Abolition of TV licence fee.....

I thought we owned the thing anyway. Has anyone asked us whether we want to sell it off?

If they don't get any income, how will they make programmes, pay announcers and presenters, and so on? Their money has to come from somewhere.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. Advertisers will expect privileges for their money, like frequent ads and product placements (Henry VIII consults his H. Samuel Ever-right water-clock. "Time for my next wife!") If they are paid for by government grant, there will be accusations of government interference, whether or not they are true.

A commercial company will expect to make a tidy profit for its shareholders. It is the British Broadcasting Corporation, not the Blinking Booty-creating Company.

If WE pay, WE get the programmes we want.

You are not magpie , nobody forces you to watch television.

But for those who do, programmes are not made for free, how would a channel be financed if not by licence fee/advertising/subscription such as exists at present for Sky?

I think it should be abolished why should we be made to pay £145.50.

They can't afford some of the scandi dramas now because, having been discovered by BBC4 Sky are npw buying them I think.

I love the history and art stuff on BBC 4 some of it is outstanding IMO. Don't forget the radio to.

The BBC is probably nearly loved as much as the NHS.

Will they put those on BBC1 or 2 though, and get rid of some of the dross other programmes?

Just realised what will go if they stop BBC4-all those foreign serials with subtitles, The Killing, Wallander, Spiral. Worth the licence fee on their own. And would we get programmes like "24 Hours in the past"? Can't imagine that would have appealed to any sponsors "Sending celebrities back to Victorian times, who the hell's going to watch that!!!" So much to lose.

The licence fee isn't huge. Most people probably pay more for their internet access, mobile phone, other TV provider (cable,sky whatever). Abolishing it is a political act and an attempt to bring the media further under the control of right wing politicians. The BBC has struggled to remain neutral with accusations of it having left wing bias being thrown at it all the time. It still manages to provide a service which is recognised world-wide for its excellence. And as for funding it through taxation, I thought this government were cutting expenditure on everything. Keep the licence fee the money goes straight to where it belongs.

I'd far rather pay £12.31 and have free view than pay money to a private provider. Having spent time in Turkey, Australia and New Zealand it's always a relief to come home and see TV without adverts.
I listen to radio 4 and would like 4 extra but we don't have a strong enough digital signal except on the TV and I don't want that on all day. I think BBC provides a huge choice for all sorts of people and I'm sure the BBC must have revenue from the sale of it series programmes abroad plus income from the sales of ideas and other programmes. The ABC shop (Australia state broadcasting) where my daughter lives has loads of BBC series (at huge prices).
Has anyone thought that the BBC could be a worldwide subscription channel over the net? Whilst I was abroad I would have liked to have seen home stuff.
Save the BBC. It's a national treasure

www.theguardian.com/football/2009/feb/05/itv-fa-cup-coverage

Advertisements interrupting programmes are really annoying. I find it especially so if I'm watching a really tense drama - it really spoils the atmosphere and sense of continuity. It sometimes annoys sports fans to - as above link reports.

Isn't paying a licence fee ring-fencing anyway? At least paying a fee you know your money is going to the BBC.
We have just been celebrating VE day. It was all BBC then.

I think the BBC will always produce quality drama such as 'Wolf Hall' - that series has been sold worldwide.

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

Exactly my concern vampier.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.