TV licence fee to rise by FIFTEEN pounds?

I haven’t got a television but have to have a licence to watch iPlayer.
Why do people resent paying for their main form of entertainment and information? Every day I listen to the BBC’s Radios 3 and 4 and I sometimes watch a programme on iPlayer. It’s worth every penny for high quality, impartial broadcasting without vested interests or advertising.
Of course there have been drastic cuts, because the BBC’s funding has been drastically cut.

If our public broadcaster wants to save some money and decrease its carbon footprint,it should stop sending THREE radio commentators to each of the top football games to cover the same match.

For Callistemon, that "too long, didn't read" and the "couldn't be arsed", standard responses on F'book from people who don't have any legit argument for the points raised to them, but feel they must keep yakking to try and save face, so come back with some feeble jibe like that. BUT on another comment, you were quite right, the moans that BBC gets re politics stem from folk seeing and hearing JUST what they WANT TO, it's been shown many times, a bit I'm told like football supporters yelling at the ref?

For Iam64 - Hurray. Sure, BBC has its faults, but any org with 20K+ employees has some. It's be far the most popular TV, produces tons of radio, and has that excellent ads-free website.
The people (cheapskates) who say they get news from websites of papers must be very patient, they all take ages to load due to all the ads coming with it.

It would be scandalous, libellous and probably end up in court.

Oh, I'm intrigued!!

Mind you , to be fair, DD worked for the BBC for quite some years - what she says about doesn't bear repeating.

Callistemon we will know the BBC has a bias, when only one side of the political spectrum complains.

M0nica

Actually national television isn't free in Australia, it is finaced by the government from taxes paid by residents.

We could say that we are more civilised in the UK, our national tv is not a government funded mouth piece for the current governing party.

We could say that we are more civilised in the UK, our national tv is not a government funded mouth piece for the current governing party

I have read claims on Gransnet that, in fact, it is just that.

Others will argue that it has a left wing bias.

😃

Actually national television isn't free in Australia, it is finaced by the government from taxes paid by residents.

We could say that we are more civilised in the UK, our national tv is not a government funded mouth piece for the current governing party.

DrWatson tltr, cba.

nanna8

We are more civilised in my country. We don’t have to pay for National television. It is free. So should yours be.

Now that is a telling statement.

nanna8

We are more civilised in my country. We don’t have to pay for National television. It is free. So should yours be.

But we are civilised enough not to have national television - we have an independent broadcasting service, which is linked to the government by its funding model, but not (in theory) otherwise. It is not perfect, but who pays the salaries of those on ‘national television’? Who puts up the money to make drama, or for the research that goes into documentaries, the insurance for those in war zones and so in? If it is advertisers then they weild the power over what goes out, so it is only ‘national’ in the sense that it covers all regions of the country. If it is the government, then it is paid for from taxes, as is all government spending (sorry Maisie), and it is not free from their interference.

The BBC model is as good as it gets, I think. As I say, I think jailing people for non-payment is draconian, but a means should be found to ensure that everyone pays their share, and can’t piggy back on those who do contribute. FWIW I do support free licenses for the elderly, the sick and the disabled. Not means-tested, but universally applied. Everyone else should contribute though, unless they genuinely opt out of watching or listening to everything the BBC produces.

I’m happy to pay the licence fee. Radio 3, 4, 5 and occasionally 2 are worth the licence fee, never mind the occasional gem tv series.
The bbc may not be perfect but it’s good value. As for Gary Linaker’s salary. Complaining he’s over paid is like complaining top footballers are overpaid. They get the going rate. I may wish we paid junior doctors more than I pay my dog trainer but we don’t,

We are more civilised in my country. We don’t have to pay for National television. It is free. So should yours be.

I stopped paying the TV licence three years ago. I did it officially. I emailed BBC and told them I never watch BBC programmes whatsoever and never, ever watch any other programmes live as I prefer to watch them on catchup so I can fast forward all the adverts. I also told them I don't have a TV aeriel has it had rotted in the wall so I cannot watch Freeview. I told them that they could come to my house if they want and check for themselves. Each year I receive a letter telling me if things have changed to let them know so I can start paying for the licence again. I do not like BBC at all. I pay for Amazon Prime and watch movies or TV shows and I watch ITVX, Channel 4 and channel 5 on catchup. If I want to know what is happening in the world I go online and read the newspapers there.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. I do not want the government- any government- deciding what I may or may not hear broadcasted because they fund it.

For OldFrill, with that "You can pay mine. I really don't think the world envies us anything.", maybe you've had your head under a pillow for most of your life?!! Citizens of countries with repressive Govts and/or despotic rulers, right round the planet, have for many decades spoken fondly of the BBC being a voice they can TRUST, as opposed to the bigoted twaddle their own leadership has had broadcast to them! And that has been widely reported, even if you managed to miss it! In recent times, Russians are amongst the latest to testify to exactly this benefit, as one facet of their genocidal leader is of course to tell them cascades of 'fake news'.

For Callistemon -- before you leap into print attacking others (Paperbackwriter) I suggest you call someone for a check of what YOU think you're answering, or take some classes? The "Do you walk out of " sentence is clearly a QUESTION, even though the ? was omitted. It's questioning that dubious stance that Nanna8 was recommending. ALL ACROSS social media and assorted blogs there are cheapskates saying "I don't pay, you can avoid it by . . ." which is exactly what the "No wonder the creatives in all fields are struggling" sentence was alluding to. It is entirely reasonable to classify that avoidance as 'theft', and it didn't have to be taken personally. I see Nanna8 has come back and said that stealing copyright is just fine, though she's never really thought about it. She also says "the rest is not worth stealing" . . . .and most readers will see the classic logic failure in that ?! MOnca makes a good point that if a Govt is paying for a channel, it may well consider that some of its views should be promoted, and those it doesn't like should be concealed.

For Nanna8 - not sure where you are, or what you mean by "we don't pay, it's free, no ads". Somebody somewhere pays. The BBC reaches (apparently) 97% of the UK population, is by far the most popular TV output, produces huge amounts of national and local radio, AND has a fantastic ads-free website. As several have said, it's excellent value, and for those 75 and older, sufficiently needy that they qualify for 'pension credit', the licence is free.

I'm inclined to agree. Not having a licence is letting other people pay for something you are getting for nothing.

I wouldn't go as far as to jail people for non-compliance, but it isn't morally acceptable to opt out of paying (for anything, not just the BBC) which others are subsidising.

PBW makes a good point about Arts. Streaming music and film, e-books, and online distribution in general makes it very hard for people to make a living, because only some will pay, and others will piggy-back on their accounts, or otherwise acquire content illegally.

Whilst it might have been put in the way that some would find inflammatory, I think Paperbackwriter has a point that if you are streaming content which should be paid for either by subscription or license fee and you are using a method for getting it free, it is tantamount to stealing. She gave an analogy to reinforce that point.

nanna8 The attack on you was wrong, but you still haven't answered my question on who funds your 'free' media access. Is it finded by the government - in which case you pay for it through your taxes

And if it is state funded, doesn't having your nedia owned and controlled by the government concern you? That government are deciding what you see and hear and can influence the policy of the news corporation to form your thinking?

The BBC is not available to me and I wouldn’t pay if it was, you rude person. No, I don’t steal anything and never have . As for stealing copyright stuff -I’ve never thought about it mainly because it is free these days anyway on Utube and the rest is not worth stealing.

I've reported your post Paperbackwriter.
It's a personal attack on another poster.

Even if it's not deleted, it should be flagged up as extremely rude, accusing another poster of stealing.