The BBC license fee

[happy_Alex]

Very true. The fact that the BBC seems unable (at any rate, it won't try) to fund itself the normal way (through advertising or subscription - methods which involve actual consenting customers rather than force) proves that it is not as good as you claim.

blaaaaaaaaghhh hhhhhhhhhhhh............................


that's the point, it's publicly funded.....

I happen to think that Google is really good. Why don't you like my Google idea? Maybe if Google were nationalized you would like it?



Personally, I'd rather define my culture and values myself, not have them set for me by a government agency.



There are two possibilities here:

1. Planet Earth would be unprofitable under any other model. This implies that the BBC could not obtain enough subscribers/ people watching ads while it is on. In other words, it's unpopular, so why should the BBC, the servant of a democratic government, inflict it on us? Do you really think that the BBC staff, purely by virtue of being BBC staff, know what we should watch better than we do?

2. (Much more likely): Planet Earth would be profitable under another model. Then why is this one needed?



The difference is that it is impossible to isolate exactly who is benefiting from the army or the police, and make them pay.

It is eminently possible to isolate who is benefiting from a television service. It's the people who watch it.

Planet earth is not unprofitable coz lots of people watch it so its good value for money. Also it's sold abroad.

 

[Volum]

Im pretty sure i can do the whole Norwegian standard answer on the issue again...

You dont pay to watch BBC, you pay to have a TV. (Or a reciver or whatever) But BBC gets the money in exchange for promising a lot of different TV to please all kinds of people (Like Finnish theater recordings from 1976) and not having any advertising.

And if they come knocking on the door you have the right to refuse them entrance, and i really doubt they would bother getting a warent for it.

However, as has been said: Its much simpler to just let them in see that you dont have a TV.

 

[bathsheba666]

Rephrase that as "I think that the BBC is special, unique, a national treasure," and you may begin to see why I have a problem with it.

There is no objective standard for defining what is a national treasure and what is not. The only realistic method, in practice, is determining what is popular; and if the BBC is as popular as you evidently believe, it should have no problems at all in paying for itself through advertising or subscription.

Can I play too?
Rephrase that as I believe the only realistic method........

Well, it's not just I who think that.

And your road leads to crap tv, for which there is plenty of evidence if you travel outside the UK, or just stay in the UK and watch some of the other channels.

You seem to think that what is popular must be right.

The point about culture is to celebrate and preserve it.
It starts to disappear as soon as simplistic free market fetishists are allowed in to toy with it.

I'll take your observation point about viewing in Belgium. Any more than just one?

 

[Atropos]

blaaaaaaaaghhh hhhhhhhhhhhh............................


that's the point, it's publicly funded.....

What's the point? Anything is good if it's publicly funded?

Anyway, the BBC isn't publicly funded, properly speaking. That would imply that it was funded by tax revenue.

Planet earth is not unprofitable coz lots of people watch it so its good value for money. Also it's sold abroad.

Allow me to repeat what you just said...

"Planet earth is not unprofitable because lots of people watch it."

To this I can only reply: Huh? What are you trying to say here?

"Profitable" means that a company makes money by selling the service. In this case it is impossible to test whether Planet Earth is profitable or not, because the BBC does not sell the service per se. People who own televisions are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not.

You seem to be taking the position that the BBC, or at least that subsection of it represented by the Planet Earth programme, is highly popular. Figures here would be nice, but I'll take your word for it.

Very well. If Planet Earth is highly popular, then wouldn't it at least pay its costs through advertising or subscription if either method was adopted?

And, to preempt Brennan's next post, why would it magically become worse because people have the choice whether to pay for it or not? Some of you seem to have a rather depressing view of the quality of what people are willing to pay for.

 

[Atropos]

Im pretty sure i can do the whole Norwegian standard answer on the issue again...

You dont pay to watch BBC, you pay to have a TV. (Or a reciver or whatever) But BBC gets the money in exchange for promising a lot of different TV to please all kinds of people (Like Finnish theater recordings from 1976) and not having any advertising.

And if they come knocking on the door you have the right to refuse them entrance, and i really doubt they would bother getting a warent for it.

However, as has been said: Its much simpler to just let them in see that you dont have a TV.

How about if Sky News drops its advertising and subscription? Do they get the right to part of that money? Maybe a separate fee?

 

[GinandTonic]

What if someone buys a TV only to watch the other stations? Shouldn't it be the BBC's responsibility to absolutely prove the person is watching the BBC? Or what if they only want a TV to watch rented DVDs and VHS tapes? Or just get satellite service, though that could get tricky if the BBC were sent over satellite, but they could just charge the satellite company I suppose. Heck, what if the TV is just used for a CCTV security system?

