Tory Plan: Half licence fee and restrict BBC to PSB

Bloody right. I work for one of the ITV companies, and honestly would give up half my wage every year if it meant that the BBC would remain untouched, or even improve. The corporation really does provide such a wonderfully educating and entertaining experience for such a small sum of money per annum. In short, it is exceptionally good value for money.

Personally, I would be lost without staples such as BBC 2, digital services such as BBC4 and equally BBCi. Moreover, depriving the BBC of funding would most probably stop future innovations too - remember, that thanks to the large amounts of cash it recieves every year, the BBC has been able to develop services such as Ceefax, colour transmission, nicam stereo, and planned for the future, an internet archive of it's programming.

If anything, the license fee should increase. The tories really have lost the plot throughout the past decade, and with a bitter labour government possibly killing the BBC as well, I strongly urge everyone to vote lib dem,

You do have to think about the implications of what you are saying. It's all very well for you, as someone in a good job which I assume you get paid a tidy sum for, to say 'raise the licence fee'. You don't even notice the cost of it, and you do make use of all the services which they provide you with.

But think about the flip side to that, a family struggling to bring up kids on the minimum wage. £112 every year (or whatever it's increased too) is a lot of money for them to pay out. And when that family probably only has access to BBC1 and 2 and the basic BBC radio services, they aren't even using half of what they struggle to pay for.

I as a student apparently am able to live off £4000 a year. By the time I've paid rent, I've only got just over £1000 left.. When TV licencing then want to take another £112 out of me, it's a significant call on my budget which I do very much notice.

And you want to raise it even higher? All well and good if you can afford it, but think about those people who can't even afford it now, let alone a hiked up rate.

cwathen, I understand what you are saying, but let me reassure you that I really don't earn a massive amount of money, and don't work full time, as I am a student myself.

My point is that it would be ridiculous to decrease BBC funding, as the corporation is a service to all, rich and poor. For example, the BBC provides a plethora of digital channels for wealthier families able to afford digital, whilst providing BBC1, 2 and radio for everyone else.

Anyway, the vast majority of people living in state housing seem to be able to afford satellite dishes, and most probably sky subscriptions of around £20 a month (at minimum), so why shouldn't they pay a license fee too?

I agree that some desperately poor people, as well as students living alone, shouldn't have to pay the fee, but the vast majority, especially those paying sky subscriptions, should.

Its true that £112 is not an insignificant amount of money, but given the flexibility of paying up with stamps, or monthly installments, I think it is manageable on the majority of budgets. How much do you pay a year for internet access? How much on 'entertainment'? Certainly those on limited incomes will feel the pinch but in your case, at the end of your student days you will intend to get a job one would think.

I dont mean to be glib about your situation, but I think its difficult to set the licenence fee based on student incomes when the majority of people aren't students.

Maybe a reduced rate would suit those in your position, albeit you wont be in it forever.

I wouldnt like to pay 'half my salary' to support the BBC (given that I'm *fabulously* wealthy), but I take boring_user_names excellent point that the BBC have pioneered development in many fields, and have set the standards for other broadcasters. Along with the breadth of channels and variety, this has to be worth £112 a year, surely?

Well, I'm currently trying to sort out my licence for when I'm back at uni - they do make things more difficult than needs be.

So what exactly does the BBC provide that other channels don't - or wouldn't - and that wouldn't be missed by the general public.

Well, if blacks and asians are being respesented at my expense, why can't *I* be respresented at my expense?

Although I very much enjoy listening to Steve Wright discuss important issues of the day, I don't like the musics this station plays, I like these kinds of discussions, but with music specifically aimed at white males/females who like dance/club culture.

Why can't us chalkies have our own radio stations like this, when the blacks can?

Well to be fair on 1Xtra it is a "black music" station not a "black" station. Black Music being in the same style as the MOBOS where Justin Timberlake was nominated for an award when he's white - it's just his music is "of black origin"

You *are* represented by MAINSTREAM television and radio. Not fitting any of the minority groups we have discussed, I hardly think you require any further representation.

Its analagous to a question I asked my mother as a child, "If there is a Mother's Day and Father's Day, why isn't there a Children's Day?"

"Every day is Children's Day" was her reply.

That is a fair point, Gavin.

However can't the BBC have a single channel aimed at all the minorites, instead of many half-arsed channels? Would this not be more cost effective, and respresentive of an actual minority?

So, "Next on BBC Rainbow, lesbian deaf asian women show you how to clean the spokes on their wheelchairs. Over on BBC Caucasian, Come Morris Dancing".

Hmmm, I'm not sure that would be much of a service to anyone.

I still find it odd that a tax levied on receiving any kind of television signal, is used to fund a £70m website and any number of local and national radio stations. Anybody without a television that uses BBCi all day and listens to BBC radio is benefiting from the tax payer out of all proportion as they are providing nothing into the pot.

There needs to be an arrangement based on consumption and subscription for these "add on" services at least.

Not only that, but the BBC seems to have done to the lengths of customising their news website for the entire world to see.