - currently £2.3 billion - could be reduced by the possible sale (as has been suggested before) by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 carry a limited amount of advertising and by the sponsorship of certain BBC programmes (but no advertising on BBC Television or on BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4). The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

Britannist adds: My preferred option, at this point in time, is number 9.

Like The Roman · 11-09-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Britannist

Yes, it is time to get rid of the compulsory television licence which funds the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

In my view, the alternatives are:

1.

Viewers paying subscriptions to watch one or more BBC television channels. A 'pay-as-you-watch' system could also be introduced. The licence fee would be abolished. The problem for the BBC is that, the moment people do not have to pay the BBC (i.e. when it becomes legal to watch other non-BBC television channels without having to pay the BBC for a licence fee), many will not pay them a penny (i.e. not enough people may sign up to subscription to watch the BBC or BBC pay-as-you-go - in other words, a self-financing BBC could go bust).

2.

The BBC abolished and the channel slots it occupies are passed to independent broadcasters.

3.

The BBC becomes a commercial broadcaster (relying on advertising) with the licence fee being scrapped. Some argue that the BBC has no right to public money just because it was there first.

4.

The BBC becomes partly commercial - receiving a reduced licence fee and carrying advertising on some programmes. This might result in ITV and other independent broadcasters losing advertising revenue meaning the possible closure (or reduction in the hours of transmission) of some commercial channels.

5.

The BBC sells off some channels (television and radio plus some internet services) concentrating on just certain areas (it has previously proposed that BBC Radio 2 could carry advertising or be sold off) - the licence fee is reduced as a consequence.

6.

The BBC raises a part of its revenue through sponsorship with the licence fee being reduced as a result.

7.

The BBC is funded through variety of methods - sponsorship, advertising, subscriptions of various (but not all) programmes - and partly from a reduced licence fee.

8.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state (i.e. from Government funds). This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. The annual income of the BBC is currently £2.3 billion. The Government could use some of the money in collecting the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

9.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising.

The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

10.

The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising.

The cost of running the BBC - currently £2.3 billion - could be reduced by the possible sale (as has been suggested before) by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 carry a limited amount of advertising and by the sponsorship of certain BBC programmes (but no advertising on BBC Television or on BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4). The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money.

Britannist adds: My preferred option, at this point in time, is number 9.

An excellent post Britannist, my preferred option is an annual subscription fee payable in return for access to the BBC's channels.

And yes, I would like to see it go bust.

brian lee · 11-09-2007, 10:49 PM

I would support option 2.

One less quango is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't like any option that retains the name 'British'. I notice that doesn't include very many from England unless they are non-white, but does include a preponderance of Scots and Welsh, and even the Republic of Ireland and the antipodes as reporters and presenters.

bigred · 11-09-2007, 10:51 PM

I would support 9 as well, Free state funded tv for me!

Phil Sheldon · 11-09-2007, 10:52 PM

I do not agree that the Taxpayer should, in any shape or form, fund broadcasting; whether it's the BBC or CH 4/5.

The present arrangement is a compulsory tax on (Honest) viewers extending to "Any equipment capable of receiving tv broadcasting" ie: computers/mobile phones.

The Palace of Westminster has about 105 TV sets in various locations but pays only 1 Licence Fee. Contrast that to say a 4 bedroomed house converted to Student accomodation therefore classified as 4 separate dwellings (Flats), ergo 4 TV licences.
The BBC has programme arrangements with the History Channel-profit making,
shows advertising hoardings during football matches, publishes a commercial magazine-the Radio Times and BBC Worldwide made approx. £17 Million profit last year.

Let the BBC face the real world and market it's output as a broadcaster. If the programmes are good enough then people will pay to watch.
I would not shed any tears if it disappeared altogether.

Like The Roman · 11-09-2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian lee

I would support option 2.

One less quango is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't like any option that retains the name 'British'. I notice that doesn't include very many from England unless they are non-white, but does include a preponderance of Scots and Welsh, and even the Republic of Ireland and the antipodes as reporters and presenters.

Quite. If you have a look at the number of black TV presenters (particularly childrens' TV presenters), they seem to be very over represented, given that they make up around 3-4% of the population.

bigred · 11-09-2007, 10:59 PM

Australia has the ABC No tv license!

I can afford to pay for TV so i get my sport movies etc.

Can the pensioners who have paid tax and insurance plus TV license all there lives. They are on a fixed budget, no chance of getting on there bike and finding a job.

In my opinion one of the most damaging changes to society is pay TV!

Phil Sheldon · 11-09-2007, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigred

Australia has the ABC No tv license!

I can afford to pay for TV so i get my sport movies etc.

Can the pensioners who have paid tax and insurance plus TV license all there lives. They are on a fixed budget, no chance of getting on there bike and finding a job.

In my opinion one of the most damaging changes to society is pay TV!

Why should pensioners have to buy a TV licence? Good point

I cannot agree that pay tv is damaging. At least you would'nt get Dross AMTV forced upon you,or Neighbours/Eastenders/Holby City and other mind numbing rubbish. No like? No pay.