Why, why did they cancel Monarch of the Glen?!

If the TV is connected to an ariel then you have to pay the licence. If the TV is not then you dont.

I had a big TV that I almost never watched in the living room and a little portable in the bedroom. The big TV went black and white but since I hardly ever watched it except for news etc (I had a huge computer monitor for DVD's) and I was skint I didnt bother to replace it. The little TV didnt get any reception as it was a basement flat, it was just for for VHS in bed.

I got a B+W licence for gbp30 or something because I could ony watch broadcast TV in B+W. It took them a while to realise they werent getting the other hundred quid but they got it in the end.

 

[Atropos]

Can I play too?
Rephrase that as I believe the only realistic method........

Well, it's not just I who think that.

And your road leads to crap tv, for which there is plenty of evidence if you travel outside the UK, or just stay in the UK and watch some of the other channels.

You seem to think that what is popular must be right.

The point about culture is to celebrate and preserve it.
It starts to disappear as soon as simplistic free market fetishists are allowed in to toy with it.

I'll take your observation point about viewing in Belgium. Any more than just one?

(Note: Sorry for the multiple posts. I'm responding to multiple people and it's easier to do it separately).

1. "Your road leads to crap TV."

It is my, entirely subjective and disputable, opinion that your road leads to crap TV. It is your, entirely subjective and disputable, opinion that mine does. Neither is relevant.

(By the way, I've spent most of my life outside the UK. I've lived in a lot of countries and (when extremely bored) watched a lot of different varieties of television. Your believe in the superiority of British television strikes me as odd, but, again, that's just my opinion).

None of these opinions are relevant because law is not supposed to be based on someone's opinion of what constitutes good television. It is my personal opinion that all reality TV shows should by taken out and shot. Does this mean that other watchers should fund a reality-TV-free channel? No.

2. "You seem to think that what is popular must be right."

I refer you to your earlier statement: "It's not just I who thinks so."

In any case, my position is not that what is popular must be right, but that no one has the right to determine what is right (i.e., in this debate, culturally good) for his or her fellows.

It seems to me that there are only two possible positions for a BBC supporter. Either the BBC is popular or it isn't:
a. The BBC is so good that it deserves to be funded even if unpopular.

To this I reply: "Good" according to whom? In any case, we live in a democracy. Why should the tastes of a minority determine government actions?

b. But the supporters of the BBC aren't a minority! They are in fact numbered in millions! The BBC is highly popular!

In that case, it can and should fund itself through subscriptions and advertising.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

I too love the BBC (even if I moan sometimes about its liberal bias).

Remember, this is a tax which is levied on each household to provide for a ‘state funded’ broadcasting outlet. It is not levied on children, or even on individuals, but on households.

Some other advantages (apart from the very good programs etc.):

1. Our £140 pa (vs Sky £500 pa) also pays for at least 7 national advert free Radio stations and dozens of local radio stations.
And the BBC World Service is one of the most recognised and respected radio services in the world.
I would bet that there must be 99%+ of adult householders (ie payers of this tax) or their family that either watch or listen to the BBC every month.

2. Advert free (wonderful – and almost worth the licence itself IMO).

3. The standard of our commercial stations is kept very much higher than they otherwise would be if the BBC didn’t exist. The BBC doesn’t have to chase ratings to survive (and yet they do compete in the ratings). Having watched some American, (and other) TV stations which can only be described as advertising stations interrupted occasionally by bits of a program – ITV, Channel 4 and 5 are at least the other way round.

4. We trust the BBC – at times of troubles (7/7, 9/11 etc.) most people tune into the BBC – what price trust? During the World Cup when the same game is on both the BBC and ITV, the BBC wins about 3 to 1 in the ratings.

 

[GinandTonic]

And the BBC World Service is one of the most recognised and respected radio services in the world.

One of? Leader by a country mile. Really its the World Service first with the competion nowhere. A Tiger Woods like pwanage.

 

[brennan]

Having watched some American, (and other) TV stations which can only be described as advertising stations interrupted occasionally by bits of a program

QFT.

Commercial TV sucks.

 

[Atropos]

I too love the BBC (even if I moan sometimes about its liberal bias).

Remember, this is a tax which is levied on each household to provide for a ‘state funded’ broadcasting outlet. It is not levied on children, or even on individuals, but on households.

This is an argument in the BBC's favour? The fact that it's a flat fee levied without regard to whether the payer is rich, poor, alone, in a family of six...

