NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a forum for discussion by anybody who has knowledge of this topic, to debate how much of the license fee should be for the BBC, and whethere people prefer the BBC or other Stations for the provision of quality, mainstream programming (only refer to terrestrial channels please).

I'd like to either see the license fee abolished or spread between all of the terrestrial channels aside from Channel 5, which is mostly crap and doesn't deserve any support in creating more crap. Maybe with some help from the license fee, the other channels would be less inundated with commercials, and the entire license fee wouldn't go to making costume dramas for the BBC. Of course, if they can't advertise on tv, the advertisers might decide to jam the radio broadcasts with advertising...

I am for the licence fee for the BBC as I feel it allows them to make programs that would never get a chance if it was an advertising channel.

whoops. I voted for option 1 when I anted voted for option 5.

the BBC fucking kicks ass. Its probably the best network on the planet. Its entertainment is original and its reporters are respected worldwide.

There shouldn't be a licence fee, full stop!

The aussies got rid of there's not long after they introduced it there and we should do the same, wheres the sanity in having to pay for a license to watch a fricking TV??? The BBC should put some f**king adverts on and pay for their lazy workers themselves!

As ITV and Channel 4 have themselves admitted on several occasions, having the BBC funded by the license fee makes them raise their own standards. Whilst they have their gripes about "unfair" competition from the BBC, the commercial channels are aware that, without the BBC setting standards for quality, commercial pressure would lead to a downward spiral to, and endless recycling of, the lowest common denominator, i.e. Sky TV. We have more than enough cheap crap on the box as it is without removing the only mechanism which, for less than £10 per month per household, can ensure at least a small amount of semi-intelligent and/or innovative programming.

I'd give it all to the BBC. So many more quality programs can be seen on the Beeb with it that would never be seen or get the funding. And who wants to see any progeam or film that half way through gets interrupted with adverts?

I am also for the BBC. However, recently, channel 4 has shown itself to be worthy of more recognition. It is buying more and more quality films, and does not stop them halfway through for a news bulletin! Also, they have bought new (ish) episodes of the simpsons, whereas the BBC always repeated the same ones.

In general though, the BBC produces most of the quality programmes on our TV (who could ever forget Little Britain, perhaps the most potent of modern examples).

I am also for the BBC. However, recently, channel 4 has shown itself to be worthy of more recognition. It is buying more and more quality films, and does not stop them halfway through for a news bulletin! Also, they have bought new (ish) episodes of the simpsons, whereas the BBC always repeated the same ones.

In general though, the BBC produces most of the quality programmes on our TV (who could ever forget Little Britain, perhaps the most potent of modern examples).
Or deadringers. I agree with you mainly though. ITV is just getting old.

I'm not sure whether I'd want my license fee going to ITV; it is tied with channel 5 for 'worst channel in the universe'. I can't think of a single thing I've ever watched on ITV. It's mostly full of lame soaps and similar banal crap. Channel 4 used to be pretty good, but now it's nothing but Big Brother 24/7, and Big Brother is the epitome of bad television.

Don't get me wrong, the BBC has a lot to be proud of. I loved A History of Britain and The Open University is amazing. I also like it when they have Moviedrome on BBC2. To be able to see all of something like Driller Killer without adverts is wonderful. Hell, you can even record the film.

Channel 4 used to have great late night programming. I hated to see things like Adam & Joe and The Good Sex Guide: Late go away. They used to have some good short animation showcases too, and Mirrorball is something I'd love to get on DVD. How about The 11 o'clock Show? How about The Big Breakfast when Johnny and Denise hosted it? (sorry for the nostalgia-athon). Surely stuff like that deserves funding from the mandatory TV license. It shouldn't just go for a new gala production on the BBC of Sense and Sensibility or some other Bronte blandness.

The BBC should remain funded without use of adverts. They produce not only quality television, but radio also.

The BBC should be funded 100% by the licence, but that doesn't mean 100% of the licence should go to the BBC. If ITV, C4, C5 or even Sky are producing programs of a high quality and purpose then they too should receive funding from the state/license.

There can only be one BBC though, why have four or five state channels? That doesn't make sense. With the current mix of state and independent channels we see diverse and free media of a high quality. The commies showed us what 100% state TV does, and the USA is the best example of fully commercial TV. Neither is good.

The BBC should remain funded without use of adverts. They produce not only quality television, but radio also.

The BBC should be funded 100% by the licence, but that doesn't mean 100% of the licence should go to the BBC. If ITV, C4, C5 or even Sky are producing programs of a high quality and purpose then they too should receive funding from the state/license.

There can only be one BBC though, why have four or five state channels? That doesn't make sense. With the current mix of state and independent channels we see diverse and free media of a high quality. The commies showed us what 100% state TV does, and the USA is the best example of fully commercial TV. Neither is good.

Technically speaking the BBC is independent from the government and it earns a lot of money through commercial products (DVDs, magazines ect.) and people buying their programmes.

If I recall correctly that is so the licence fee money doesn’t get spent on things like BBC world wide where it wouldn't benefit he fee payers.

Technically speaking the BBC is independent from the government and it earns a lot of money through commercial products (DVDs, magazines ect.) and people buying their programmes.

If I recall correctly that is so the licence fee money doesn’t get spent on things like BBC world wide where it wouldn't benefit he fee payers.

Both your points are correct.

The world service however is paid for by the taxpayer. The BBC gets a block grant from the foreign office to pay for the world service, as it raises Britain's profile on the world stage and aids diplomacy.

As a sci-fi nut, Sky One is one of my favourite channels. But that is populated nearly entirely by American shows they have bought, such as Star Trek or Stargate. Most of the English stuff I have seen on there so far has been the sort of crap they only show late at night...

The BBC, on the other hand, shows loads of great English programs. As much as I like the American stuff it's always nice to see your own country's talent. Channel 4 used to have the odd good thing on it, but since the reality TV wave, and endless repeats of Friends, I haven't watched it much. I don't actually remember the last time I watched ITV because of the utter shite on there. And Channel 5... how the hell that was ever created, I'll never know.
I don't watch much TV. But, when I do, it's usually the BBC. And the fact that they don't have adverts breaking up some truly brilliant entertainment or educational programs, or even the odd decent movie, just makes it all the better. I'm totally in favour of the current licence policy.

I agree with most of the comments on here. The big question is, how come Channel 5 stays afloat. Surely the advert companys must have twigged by now.

I agree with most of the comments on here. The big question is, how come Channel 5 stays afloat. Surely the advert companys must have twigged by now.

Lol the random soft porn programs probably help (anyone remember the one with naked keith chegwin? QUICK- PASS ME THE PROZAC!) Also, because of the French, most people cant even get channel 5 if they dont have a digital package (I live in south east, we will never get it!) We recently bought Freeview, which is an amazing idea. You get a wide variety of channels, yet you only make a one-off payment. I wouldn't be surprised if Freeview became more common than Sky in the future.

Anyone else dissappointed at the findings of the Hutton Report? It seems plain to me that the government did lie, and did "sex up" the dossier. But I may be making an uninformed decision...