Gransnet forums

TV, radio, film, Arts

TV Licence fee

(38 Posts)
tanith Mon 17-Jan-22 18:20:30

I’d be interested in peoples views on the news the Licence will be frozen for 2 yrs and possibly scrapped altogether.
I know the BBC is already struggling so what’s the answer?
I think I’d be happy to carry on paying but a I know a lot of people don’t watch terrestrial television much so feel it’s not fair and wouldn’t bother them.
I did look for a thread about this but didn’t find anything.

So thoughts anyone?

Welshwife Mon 17-Jan-22 22:28:17

We don’t have any of the extra paid for services such as Netflix. We are happy to pay for the licence - which started with a wireless licence and gradually changed. It was for the ability to receive radio programmes as much as anything.
We would happily pay to be able to get things such as iPlayer which are unavailable when not living in the U.K. - there is no provision for being able to do this as far as I can see and I don’t want to go down the route of these VPNs which I doubt are legal.
I agree about what is said about quizzes such as the three which were on this evening. The nature programmes are wonderful - paying for that type of photography does not come cheap. Also the way they reacted to the educational needs of children during the lockdown was excellent across the age range.
I would hate for the fee to be cancelled and the quality of programmes to be less but I do think it should be included in some way in the tax or ben3fits system so that low income people are exempt from the fee.

MayBee70 Mon 17-Jan-22 22:32:14

It was always unfair how many students were fined when starting university because they didn’t realise they needed a licence, or thought they were covered by a licence in their halls of residence. I had forgotten about that.

Doodledog Mon 17-Jan-22 22:43:35

It's not just about the entertainment programmes. it's about having a service that is not dependent on advertisers for funding.

Commercial channels have to consider that if they investigate something in an advertiser's portfolio they could pull out of advertising, and lose the channel a lot of money, so they are limited on what they report. This can cut across a range of programmes, as companies often have numerous branches and subsidiaries.

The beauty of the BBC is that they are not hidebound by this, and whereas they have been constrained by the government of late, programme makers are, on the whole, free to express various points of view.

Keeleklogger Mon 17-Jan-22 22:44:40

Yes it might ‘only’ cost 43p per day. But when I did ask for it, I don’t want it and don’t need it, why should I have to pay for it?
I don’t see sainsburys delivering a load of shopping that I didn’t order and don’t want, and then demanding money with menaces.. how is this any different for the BBC

Zoejory Mon 17-Jan-22 22:52:41

Holly City also purchased real ventilators which they donated to the NHS when covid reared its head.

Why should taxpayers be paying for real ventilators in a dismal hospital soap opera?

Shocking waste of money

Nannagarra Mon 17-Jan-22 23:05:14

I asked a friend of mine who is Russian, a lecturer and film producer, who lives for part of the year in Moscow and who travels the world what she thought of the BBC coverage of events in Russia, she thought it highly accurate and unbiased. Like her, I value the BBC.

MayBee70 Mon 17-Jan-22 23:42:36

So Dorries, who voted against cutting VAT on fuel and is happy to see people using food banks, wants to freeze the licence fee and then abolish it because she doesn’t want poorer people to suffer financially?

thorns2roses Mon 17-Jan-22 23:58:56

I pay the license fee despite the increasing deterioration in programming quality. What is available is JUST adequate. Have enjoyed (radio) GQT, Ramblings, radio Newcastle, occasionally radio 4. (T.V.) Gardeners World, wildlife programs particularly those featuring Chris Packham. There is little comedy or drama worth watching. We don't have the depth of writing talent anymore. Gone fishing for its gentle humour (though it has run its course) and Wolf Hall but that was some time ago.

Our local news progam, Look North was hit hard by cutbacks which really showed in its limited coverage of storm Arwen. On Tyneside where we were the noise through the night was terrific, three walls in the backlane came down. On TV the quality of the 'on the ground' coverage of this massive event was underwhelming. A reporter in a community hall, and later one standing outside talking to camera. There seemed to be very little on the scene coverage of the damage until days after. The BBC national news barely noticed it. Yet on the radio we listened through the night as reports came through, how Rothbury was cut off by fallen trees, power cuts were hitting widespread areas throughout the region in freezing weather. Days later we heard how badly hit the Kielder Northumbrian forest was hit by the storm. If serious weather event such as this had happen in the south of England or abroad we would have had round the clock coverage, helicopters the lot. Contributors to a local online Tyneside messageboard who live out of the area in the UK and abroad were under the impression that it had hit Scotland and missed us.

On the positive side I did more reading over the Christmas. Perhaps that's the future. The BBC should be a treasure. I can't believe it is all incompetence. It seems to have been deliberately run down for political reasons. Expensive mediocre, Freeview much the same but with adverts and from what I hear of Sky are no better.

mokryna Tue 18-Jan-22 00:15:39

Zoejory

I would be pleased to see the end of the Beeb. We hardly watch it. It is annoying that people who don't watch still have to pay.

And this is not about getting Boris out of trouble, They've been discussing it for years.

This article in The Guardian from 2019

www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/16/qa-how-the-bbc-is-funded-by-tv-licences

How will you know what is going on in the UK and the world? Local radio gives you information but they are paid by advertising which would say anything if they only had that as a monetary source.
Sky tv etc. are the same, they dance to the tune the owners play as do the newspapers.

Hetty58 Tue 18-Jan-22 00:21:53

I don't really care - it's so insignificant. I rarely watch it, but it's only £3 a week!

mokryna Tue 18-Jan-22 23:51:07

In France it is counted as an audiovisual tax and every household has to pay, no exemptions because nowadays people use their phones. Sometime ago, but not now, owners of second homes had to pay extra. True it costs less 138 euros with advertising but I much thé prefer thé superiority of the BBC.

Lincslass Wed 19-Jan-22 04:00:33

Whitewavemark2

Lincslass

Whitewavemark2

It ain’t going to happen.

They have succeeded in what they set out to do which was to take Johnson off the top of the headlines.

Anyone fooled?

Not a new concept though, discussed a few years ago.
www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/conservative-party-mulls-scrapping-tv-licence-fee-in-favour-of-bbc-ads/en-gb/6752 The Greens also have a notion to scrap the fee.

No of course it isn’t, but did you see Dorries’s performance in the house!

Sheesh! Talk about crass.

No must admit to not watching any of them,.