UK: Scrap the TV License fee

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 02 May 2008, 20:21

It's not a TV licence, it's a BBC licence. They should call it what it is. Everyone else uses advertising for revenue. It's fascist frankly. Plain and simple. How good the programs are is irrelevent.

More 4 has ER at least. E4 is the chav channel.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 02 May 2008, 20:23

i don't turn anything off at the wall,no. but i do have a lot of electrical gear,(computer,laptop,3 tv's,consoles, etc then there's a gas boiler,gas fire,gas cooker) a 3 bedroom house as well.but yeah i'm sure i can get it down.i'm on dualfuel with NPower.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 May 2008, 20:33

Lourdes wrote:If I was on benefits I'd use very little electricity and water too. Since I'm not I just went and flushed every toilet in the house.

I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry.

Markgway wrote:It's not a TV licence, it's a BBC licence. They should call it what it is. Everyone else uses advertising for revenue. It's fascist frankly. Plain and simple.

Agreed.

Markgway wrote:How good the programs are is irrelevent.

Exactly. Well put.

saltysam wrote:i don't turn anything off at the wall,no.

That was just an example. I don't as a rule either. I meant more about turning things off when you're not using them.

saltysam wrote:but yeah i'm sure i can get it down.i'm on dualfuel with NPower.

It's definitely worth having a good read of Money Saving Expert. Have you used it before? It's a fantastic site for saving cash in the UK. It really is THE website for saving cash.

The man who runs it is so utterly knowledgeable about saving money, for all aspects. Due to an accident late last year my car insurance renewal was £1019. I managed to get it for £528 by using the website then calling around.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 02 May 2008, 21:39

Repeats of Life on Mars? I didnt say that per se, but LOM/A2A was some of the best stuff the BBC has made for years.
I agree with Mark. Surely its just a licence to get the BBC channels. I suppose back when TV was in its infancy it was more understandable (BBC was all there was) now there is much more.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 02 May 2008, 22:14

grim_tales wrote:Repeats of Life on Mars?

Like me and Combos Salty was taking the piss.

grim_tales wrote:I suppose back when TV was in its infancy it was more understandable (BBC was all there was) now there is much more.

Exactly the point of the original article, did anyone actually read it?

It's a dinosaur that we still have to live with because the government makes millions from it and most people just lump it and put up with it. Proven by the fact no one except me hear has even signed the petition. I presume?

Neither my parents care but they've both been paying it for so long they no longer give it any thought.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 03 May 2008, 08:21

I think the licence is outdated, especially since I don't watch enough broadcast tv to justify it.

On the other hand, I'd gladly pay £130 a year for those Doctor Who restorations!

degeneration · Post by **degeneration** » 03 May 2008, 08:34

I signed the petition. Scrap the license fee!!! ya!!!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 May 2008, 09:08

I just signed it

I think the BBC do make some great shows but in this day of there being so many channels - it seems silly to pay to watch TV IMO. If there is a licence why couldnt it be just a one off payment?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 03 May 2008, 09:18

I think the BBC uses the money well, it has a lot of in-house talent, it creates new original shows, it buys good movies, etc.

Now, if they didnt have that money, they would be just like any other commercial network, putting dumbasses on TV in easy, cheap to make shows (Whoring on Ice, London's Next Top Cabdriver, etc), and throwing alot of commercials on us.

I do think over a 100 pounds per household is too expensive.

People pay enough taxes as it is already, so maybe the goverment should just spend their money more wisely so they have some spare money to fund the BBC.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 May 2008, 09:37

Yi-Long wrote:I think the BBC uses the money well, it has a lot of in-house talent, it creates new original shows, it buys good movies, etc.

Now, if they didnt have that money, they would be just like any other commercial network, putting dumbasses on TV in easy, cheap to make shows (Whoring on Ice, London's Next Top Cabdriver, etc), and throwing alot of commercials on us.

I do think over a 100 pounds per household is too expensive.

People pay enough taxes as it is already, so maybe the goverment should just spend their money more wisely so they have some spare money to fund the BBC.

Good point, I wouldnt want BBC to become like ITV in that respect, so mostly they care about "ratings".

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 03 May 2008, 11:33

That's what I meant. I think BBC genuinely cares about quality first, ratings second. If they would degrade themselfs to commerial TV, it could mean the end of lots of interesting programs, while getting lots of shite in return.

I do feel the whole TV business should change, now that more and more money is being made from shows on DVD.

Take for example a show like Deadwood, which supposedly is very very good, but got cancelled because of poor ratings, and I dont understand WHY, cause a good show will always still make their investment back and make a profit, once it hits DVD. So they should have just continued making the show, and who cares if a prime TV station runs it!? Just keep making it, and sell it on DVD instead. And if it is a good show the networks will come back for it, once it has found an audience.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 03 May 2008, 16:38

Yi-Long wrote:Whoring on Ice, London's Next Top Cabdriver, etc

Don't knock them until you've seen them...

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 03 May 2008, 16:43

MarK:

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 May 2008, 17:36

Ivan Drago wrote:On the other hand, I'd gladly pay £130 a year for those Doctor Who restorations!

I didn't realise we paid for that too. Those are excellent.

Yi-Long wrote:I think the BBC uses the money well, it has a lot of in-house talent, it creates new original shows, it buys good movies, etc.

