I am doing some research and would like to know if anybody knows of another country where there is a TV license fee similar to that of UK. Most people that I have spoken to in other countries consider it just another tax, and not worth the result.
Is BBC/licensing fee necessary or worthwhile.
- Thread starter happywriter
- Start date
France imposes a licence fee and TV dealers have to inform the relevant department who they sell a TV set to.
I believe most countries, especially European have some form of TV licence.
Am I right in saying that we pay our TV licence here in the UK for the privilege of watching the BBC?
I believe most countries, especially European have some form of TV licence.
Am I right in saying that we pay our TV licence here in the UK for the privilege of watching the BBC?
To watch BBC (and listen), but it also goes towards investment in infrastructure. Where do you think all the money to upgrade the country to digital is coming from?
It is a tax, but it does give the BBC its own pot of money that the Government can't pinch to bail out banks. We produce some great TV and Chutzpah is right we also have HD freesat and terrestrial HD broadcasts soon (?) I bet we are ahead of many on that front.
I honestly think it's one of those things that, because people have to pay it, they're instantly against.
However, I also honestly believe that if people pushed for it to be abolished they would very quickly miss it. 39p per day is great value for nine TV channels, iPlayer and around 12 radio stations.
BBC produce great original and regional content, some of which wouldn't be produced by commercial TV. A lot of the output is so good it is sold around the world through BBC Worldwide, with the profits ploughed back into the corporation. The problem is, people can't always see that.
However, I also honestly believe that if people pushed for it to be abolished they would very quickly miss it. 39p per day is great value for nine TV channels, iPlayer and around 12 radio stations.
BBC produce great original and regional content, some of which wouldn't be produced by commercial TV. A lot of the output is so good it is sold around the world through BBC Worldwide, with the profits ploughed back into the corporation. The problem is, people can't always see that.
I love it.
Considering I pay £120+ a year for it (or whatever it is now), I pay almost that every two months for my Satellite subscription.
The BBC has its faults of course, but at least we are not bombarded with adverts every 30 seconds, most of the programmes are not repeated ad-infinitum and many of the programmes made are some of the best we have seen on British TV. I mean look at the true genius of Noel's House Party! (Sorry, that was a little facetious, but the likes of Gavin & Stacy, Blue Planet, Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers etc etc the list goes on and on).
The alternative is to scrap the fee and then let the BBC become overrun with advertisements. In which case it will become a mini-Sky station and no different to any of the others. It would also lose a large degree of credibility this way too.
So, I'm happy to pay the licence fee. I'll admit, it bugs me paying for Eastenders and My Family, but I do get Gavin and Stacy and Horizon back in return which is fair enough in my book.
Considering I pay £120+ a year for it (or whatever it is now), I pay almost that every two months for my Satellite subscription.
The BBC has its faults of course, but at least we are not bombarded with adverts every 30 seconds, most of the programmes are not repeated ad-infinitum and many of the programmes made are some of the best we have seen on British TV. I mean look at the true genius of Noel's House Party! (Sorry, that was a little facetious, but the likes of Gavin & Stacy, Blue Planet, Red Dwarf, Fawlty Towers etc etc the list goes on and on).
The alternative is to scrap the fee and then let the BBC become overrun with advertisements. In which case it will become a mini-Sky station and no different to any of the others. It would also lose a large degree of credibility this way too.
So, I'm happy to pay the licence fee. I'll admit, it bugs me paying for Eastenders and My Family, but I do get Gavin and Stacy and Horizon back in return which is fair enough in my book.
I agree that the BBC does a good, comprehensive job. I think it is top heavy and expensive though.
Its job is not defined, and what it does is rapidly developing partially into commercial operations, competing in a tax-funded manner against commercial companies.
I do object to being forced to pay for the BBC, even if I just wanted to have a TV and never see BBC channels. That makes it an tax on having a t.v., which is far from being universal on the continent or anywhere else.
Its job is not defined, and what it does is rapidly developing partially into commercial operations, competing in a tax-funded manner against commercial companies.
I do object to being forced to pay for the BBC, even if I just wanted to have a TV and never see BBC channels. That makes it an tax on having a t.v., which is far from being universal on the continent or anywhere else.
I appreciate that the BBC makes some excellent programs, though I agree with happywriter. I resent being forced to pay the licencing fee whether I watch the BBC or not. As someone who watches the BBC rarely (or TV for that matter), I find the licencing fee an expensive necessity.
I think the BBC is incredibly important. You only have to watch television in just about any other European country to see how great it is to have an independent broadcaster that doesn't carry advertising. Its output is fantastic and one that it should rightly be proud of. I think it continues to do a good job in an increasingly digital world. If you think of the number of competitors it faces now as opposed to when it first launched, I think the beeb is still doing good! But stop dumbing down BBC Bristol - more nature docs please!
To be fair to BBC Bristol, they have had their funding rather aggressively cut in favour of BBC Cardiff - they're even moving filming of Casualty 'across the bridge'!
It is true that the BBC does provide some excellent programing, with good research and filming; people should be able to choose whether they wish to use that service - and pay for it.
I would resent being told that because a certain state recognised publisher provided wonderful books and great magazines, that if I wanted to purchase any books or magazines I would have to donate towards that state publisher's business.
I would resent being told that because a certain state recognised publisher provided wonderful books and great magazines, that if I wanted to purchase any books or magazines I would have to donate towards that state publisher's business.
If I replaced my TV with a monitor and only watched programs online and watched DVDs, would I still need a TV licence?
I'm sure if I cancelled my licence (or direct debit) I would eventually get somebody knocking at my door to check that I wasn't watching TV illegally.
I'm sure if I cancelled my licence (or direct debit) I would eventually get somebody knocking at my door to check that I wasn't watching TV illegally.
If you had a monitor and a dvd player then you wouldn't need a licence. However, the rule shave changed and if you have any mechanism to receive TV i.e. a mobile, internet, tuner etc then you need a licence.
It used to be just a tuner
Tony
As with many services provided by a monopoly organisation, it is now being shown how out of touch with the reality many of those charges are being used.
BBC has its uses and advantages, but I should be allowed to view/listen/take advantage of them, or not - at my decision. The BBC is certainly an expensive method of providing a selection of TV programs for the population.
America had a revolution based on the concept of the illegality of taxation without representation. Maybe it is time to remember and learn from those feelings at that time.
BBC has its uses and advantages, but I should be allowed to view/listen/take advantage of them, or not - at my decision. The BBC is certainly an expensive method of providing a selection of TV programs for the population.
America had a revolution based on the concept of the illegality of taxation without representation. Maybe it is time to remember and learn from those feelings at that time.
Expensive? Hardly. I think a lot of people in America find their output dreadful (aside from the odd high-budget production) and biased.
Sky? Now THAT is expensive.
Sky? Now THAT is expensive.
Have to say I agree with you Chutzpah about the BBC not being expensive and Sky being incredibly so. And I have already posted on here about my gripe with Sky and their ability to change your packages without your knowledge. However, what I should really do is set up my Freeview box and just watch the free to air. So far it is sitting rusting in a box so I am continuing to use my Sky box. I think that's where I lose a lot of money. Through not really knowing how to go about and effect change/swap providers, etc. Because I have my line rental thorugh BT but my broadband and phone and box through Sky I am relutant to change all that as I feel I am paying for the convenience of having so many things under one provider.
Whether or not one considers BBC expensive - or its money wasted in many respects - it should be a decision of each of us to buy its services or not. I would like to be able to make that decision.