Maybe other taxes should be levied this way, too? Everyone pays fifteen thousand quid or whatever, without regard to family size or income?

Some other advantages (apart from the very good programs etc.):

1. Our £140 pa (vs Sky £500 pa) also pays for at least 7 national advert free Radio stations and dozens of local radio stations.
And the BBC World Service is one of the most recognised and respected radio services in the world.

Your point is identical to the one made and refuted half a dozen times in this thread:

"I think the BBC offers value for money."

What about those who don't?

I would bet that there must be 99%+ of adult householders (ie payers of this tax) or their family that either watch or listen to the BBC every month.

Great! It should be able to pay for itself with no difficulty, without bothering the few who don't want it.

It seems to me, however, that you are overlooking the fact that if ANY service were free, everyone would use it. It's the law of demand.

2. Advert free (wonderful – and almost worth the licence itself IMO).

The license is the reason why it's advert free, so your "almost" worth is telling.

But, fine. Let it be advert free. What's wrong with subscription?

3. The standard of our commercial stations is kept very much higher than they otherwise would be if the BBC didn’t exist. The BBC doesn’t have to chase ratings to survive (and yet they do compete in the ratings). Having watched some American, (and other) TV stations which can only be described as advertising stations interrupted occasionally by bits of a program – ITV, Channel 4 and 5 are at least the other way round.

"The BBC doesn't have to chase ratings to survive." In other words, the tax money can be spent without regard to the views of the taxpayers.

Remind me again: Britain is a democracy, right?

4. We trust the BBC – at times of troubles (7/7, 9/11 etc.) most people tune into the BBC – what price trust? During the World Cup when the same game is on both the BBC and ITV, the BBC wins about 3 to 1 in the ratings.

Personally, the idea that the British trust a government agency above all other sources as a source of crucial political information strikes me as the most depressing idea I've heard since coming here.

Fortunately, I don't think it's true. You can't compare a "free" (since the license is compulsory anyway) service to one which charges in terms of the ratings. Given two popcorn salesmen, one of whom charges and one of whom doesn't (because anyone who enters the movie theatre has to pay him anyway), which do you think will have a more thriving business?

 

[brennan]

"The BBC doesn't have to chase ratings to survive." In other words, the tax money can be spent without regard to the views of the taxpayers.

Remind me again: Britain is a democracy, right?

Actually the BBC continues to get it's money so long as it is fulfilling it's charter obligations to be impartial and provide good value.

Personally, the idea that the British trust a government agency above all other sources as a source of crucial political information strikes me as the most depressing idea I've heard since coming here.

HAhahahahaha. Oh yeah that's right, you don't watch it do you? That's right, Paxo is a government stooge.

 

[Atropos]

Actually the BBC continues to get it's money so long as it is fulfilling it's charter obligations to be impartial and provide good value.

But the point remains that any given programme, or even the institution as a whole, doesn't actually have to be popular with the taxpayers to receive (quasi-)taxpayers' money. And I would rather have viewers determine what constitutes "good value" than have another government agency do it.

HAhahahahaha. Oh yeah that's right, you don't watch it do you? That's right, Paxo is a government stooge.

You misunderstand me. I was in no way accusing Paxo of being a government stooge.

One doesn't have to think the BBC a mouthpiece of the government to be worried about the idea that most British citizens might trust a government agency's version of an emergency situation over all others. I concede, however, that this is not an immediate concern, since I do not view British democracy as endangered in the medium term.

 

[punkbass2000]

Atropos, you're being absurd. Every modern-day country has taxes. There are few, if any, that manage to take advantage of every last service the country provides. The government here funds art I'll never see, an education system I don't use and healthcare system I don't use. That's life. You are engaged in a social contract. This is part of it. If you think it's unfair, no one is forcing you to stay in the country. Go elsewhere, where your hard-earned cash will not be frivolously wasted on a television station.

 

[Atropos]

Atropos, you're being absurd. Every modern-day country has taxes. There are few, if any, that manage to take advantage of every last service the country provides. The government here funds art I'll never see

It shouldn't, but that's another question.

Of course, if the art in question is a Rembrandt restoration or something of that nature - don't you think that it's a bit absurd to compare its cultural value to that of the BBC?

But, of course, the BBC is a national treasure. I was forgetting.

an education system I don't use

You benefit from the fact that the cashier at your bank was taught how to add.

and healthcare system I don't use.

You're certain you'll stay healthy for the rest of your life?

That's life. You are engaged in a social contract

Oh, dear. Not Rousseau again.

I could tell you with great detail and pungency what I think of the social contract, but it wouldn't really be relevant here, since the idea is not supposed to cover every imposition, however absurd, that the government takes it into its head to inflict.

