Is the TV Licence Fee (Tax) value for money?

For £30 p.a. one terrestial and one digital TV channel, Radio 3 and Radio 4, limited day-time and night time viewing and local radio. Resultant large cuts in management/presenter/production salaries and expenses. Cut their losses on Salford. Then the rest can be subscription based, like Sky, so to partly answer Bmused55, for a basic licence you get what the Charter is supposed to provide and then pay for the rest according o the package offered.

In a word: No

The TV Licence is not good value for me.

The beeb is full of utter rubbish these days. There are 3 programs that I watch whenever the beeb sees fit to air them: Top Gear, Doctor Who and the David Attenborough documentaries.
I do enjoy the infrequent docs like the McGregor twins Fighter Pilot and Bomber Boys.
But as I said, they are infrequent. Perhaps 1 or 2 per year.

Top Gear and Doctor Who only have 6 to 8 new episodes a year.
Attenborough docu average 6 episodes a year.

The programs that interest ME only represent about 6% of what the BBC currently airs. But I have to pay 100% of the license? That’s not value to me.

I’d be much happier if I could choose from a choice of usage levels and pay accordingly.

Well that’s two…….:rolleyes:;)

I’m in danger of turning this thread into `What have the Romans done for us` thread but….don’t forget the McGregor twins Fighter Pilot and Bomber Boys both BBC productions. Thinking of getting those on DVD.

Steven_wh said it all for me; I couldn’t agree more. Intrusive music in documentaries which stifle the narration, clever (stupid) camera work – in, out, sideways, etc. And, as Steven infers, programmes that do not give credit to the brains in our heads.
Additionally of course is the “politically correct” stance of the BBC which adheres to what they think we should see/hear, not what people are actually thinking and what is actually being experienced.
As for the adverts, they become more and more intrusive as you get (attempt) through a good film and as the film progresses, the adverts become more frequent. My idea would be to ban adverts that interrupt any programme and only have them “between” programmes but with an increase in the cost to the advertiser to cater for the revenue required for that programme. This will of course increase an advert cost ten-fold and maybe more but you can bet they will still be lining up to buy the air time.
Richard

In a way it does, but if you do not have a TV, and only listen to radio, you do not need a license.

The TV licence “i think” also pays for the radio .I do listen listen to Radio 5 alot so i guess £140 divide by 365 days approx 40 pence a day for Mrs Browns boys + the odd other TV programme in a year for me.
The problem i have are the sheer quantity of soaps and “reality” type shows although i have to say commercial TV is much worse for that .

I suppose the concept of a TV licence is the same as the concept of a radio licence from back in the day.

I don’t think I’ve watched so little ‘broadcast’ TV as I do these days. Like many others here, I have a good selection of DVDs, yes, some aviation ones too:) I keep up to date with my news via RT, or France24, so I guess that if the BBC, and its licence fee disappeared tomorrow, I probably wouldn’t notice.

Licence fee

Working abroad a lot I am always amused by the locals reactions when I tell them that in the UK you have to have a licence to own a TV!!More laughter follows when I tell them about the little vans going round searching for licence dodgers!! I do like to watch news programmes but having to suffer BBC world news (a seperate company from the real BBC)and its elitist commercials is painful!Al Jazeera is much better!

I been working in TV, film, advertising industry for years, I would say ‘NO’.

Reality TV is mass produced as it is ‘cheap TV’ compared to other types of shows. In recent times, the trick to get two shows from one. I.e QI then it’s repeated, then the same show but with an extra 10 or 15 minutes of footage included and QI XL on Dave (Have I Got News for You, Russell Howard’s Good News and add 15 minutes and shown as Good News Extra etc etc). I like some of these shows but it’s a trick of the industry to get two shows from one. Then another trick is the extra 2 or 3 shows in a series just showing highlights already seen, repeated etc from the series in earlier episode.

