Abolition of TV licence fee.....

Oh please no!!!

About time too!

I assume around 99% of the population have a TV/radio so the money could be ring-fenced and come out of general taxation.

How much does it cost to administer the licence system I wonder - it's an archaic system.

I quite agree Riverwalk.

The problem is that a) ring fencing never works b) it makes the BBC even more of a political football than it is already. It's easy to knock the BBC but it does set a base line. BBC Radio 4 is brilliant

A national broadcaster will always be under political influence so it's fanciful to think that by having a licensing system it somehow creates a buffer between the BBC and the government of the day.

The BBC World Service until recently was directly funded by the Foreign Office.

So this won't involve adverts then?

If that's addressed to me Tegan - I've no idea if there will be adverts, how would I know?

No; it was more of a general query cause I assumed it would mean adverts and hadn't thought it would just be funded in another way [I've no idea what ring fencing is ].

Ring fencing is when money is assigned for one particular purpose.

Yes it will involve adverts, I was sent a survey to complete, from Yougov and obviously commissioned by the BBC. I voted against removing the licence fee, because not only will it mean adverts, it could also mean the end of the BBC's impartiality when it comes to commissioning good documentaries. I may be a cynic, but advertisers could threaten to withdrew business if they got wind about a programme concerning their products.

I disagree River - I said more of a political football - a license fee reduces that, it doesn't remove it. It's the least worst option. I think we take the BBC too much for granted. The right would like it gone completely and sold off to the likes of Murdoch et al

I'm merely addressing the system of collecting the funding GT not the ethos of the BBC and how we should keep it public and free from the likes of Murdoch.

I really can't see the political difference between a licence fee which is collected by a government agency, and taxation, paying for the BBC.

Actually now I think of it, there is talk of moving to a compulsory broadcasting levy which everyone would pay and would address the issues of, for example, catch up TV being free which does seem unfair ( as of course is radio). There was also talk of making some channels subscription only. Obviously whether it's a levy or a license the government of the day will be involved in setting that so it can't be 'politics free' but I suppose as with the fee at the moment, a longish term settlement gives the BBC some stability and the chance to plan longer term . It's just that some people on the right really to want to see the BBC go and for it all to be commercialised and I think that would be a real pity.

A lot of the other freeview channels depend on buying in old BBC programmes..what will they do if they dry up?

We don't pay for one any more, so I hope I can be objective.

I think it is wrong that people who rely so much on tv, who may be housebound, have to pay the fee which is imo far too high. I think that the fact that until recently it was a criminal offence not to have a tv licence was wrong. People with scarcely any money being hauled into court and fined because they could not afford the licence fee was dreadful.

Some people may never have watched BBC but the licensing fee was still required before any programme could be watched.

I think a much 'slimmed down' BBC providing quality programmes and costing much less could be considered as an option.

I agree about the fact of it being a criminal offence was a disgrace. the trouble with a slimmed down is that the BBC are constantly under pressure to prove that they are 'working well' by reference to audience numbers . This then conflicts in many cases with quality - the mass appeal programmes would survive

Perhaps that pressure should be taken off.
I am not saying they shouldn't continue to make some mass appeal programmes, but the cost of some programmes must be tremendous.
And are they top-heavy management-wise.

Must catch up with W1A which I recorded.

rosequartz I appreciate that people who are elderly, ill or housebound probably rely more heavily on TV. However, the licence fee costs £12.13 a month, under 40p a day, which gives access to a number of BBC TV and radio stations.

Compare that to Sky and Virgin which cost anything from an initial special offer basic package of around £13/16 a month, that cost usually rising by at least £10 at the end of the 12-month period. There is no restriction on how much these companies can charge. Programmes are also regularly interrupted by advertisements and there is a danger that advertisers can influence what material is or is not broadcast.

The licence fee has been frozen since 2010 until 2017 and the over-75's are exempt from paying it (though that could change at some time).

If it is suggested that the money be instead found from general taxation, on the face of it that seems reasonable to me. But I wonder if there are any negative implications that should be considered?

I would be totally against the BBC becoming another commercial channel funded by advertisements.

I don't agree with it being a criminal offence to not have a licence - although I believe it is only persistent offenders that are taken to court. Nevertheless, it seems wrong that a licence fee dodger is liable to a criminal record.

If they do go ahead with abolishing the licence fee it will be interesting to see what formula for funding takes its place. I hope very much that it is one that does not leave every station dependent on ads; and that there will be a way of supporting the arts and encompassing minority tastes.

Eloethan
People can choose whether or not to have Sky - we used to subscribe simply to get a better picture as the BBC reception here was terrible! However, we have cancelled it since digital arrived.

People can't choose whether or not to pay the licence fee.

I think funding from general taxation could be a consideration, but would the government of the day then think they had a right to what was broadcast?

I still think a slimmed down BBC that is affordable would be a better alternative. Do we need all those channels? Lovely for those who watch but expensive for those who only watch, say BBC1. Or no BBC at all!

I'd rather pay a license fee than have adverts on the BBC. I don't mind adverts but once they're the main source of funding then the programme makers will have to bow to viewer numbers and by default will dumb down.

I think very few young people watch the mainstream channels and just come home from work and watch Box Sets or Netflix etc. Probably only have a licence so their children can watch CBB's. A slimmed down BBC would just show X Factor type shows and soaps, I fear along with rolling news programmes. Would anyone dare to fork out for an expensive series such as Wolf Hall?

Exactly my concern vampier.

I appalls me to think of the BBC being party to commercial interests for its programming. Does the Murdoch empire contribute to the Tory party I wonder. Murdoch Junior was one who has ranted against the Beeb.

Never forget commercial television is not free you pay for it in just about every product you buy.

As Grannytwice says I think BBC Radio 4 is wonderful in its balance of programs. It covers all I need. If you want it good news programs three times a day.
Lots of documentaries giving a look at odd aspects of our lives not at all heavy serious content "lives in a landscape" is one such gem.
Lots of excellent drama and the good comedy at 6:30pm is worth listening to. Lots of quality stuff that you will not find anywhere else in the world.

There is so much utterly mindless crap on most of the freeview channels and lots are endless repeats. I do hope they do not destroy the BBC