That's easy for you to say you don't pay it

. I know you of all people would think very different if you "had" to pay £135 a year to watch TV. All you do is download the BBC shows illegally. I wouldn't be complaining if I could do that, without paying too

Yi-Long wrote:Now, if they didnt have that money, they would be just like any other commercial network, putting dumbasses on TV in easy, cheap to make shows (Whoring on Ice, London's Next Top Cabdriver, etc), and throwing alot of commercials on us.

Us? Have you suddenly moved to The UK?

Incorrect, there is nothing to suggest the quality would drop substantially or at all. I come back to original point that Channel 4 are equally as good without charging us.

Yi-Long wrote:so maybe the goverment should just spend their money more wisely so they have some spare money to fund the BBC.

That alone wouldn't cover the BBC's costs.

grim_tales wrote:Good point, I wouldnt want BBC to become like ITV in that respect, so mostly they care about "ratings".

That wouldn't happen.

Changing your charging model doesn't change what "type" of channel you are. ITV was specifically setup to speak to working classes. The BBC was not.

Yi-Long wrote:That's what I meant. I think BBC genuinely cares about quality first, ratings second. If they would degrade themselfs to commerial TV, it could mean the end of lots of interesting programs, while getting lots of shite in return.

Possibly but it's certainly not definite.

Channel 4 makes equally as good documentaries as BBC. Besides the BBC very much goes for ratings too (people have complained about this). Did you see any of the dreadful X-Factor/American Idol "Fame Academy"? If that wasn't going for ratings I don't know what is. The BBC has it's equal share of "Reality TV".

Anyway Mark is right the quality of the program is completely irrelevant. We'd be forced to pay if all the programs were shite.

Yi-Long wrote:Take for example a show like Deadwood, which supposedly is very very good, but got cancelled because of poor ratings, and I dont understand WHY

I'd guess it was cancelled because not enough people were watching it and thus it wasn't making money. DVD is secondary to the initial TV viewing figures. Sadly if something is "too" good many people will switch off. It's sadly true that when watching TV many people literally don't want to use their brains.

To think is bad.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 03 May 2008, 18:16

Deadwood was not cancelled because of poor ratings,it was cancelled because of the high production costs. If it was ratings that saw the show off why was there an offer made to the makers to wrap things up with some 2 hour movies?

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 03 May 2008, 19:17

Fair enough. I've no idea. I don't proclaim to be a Deadwood expert

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 03 May 2008, 20:41

bradavon wrote:
Ivan Drago wrote:On the other hand, I'd gladly pay £130 a year for those Doctor Who restorations!
I didn't realise we paid for that too. Those are excellent.

.

I have no idea if the fee does help pay for them!

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 03 May 2008, 22:42

bradavon wrote:Fair enough. I've no idea. I don't proclaim to be a Deadwood expert

Well you should make yourself one because it pisses from a great height on the likes of Ashes to Ashes & Sarah Connor (which i like) along with Carnivale one of the greatest feats of television ever.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 04 May 2008, 00:45

I hear it's very good.

So you've seen Ashes to Ashes now? How many episodes did you watch? What did you think? Deadwood looks like a very different type of show.

I've never heard of Carnivàle before.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 17 May 2008, 18:42

Is it true you can opt out of the licence if you just use your tv to watch DVDs or play video games? The TV licence site seems to imply that

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 17 May 2008, 19:15

Ivan Drago wrote:Is it true you can opt out of the licence if you just use your tv to watch DVDs or play video games? The TV licence site seems to imply that

Yeah, I did it when I was at uni. I think you have to have the aerial disconnected, and they claim that they will come to check up on you sometime.

Killer Meteor · Post by **Killer Meteor** » 17 May 2008, 19:30

Good plan. I start my masters in September and £135 is ridiculous when I only watch one programme!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jul 2008, 18:32

Thompson rejects calls to cut BBC:

BBC director general Mark Thompson has rebuffed a report which called for the corporation to slim down.

It argued the BBC should be cut back to one mainstream TV station, a speech radio service and a news department.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7503345.stm

I cannot stand the TV Tax but this isn't the answer. I'd definitely miss BBC1, BBC2 and BBC News. I'd probably miss the Website too.

That said I couldn't care less about the rest. I listen to Radio 1 and Radio 2 every now and again but I could happily live without them. As for BBC3 and BBC4 what a waste of time they are. Not that ITV and Channel 5's Digital offerings are any better. Only Channel 4 actually make an effort in the Digital arena. BBC3 isn't a patch on Channel 4's "young audience channel" E4.

I never use BBC iPlayer either, TV on a PC monitor, great idea. I'll definitely be interested in using it if/when it comes to the Freesat service though.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 12 Jul 2008, 18:49

That's going too far.

You could get rid of BBC3 and 4 (and slot any decent programmes from it onto late night BBC2) and reduce the excess of radio channels to the original four or five.

Then take a small chunk off the licence fee.

I think the fee should be scrapped but a reduction might win over some.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 12 Jul 2008, 19:01

I cannot see the fee being reduced, especially as the BBC is in financial crisis. A late night slot for BBC3 wouldn't work, considering it's aimed at a younger teenage audience.

I doubt many would miss BBC3/BBC4 though.