Britannist · 12-09-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Like The Roman

An excellent post Britannist, my preferred option is an annual subscription fee payable in return for access to the BBC's channels. And yes, I would like to see it go bust.

Thank you for your kind comment, Like The Roman.

I am glad you agree that the present television licencing system has to change.

11-09-2007, 10:23 PM	#1 (permalink)
Like The Roman Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The United Kingdom Posts: 247 Party: BNP	Is it time to get rid of the mandatory TV licence? Now we have the technology, is it not time we replaced the licence fee with a subscription fee for the BBC. Those that don't want to watch biased, multicultural propaganda thus wouldn't be forced to pay for its production. I actually feel pains in my chest whenever I seem to sit down to Question Time nowadays, and certainly don't see why I should fund what is essentially a platform for views diametrically opposed to my own. Perhaps we could establish a petition stating just this?

11-09-2007, 10:29 PM	#2 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 22,896	Get rid of compulsory television licence, Brussels Broadcasting Corporation Yes, it is time to get rid of the compulsory television licence which funds the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation. In my view, the alternatives are: 1. Viewers paying subscriptions to watch one or more BBC television channels. A 'pay-as-you-watch' system could also be introduced. The licence fee would be abolished. The problem for the BBC is that, the moment people do not have to pay the BBC (i.e. when it becomes legal to watch other non-BBC television channels without having to pay the BBC for a licence fee), many will not pay them a penny (i.e. not enough people may sign up to subscription to watch the BBC or BBC pay-as-you-go - in other words, a self-financing BBC could go bust). 2. The BBC abolished and the channel slots it occupies are passed to independent broadcasters. 3. The BBC becomes a commercial broadcaster (relying on advertising) with the licence fee being scrapped. Some argue that the BBC has no right to public money just because it was there first. 4. The BBC becomes partly commercial - receiving a reduced licence fee and carrying advertising on some programmes. This might result in ITV and other independent broadcasters losing advertising revenue meaning the possible closure (or reduction in the hours of transmission) of some commercial channels. 5. The BBC sells off some channels (television and radio plus some internet services) concentrating on just certain areas (it has previously proposed that BBC Radio 2 could carry advertising or be sold off) - the licence fee is reduced as a consequence. 6. The BBC raises a part of its revenue through sponsorship with the licence fee being reduced as a result. 7. The BBC is funded through variety of methods - sponsorship, advertising, subscriptions of various (but not all) programmes - and partly from a reduced licence fee. 8. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state (i.e. from Government funds). This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. The annual income of the BBC is currently £2.3 billion. The Government could use some of the money in collecting the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money. 9. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising. The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money. 10. The BBC is funded by the taxpayer via the state. This would save a large amount of money in collection fees. It would continue to broadcast with no advertising. The cost of running the BBC - currently £2.3 billion - could be reduced by the possible sale (as has been suggested before) by BBC Radio 1 and BBC Radio 2 carry a limited amount of advertising and by the sponsorship of certain BBC programmes (but no advertising on BBC Television or on BBC Radio 3 and BBC Radio 4). The Government could use some of the money saved in not having to collect the licence fee towards funding the BBC directly. The remaining amount (of money the Government would need to fund the BBC) could come through efficiency savings and elimination of the waste of taxpayers' money. Britannist adds: My preferred option, at this point in time, is number 9.

11-09-2007, 10:51 PM	#5 (permalink)
bigred Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lancashire Posts: 100	I would support 9 as well, Free state funded tv for me! __________________ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/MRI-Refund/

11-09-2007, 10:59 PM	#8 (permalink)
bigred Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Lancashire Posts: 100	Australia has the ABC No tv license! I can afford to pay for TV so i get my sport movies etc. Can the pensioners who have paid tax and insurance plus TV license all there lives. They are on a fixed budget, no chance of getting on there bike and finding a job. In my opinion one of the most damaging changes to society is pay TV! __________________ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/MRI-Refund/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2007, 10:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
brian lee Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: South Essex Posts: 613	I would support option 2. One less quango is a good thing. Furthermore, I don't like any option that retains the name 'British'. I notice that doesn't include very many from England unless they are non-white, but does include a preponderance of Scots and Welsh, and even the Republic of Ireland and the antipodes as reporters and presenters.

11-09-2007, 10:52 PM	#6 (permalink)
Phil Sheldon Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 587	I do not agree that the Taxpayer should, in any shape or form, fund broadcasting; whether it's the BBC or CH 4/5. The present arrangement is a compulsory tax on (Honest) viewers extending to "Any equipment capable of receiving tv broadcasting" ie: computers/mobile phones. The Palace of Westminster has about 105 TV sets in various locations but pays only 1 Licence Fee. Contrast that to say a 4 bedroomed house converted to Student accomodation therefore classified as 4 separate dwellings (Flats), ergo 4 TV licences. The BBC has programme arrangements with the History Channel-profit making, shows advertising hoardings during football matches, publishes a commercial magazine-the Radio Times and BBC Worldwide made approx. £17 Million profit last year. Let the BBC face the real world and market it's output as a broadcaster. If the programmes are good enough then people will pay to watch. I would not shed any tears if it disappeared altogether.