The BBC license fee

[amadeus]

How is this really any different from PBS?

 

[Hayek]

Atropos makes a very good point when answering those who tout the supposed superiority of the BBC: If the programmes really are that great, why would they not be made by private broadcasting companies? To think that Britons would abandon good quality TV shows as soon as they are not forced to pay the licence that funds them reeks of élitism.

An independent institution that has a legal sanction to extract money from people without asking them if they actually want their service or not sounds like something they had in the Mediaeval times. Most people like it? Well in that case, see my first paragraph.

The sooner the BBC is privaitized the better.

 

[bathsheba666]

Atropos makes a very good point when answering those who tout the supposed superiority of the BBC: If the programmes really are that great, why would they not be made by private broadcasting companies? To think that Britons would abandon good quality TV shows as soon as they are not forced to pay the licence that funds them reeks of élitism.

An independent institution that has a legal sanction to extract money from people without asking them if they actually want their service or not sounds like something they had in the Mediaeval times. Most people like it? Well in that case, see my first paragraph.

The sooner the BBC is privaitized the better.

Love the 'supposed'.

Love the assumption behind the first question.
Look at the stuff privatised companies churn out and it is cheap crap.
Phone an expensive number game shows.

Let's turn the question around, why don't private broadcasting companies match the BBC for consistency in high quality output?
The assumption that private is better may be fashionable at present, but no more convincing for that.

If discriminating against garbage is elitist, then let's have more elitism.

The sooner the BBC is privatised, the sooner TV plunges down the same free market toilet visible throughout the rest of the world.

 

[Old Spice]

How is this really any different from PBS?

You don't have to donate to PBS to have a TV...

 

[bhsup]

How is this really any different from PBS?

Well, while I don't really care how they deal with the BBC across the pond, PBS has pledge drives. You could argue that the federal government funding is akin to what the BBC does, it is general fund monies and not a specific "PBS" tax that everyone with a TV pays for.

 

[Hayek]

Love the 'supposed'.

Love the assumption behind the first question.
Look at the stuff privatised companies churn out and it is cheap crap.
Phone an expensive number game shows.

If discriminating against garbage is elitist, then let's have more elitism.

The sooner the BBC is privatised, the sooner TV plunges down the same free market toilet visible throughout the rest of the world.

What is wrong with the assumption? You seem to contend that if humans are not treated like cattle and forced to do what you think is right, they will immediately turn into disgusting pigs.

Timeless classics like "Seinfeld" and "the Simpsons" were not made by privileged institutions which were legally permitted to extract money from people who may or may not approve of what said institution is doing.

"Toilet TV" is not on the rise, by the way. It is often said that people waste too much time in front of dumbed-down TV shows, and no doubt, there is a lot of "toilet TV" around. However, if private broadcasting companies want people to watch their shows, it pays to make them complicated and intellectually demanding. This will also make the viewers watch the re-runs. The top-quality TV shows today are probably far better than the top-quality TV shows of yesteryear, just like computer games (another supposed waste of time) are better today.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I hope you Brits don't mind.. but I've been watching and listening to the BBC for free for the past two years. Does that make me a leech?

 

[Mise]

I haven't read the thread, but I don't particularly like the BBC, and hardly ever watch it. If you ask me, Channel 4 news is much better than the BBC, and offers a MUCH more diverse, sophisticated and entertaining programme. If I could get my £120-odd per year back and be denied the right to watch the BBC, I would.

In fact, the only channels I ever seem to watch are Channel 4, More 4, Film 4, and of course, E4.

 

[Mise]

Thank you for taking the time for informing me off all that.

I seems simple to me. Britons have made a choice that information/art is a essential commodity to their state in the same way that gas, telephone, post office, ect ect is. It seems that the BBC is regulated in the same ways as other utilities are. But TV can not be charged in the same way that gas and other can be (for obvious reasons).

This seems to be about the best system that i could see running. What else could you do?

Utilities, Telecoms and the Post Office in the UK are privately owned and operated. Only the infrastructure is under "heavy" government control; there is competition at point of service.

 

[amadeus]

You don't have to donate to PBS to have a TV...

Well, while I don't really care how they deal with the BBC across the pond, PBS has pledge drives. You could argue that the federal government funding is akin to what the BBC does, it is general fund monies and not a specific "PBS" tax that everyone with a TV pays for.

If you pay federal income taxes, you basically do. Over 80% of the CPB (Corporation for Public Broadcasting) funds come from federal appropriations.

 

[Old Spice]

Who said I pay tax's?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

I haven't read the thread, but I don't particularly like the BBC, and hardly ever watch it. If you ask me, Channel 4 news is much better than the BBC, and offers a MUCH more diverse, sophisticated and entertaining programme. If I could get my £120-odd per year back and be denied the right to watch the BBC, I would.

In fact, the only channels I ever seem to watch are Channel 4, More 4, Film 4, and of course, E4.

But do you not listen to BBC Radio?

Talking of radio:
The other day radio figures were published and they show we are listening to radio more than ever since records began in 1992 and the top five most listened to stations were:

Radio2 (13.2m), Radio 1 (10.2m), Radio 4 (9.3m) and Radio 5 (6m).

And they are all BBC.

Despite the fact there are many, many commercial stations to compete with, overall the BBC takes over 50% of the listening public.

 

[bathsheba666]

I hope you Brits don't mind.. but I've been watching and listening to the BBC for free for the past two years. Does that make me a leech?

No, but it does make you better informed

 

[bathsheba666]

What is wrong with the assumption? You seem to contend that if humans are not treated like cattle and forced to do what you think is right, they will immediately turn into disgusting pigs.

Timeless classics like "Seinfeld" and "the Simpsons" were not made by privileged institutions which were legally permitted to extract money from people who may or may not approve of what said institution is doing.