 

[punkbass2000]

It shouldn't, but that's another question.

Of course, if the art in question is a Rembrandt restoration or something of that nature - don't you think that it's a bit absurd to compare its cultural value to that of the BBC?

Weren't you positing that culture was immeasureable earlier?

You benefit from the fact that the cashier at your bank was taught how to add.

Nope.

You're certain you'll stay healthy for the rest of your life?

You're certain you'll never be informed, directly or indirectly, by a BBC broadcast?

Oh, dear. Not Rousseau again.

I could tell you with great detail and pungency what I think of the social contract, but it wouldn't really be relevant here, since the idea is not supposed to cover every imposition, however absurd, that the government takes it into its head to inflict.

True. Since you're in a democracy, rather than leaving, you could begin a campaign to have this situation rectified.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

It seems to me, however, that you are overlooking the fact that if ANY service were free, everyone would use it. It's the law of demand.

The license is the reason why it's advert free, so your "almost" worth is telling.

But, fine. Let it be advert free. What's wrong with subscription?

You cannot have Analogue(Terrestrial) TV paid with subscriptions. When we go digital (by 2012 I think), then that’s another matter. But then how would you subscribe to Radio? – they would have to carry adverts and would spoil our very good radio service.

In respect of being advert free, do you seriously not understand the comment “almost worth the licence itself”?

"The BBC doesn't have to chase ratings to survive." In other words, the tax money can be spent without regard to the views of the taxpayers.

You conveniently missed out the “yet they do compete in the ratings”.

Remind me again: Britain is a democracy, right?

Yes, and we choose to have the BBC advert free, paid by everyone. Why can’t you understand that?

Personally, the idea that the British trust a government agency above all other sources as a source of crucial political information strikes me as the most depressing idea I've heard since coming here.

You just don’t get it do you? And I suspect this is at the heart of your misunderstanding of the BBC – It is NOT a government agency, it is our BBC that does (mostly) what we want because we pay our licence fee. The Govt has little to do with it. One of The biggest anti Iraq war news service during the invasion was the BBC .

The BBC is not like state broadcasting services in other countries (eg. the USA) – it is our service because we pay the licence fee. If it was funded out of state general tax or adverts we would lose that personal touch.
We do not call it “Aunty Beeb” (and other monikers ) for nothing. Most of us love and trust it.

 

[happy_Alex]

What's the point? Anything is good if it's publicly funded?

Anyway, the BBC isn't publicly funded, properly speaking. That would imply that it was funded by tax revenue.




Allow me to repeat what you just said...

"Planet earth is not unprofitable because lots of people watch it."

To this I can only reply: Huh? What are you trying to say here?

"Profitable" means that a company makes money by selling the service. In this case it is impossible to test whether Planet Earth is profitable or not, because the BBC does not sell the service per se. People who own televisions are forced to pay for it whether they want it or not.

You seem to be taking the position that the BBC, or at least that subsection of it represented by the Planet Earth programme, is highly popular. Figures here would be nice, but I'll take your word for it.

Very well. If Planet Earth is highly popular, then wouldn't it at least pay its costs through advertising or subscription if either method was adopted?

And, to preempt Brennan's next post, why would it magically become worse because people have the choice whether to pay for it or not? Some of you seem to have a rather depressing view of the quality of what people are willing to pay for.

this may come as a bombshell to you matey, but profitablility isn't everything.

 

[Atropos]

Weren't you positing that culture was immeasureable earlier?

Touché. I'll revert to my statement that the government shouldn't be funding art.

Nope.

You are never in any situation in which you interlocutor's ability to add is useful to you? Not even in a store? All right. But I hope that you'll concede that educating children offers them a rather more tangible advantage then giving them access to the BBC.

You're certain you'll never be informed, directly or indirectly, by a BBC broadcast?

Of something that I couldn't have learned just as easily by other means? Absolutely.

True. Since you're in a democracy, rather than leaving, you could begin a campaign to have this situation rectified.

I would, but the support for the idea seems...how shall I put it... lukewarm

 

[joycem10]

I've always found this pretty crazy, if someone tried to charge me a fee or a tax for PBS, Id join a militia and assasinate Ken Burns.

That being said, my TV's are all monitors only with no internal tuners. I do have a cable box with a tuner, but if I had my monitor only, would I have pay this tax if I lived in GB?

What about people who only use a monitor for DVDs or game consoles, do they have to pay this tax also?

Also how do they handle computer monitors? You can use that as a TV too, do all computer owners get taxed as well.