I agree about the 15 minutes of ads per hour split into a number of 3 or 4 minute breaks, it is a pain. But we still have to pay the TV licence fee regardless unless the BBC start showing ads. It can be useful when making a coffee but not every ad break or you will be up all night with eyes like headlights lol…

I don’t watch soaps, talent shows, reality TV, celebrity dancing shows, nor cooking programmes. I prefer news programmes to be devoid of ego-inflated presenters and manipulated selective presentation. I like to have current affairs programmes which are not overlaid with treacly obtrusive background music and eye popping graphical swooshes. I prefer nature programmes to concentrate on the subject material and not on the famous geriatric presenter, who never tells you when a scene is faked. I like documentaries where the production team have an interest in tbe subject, or have at least actually taken the trouble to research the topic thoroughly.

From the above, you will gather that I do not think there is much value in the compulsorily extracted licence fee. You would be right.

The most serious charge against BBC is the conduct of what they regard as their flagship programming, namely news and current affairs. The process for treating a news topic is that BBC departments get together and decide an approach, to which they will all adhere. The effect of this is that subsequent events which might alter that approach never even get as far as the newsroom because they have been institutionally shut out. An example is the topic of global warming. Back in 2006 BBC had a determining meeting on this with documentary and news teams, which you might expect, but also with the heads of drama, children’s programmes, and even the head of BBC comedy. Thus, there has never since been any update on the views held in 2006, it has always been the same institution wide ‘on message’ view. This happens with other subjects too, and the workings of this policy must be against its own charter.

Steven

I think it’s value for money. For roughly 140 quid you get quality add-free broadcasting. 2 BBC HD tv channels showing well filmed and edited documentaries (the recent Africa springs to mind) as well as some great comedies. I also think, on the whole, BBC news is far better then its competitors – but that’s probably due to their size (4000 journalists!).

Also, although you don’t need a licence to view it, BBC iPlayer is far easier to navigate than itvplayer or 4oD

Ends in the noughties? No it doesn’t.

You have to tack ‘Miranda’ onto the end of that list.

I don’t think an episode goes by without me struggling for breath at some point

😀

Moggy

“I guess it’s whatever works for you.” Comedy is a strange animal – Miranda leaves me cold – even my grandson isn’t very amused…

And to your comment about films above, I agree with to an extent, which is why I don’t watch that many. Good films on the BBC are rare as well. For me TV is not really about films – it is about drama, documentaries, comedy, current affairs and news and in every area the BBC seldom achieves the standards which is used to.

Ends in the noughties? No it doesn’t.

You have to tack ‘Miranda’ onto the end of that list.

I don’t think an episode goes by without me struggling for breath at some point

😀

Moggy

No, not any more. But, and it’s an important but. It should be.
If I look back through my DVD collection I am amazed at how many world beating, top quality productions, drama’s, films, comedies were produced by the BBC.
The problem is my list of titles ends about the mid noughties.

A few titles from memory;

The Two Ronnies
Blackadder
Red Dwarf
Morcambe and Wise
Threads
Bottom
Danger UXB
Life On Mars
Little Britain
Mighty Boosh

So I will continue to pay the licence fee.

I would just like to see better programming instead of reality TV shows and game shows. Some decent comedies and documentaries would be good. I watched ‘growing up poor’ last week which I thought gave a good insight in to young people and how some are lazy but others are trying to get by as best they can.

I guess it’s whatever works for you. The idea of having to grab the remote every ten minutes and do the fast-forward thing may be ‘no distraction’ for you.

But for me, in any serious film, I would call it a terminal problem.

Mind you if I go to the cinema these days I see that for a lot of the patrons ‘attention span’ and ‘concentration’ which used to be measured in hours, now barely makes it into minutes.

Moggy

I watch relatively few films on TV but always record them and flip through ad breaks etc so it is not a great distraction. I do not subscribe to any Sky plans so do not have access to their film content.

I simply cannot watch a film (for the first time anyway) that is disrupted by ads, pretty mindless sofa and car insurance ones at that, every ten minutes.

If it wasn’t for the BBC I would never see any films not on DVD or download.

It doesn’t take many purchases of the above to exceed the cost of a licence.

Moggy