Tory Plan: Half licence fee and restrict BBC to PSB

Well lets have a look at you having a look at that list...

Fair enough. I'd just point out that something like 1% of Sky's subscription goes towards origional British programming and a Sky's stated business aim is all subsribers should eventually pay more than £400 a year.
And I'm not sure where you can get advert free children's programming except on the BBC. If I had kids I'd want them watching a channel which didn't tell them to buy toys or high sugar/high fat fast food every 20 minutes.


Well indeed. And if you have a mono radio you only get those 5 in mono rather than stereo (at least for Radios 1 to 4). Part of the role of the beeb is to drive takeup of this new technology. Its hardly something you could expect commercial interests to do. Someone has to go first, and its the Beeb.


Well yes. But its the difference between a station that would be interested in the local community and essential during the foot and mouth crisis or floods... BBC local radio... and a station that plays Simply Red, The Lighthose Family and Will Young interspersed with adverts for Tile Barns on the edge of town.


But why? Just because you don't like listening to classical music (presumeably). The choirs and the orchestra make some money (through recordings and ticket sales) and enrich the life of the nation in a way that "Ibiza Uncovered" doesn't. And having its own orchestras works out cheaper... for example at the Proms... then hiring somebody else. Don't like classical music? How about Radio One's Big Sunday free concerts? Axe those too?


Well you'd be wrong. Though of course other stations do innovate think of Ch 4's cricket coverage for example.



Well there is. I'd imagine the "Where I live" sites couldn't make money in the real world... but the provide a reliable source of news and a sense of community on a local level. Why shouldn't the BBC website educate people about how to paint a room to best effect... without mentioning a particular and who knows inferior brand of paint? And the BBC website is there to spot good ideas... like turning Popex into Celebdaq. Something Sky.com or itv.com didn't have the guts to do...

Nobody could claim the BBC is perfect. Like any operation born of the Civil Service there are far too many managers and people who could be axed without affecting anything. But the BBC really does enriches the nation. Its the reason we have the Proms, Del Boy, Radio Stoke, Fightbox and Paddy O Connol.

Its the reason we don't have adverts after the opening titles of programmes and Clearchannel running every radio station.

Quite - I have no problem with website adverts or popups, especially since they are so easy to block.

Here lies the reason nobody makes any money from internet advertising.

Purely out of curiousity:

How many of this thread's contributors are actually the ones paying the Licence Fee in their household, or for that matter the subscription to Dsat or Cable? It seems that the ones old enough to pay aren't the ones complaining.

I have had, and then cancelled premium subscriptions before and find £112 gives me more than enough options on DTT.

Somebody else pays the TV licence, I pay the Sky sub. I don't complain about the sky subcription, because it is optional. I could cancel it tomorrow if I really wanted.

The license tax is different. Even if I don't watch any tv channels, listen to any radio stations, or visit any websites funded by the license tax, I still have to pay it if I own a television and only watch commercial fta channels.

Regarding your comment on internet advertising. I wouldn't mind them if there weren't so intrusive, as is, they are blocked (almost completely) by NIS.

So they're almost blocked on yours, and my people's PCs, but you still think it's a good idea for the BBC to take ads on it's website? Can you not see how stupid an arguement you're attempting to peddle here?

Not really; if they have ads on the website to help fund it, they can be removed. Even when I do see ads on webpages at work, I never click the them - the same principle applies to Sky+ and tvio users, anyway [I fast forward through them]

How about a system, where those not in the who do not have a TV license get banner ads, and those of us who have, simply enter our details on the site and we get served an advertless page? This would be fair for those out of the UK, even if the ads can be blocked.

I pay the TV licence in my house and I have no issues about paying it. I don't want to fork out several hundred pounds a year for Sky or cable just so I can receive a couple of hundred channels that I know I'll never watch.

When DTT first started I didn't mind paying the subscription because I felt there was a good chance I'd actually watch the channels I'd chosen as part of my subscription. But when OnDigital went bust I didn't miss those extra channels anywhere near as much as I thought I would.

Yes, I don't get to see Friends/ER/The Simpsons first, but then it all turns up on free TV soon enough.

Yes, that'll make it great and user-friendly, won't it?

Well done.

I applaud your clearly superior mind.

Indeed I'm quite happy to pay the licence fee as it is fantastic value for money. I used to subscribe to sky, but cancelled it as they wanted over £200 pounds a year for a load of american imports, repeats and shows of teenagers throwing up in Greece.

The only programme I miss is the West Wing which I can get on Channel 4 a few months later.

Some of you people are such a bunch of whingers. Hundred odd quid is nothing these days, barely a good night out! Remarkable value for money compared to subscription television services and indirect advertising costs passed to the consumer.

Of course any large institution needs to be on it's toes and spend public money responsibly (seems quite apt when Euro parliment are in a corruption scandal and our govt. have spent billions on a war that may not have been necessary) . It is right and proper for parliament to discuss these things, but to consider breaking the BBC just because they are objective and don't always broadcast what the politicians want to hear, seems like madness. Don't forget it was the government who have championed the BBC to be at the forefront of Digital technology to enable the big switch off. Arguably the BBC is achieving this despite govt. blunders.

As for the Tories, they can hardly call for cuts in NHS, education or transport funding, the government would have a field day mocking them. Tories know the public want more resources ploughed into these public services (the cuts will be made once they are back in govt.). However, whilst in opposition they will look at other ways to save on taxes that the public may not be quite so against, like Television Licence Fee. As long as R3 & 4 survive along with BBC2, most Tories will be happy, sod the rest of us.

I think the licence fee is one of the fairer taxes we have in this country, despite being an odd concept. I suspect for the modest sum it is, there is hardly any licence fee payers who do not access any of the BBC's services during the course of the year. However, I pay other taxes, an awful lot of taxes that I receive no benefit from. Every month I contribute four figure sums from my wages to the government, and even more indirectly through council tax, VAT, excise duties on fuel and booze etc. I no way receive value for money. I've never been in hospital (been to the doctors a couple of times in my life), won't have a need for education (no children planned), never used the services of the police, ambulance or fire brigade, never been entitled to benefits etc etc. Infact, I think the only thing I get is my rubbish collected every week. Is that really fair? Especially when "down the road" where visibly most houses are multi-channel, my taxes are subsidising their viewing, licence fee, benefits, drink, fags, hospital appointments, policing etc. But that's life, it's just tax. At least with the licence fee every payer and their whole household gets something equally tangible for it.

One quick last point about BBCi. Of course there are debates about whether the BBC should be involved. It has been one of the big players in the spread and development of the WWW in the UK, and as a licence fee payer, I appreciate background and support material for many of the programmes I watch and listen to. I also appreciate that the BBC makes available the resources of its huge news gathering machine to me. The BBC would pay just the same for newsgathering if BBCi wasn't there, so I'd rather they spent a relatively modest amount to make it available for me to digest in my own time.

Oh, and one final final point as to why the Licence Fee is good…… it pays my mortgage!!!! (waits for shouts of bias now)

Mr Kelly, do you actually get outside and interact with real people on a regular basis? Your terse responses seem to indicate you have severe social integration issues.

Anyway, it seems quite a sensible idea - international users still get the content, except with banners. Signing into a website with login details is hardly a massive inconvenience, is it?