"Toilet TV" is not on the rise, by the way. It is often said that people waste too much time in front of dumbed-down TV shows, and no doubt, there is a lot of "toilet TV" around. However, if private broadcasting companies want people to watch their shows, it pays to make them complicated and intellectually demanding. This will also make the viewers watch the re-runs. The top-quality TV shows today are probably far better than the top-quality TV shows of yesteryear, just like computer games (another supposed waste of time) are better today.

The simple contradiction underlying your (false) assumption that private tv stations make better programs is pretty stark and pretty glaring.

The presence of the BBC does not prevent private stations from making better tv.

So, if they were going to make better programs, they probably already would have done this.

And the glorious market would watch those programs, and not the BBCs, because they would be glaringly better.

And then , there would be no need t fund the BBC any more.

But, curiously this hasn't happened yet.

Care to hazard a guess why? Especially given your core beliefs?

 

[Hayek]

The simple contradiction underlying your (false) assumption that private tv stations make better programs is pretty stark and pretty glaring.

The presence of the BBC does not prevent private stations from making better tv.

So, if they were going to make better programs, they probably already would have done this.

And the glorious market would watch those programs, and not the BBCs, because they would be glaringly better.

And then , there would be no need t fund the BBC any more.

But, curiously this hasn't happened yet.

Care to hazard a guess why? Especially given your core beliefs?

You seem to misunderstand me. I said TV is continuously improving. I was not comparing one station to another today, I said TV shows would tend to get better all the time even in the absence of your beloved privileged institution with special rights to forcibly take individuals' money away. I also offered the logic behind why TV is getting better on average.

Quite a few BBC shows may be in demand (I don't have a TV, so am not watching myself and don't know most of what's offered), which is why they would survive on a commercial basis, without force and special rights. Just like the aforementioned classics "Seinfeld" and "the Simpsons" survived.

In the end, what you are saying is that because you like the Beeb, every owner of a TV set in the UK should be forced to pay for it, even if they don't like it. What I am saying is that people know themselves what's best for them.

 

[GinandTonic]

What I am saying is that people know themselves what's best for them.

And they express it at the ballot box.

 

[Hayek]

And they express it at the ballot box.

I haven't lived all my life in the UK, but surely there has never been a plebiscite on whether the BBC should be privatized or not? And even if there has, there would still be a sizable minority who either don't own a TV set because of the licence or pay up but don't watch the BBC. So a majority would have voted to impose a fee upon an unwilling minority. Like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

What I don't get is why people seem to believe that the alleged quality of the shows that the BBC broadcasts would be unappreciated unless all owners of a TV set be forced to pay for it.

People watch BBC shows--->The BBC is privatized--->Everybody watches Big Brother or some other variant of télé poubelle.

Surely, shows that attract a lot of viewers are going to be wanted by capitalist broadcasters as well.

 

[Mise]

But do you not listen to BBC Radio?

Nope. And speaking of the radio, you DON'T need a TV license to listen to the radio.

...

What was your point again? That I'm not only paying for services I don't use, but that I'm paying for other people to use those services for free? Cos if that's your point then I entirely agree with you.

@GinandTonic: When was the last election you voted at that was decided by which of the various parties was going to abolish the TV licence fees?! I mean in one breath you say that by making them "license fees" rather than "taxes", it in some way distances the BBC from the government, yet now you're lauding the fact that the BBC's license fees and parliamentary elections are so closely intertwined that all one needs to do is get 50% of households to agree to receiving an extra £10 a month in their bank accounts and BOOM! no more TV license?

Lets be honest, if we were given a choice, I doubt anywhere near half the population would fork out £10 a month for something they can get on the other channels. Hell, for £30-odd a month you can get every single broadcasted channel in the country...

So, if they were going to make better programs, they probably already would have done this.

In my opinion, they do, which is why I almost never watch any of the 6 or 7 BBC channels on my FreeView box. But I guess my opinion doesn't matter.

I don't see why I should pay for something I don't use. NHS? Academic research? Roads in Newcastle? Fair enough, I can see the logic. But something which can be and is being provided by privately owned companies, not only as good as but better that the government, should NOT receive mandatory government-enforced funding.

I find it quite amusing how so many Britons are defending the TV license. There's something so very British about the BBC, which stretches even to the way that it is all paid for. It's pompous and patronising, and it takes it upon itself to spread its message throughout the globe, exporting the very Best of British culture to the unshaven, unsophisticated masses. In short, it represents what was once Great about Britain. Which is also why my opinion doesn't matter.

 

[GinandTonic]

I haven't lived all my life in the UK, but surely there has never been a plebiscite on whether the BBC should be privatized or not.

@GinandTonic: When was the last election you voted at that was decided by which of the various parties was going to abolish the TV licence fees?! I mean in one breath you say that by making them "license fees" rather than "taxes", it in some way distances the BBC from the government, yet now you're lauding the fact that the BBC's license fees and parliamentary elections are so closely intertwined that all one needs to do is get 50% of households to agree to receiving an extra £10 a month in their bank accounts and BOOM! no more TV license?

The public will is expressed because privatising the BBC (or the NHS come to that) is electoral suicide. It was the suspision that that this was what the tories were planning that contributed to their being hoplessly unelectable for a decade.

These are the crown jewels, the family silver. You dont flog off the family silver unless you are looking at the poor house.

 

[Mise]

£10 a month is a lot for poor houses.

And I've also attempted to address why it would be electoral suicide. The truth is, the British public clings on to the British Broadcasting Corporation purely because it's British.

Also, I'm not advocating privatising the BBC, simply making it more like Channel 4 in structure (i.e. funded by adverts instead of "taxes").