Why I’m in favour of the TV licence

I’d pay twice or even three times as much to get rid of all the ads on TV!!! The crass interrupting of a film by adverts can ruin the pleasure of watching it. I do have the means to record a film and then edit the ads out, but sometimes seconds of a dialogue are missing! This doesn’t happen when the film is shown on BBC.

And if you know what TV (or radio) is like in the rest of the world you are grateful and proud of the BBC and want to preserve it at all costs. 39p a day? So be it.

As far as I’m concerned – I’m in favour of keeping the Licence fee – The quality of the majority of the programmes on BBC TV and Radio is superb – including those of the world service and foreign language broadcasts – All of this vast range have to be paid for somehow.

There are far too many US programmes – more UK shows should be produced.

My only real criticism is the vast increase in bad language in recent times – totally unnecessary. I watch and listen to be educated or entertained – not shocked. Too many comedians now swear presumably as they cannot tell jokes properly – so I no longer watch or listen to them..

The licence fee is essential in order to provide ANY radio (worth having) at all. I have argued this point on Mike’s board.
On top of this I agree totally with the two comments above.
I can count on the fingers of one hand how many programmes I have actually watched on ANY channel other than BBC1 or BBC 2 in the last year (and I do have Freeview but there’s very little except BBC 4 on that which has any content of any interest to me).
The main reasons that I won’t watch the other channels are1) there is virtually nothing that interests me and 2) when I do find something (e.g. on C4) that’s worth seeing, the adverts drive me utterly crazy.
My old VCR had “commercial advance” – so that I could record programmes on there and watch the tape with all commercials being automatically skipped, but as far as I can see DVD recorders and hard disk recorders don’t seem to have this feature – I expect the advertisers objected and forced the abandonment of the system. So, the licence fee MUST be retained to ensure Radio wirth having and commercial free TV of any quality at all.

When you transpose what we pay in licence fee per year to a rate per week, it demonstrates what fantastic value it is. For the price of a pint of beer (ish) per week we are guaranteed no adverts, and top quality television and radio programmes. I think we should pay more, to ensure that the BBC can produce even more wonderful programmes.

The alternatives are to have a subscription service like Sky, where you are forced to have a package,most of which you will never watch, in order to watch the channels you want. Even then, you are subjected to adverts, a lot of which are incomprehensible, (e.g. cars climbing walls).
If, as we must at some stage, we buy any of the products advertised, we are in effect paying twice to view.

What we, the viewers, get from the BBC is very good value for money. Yes, they have paid excessive salaries to some people and yes, they have shown bias for some time. If they correct those failings then it will become even better value. The BBC is absolutely unique. All other broadcasting companies are variations on a theme. Let us keep our very British BBC

When comparing the BBC TV offering with other networks in the world, I cannot help but be thankful for the quality we can enjoy at such a low price. No other nation enjoys what we can. Please do not’fix’ what works so well. Other nations envy the super value and quality that we sometimes take for granted.

I watch tv, most days. I listen to lots of radio, daily. I log onto the BBC website 2-3 times daily. And I use iplayer regularly. All this for the licence fee. When people moan about the cost they forget all about the ADDITIONAL cost of funding the commercial TV stations, whether you watch them or not and which don’t include the extras by and large. Checking out the ITV and C4 accounts for 2009 and grossing up their figures nationally shows a revenue income from advertising per household of £120-130 pa. That is money we pay out when we purchase advertised goods and seervices, without anyone ever complaining about it. And that is before we start adding in all the commercial radio stations and other media. The BBC fee is fantastic value for money, and is not hidden away.

I think the licence fee is exceptional value, and the majority of BBC output, both TV and Radio are excellent. However I do think there should be more pressure put onto the BBC to reduce costs by controlling all salaries to a much more reasonable level, and to drastically reduce their expenses.

I don’t watch TV at all not terrestrial or sky/virgin. I haven’t watched the BBC, ITV C4 or C5 for years there is never anything I actually want to watch on. I am a gamer and in order to use my TV for playing videogames I have to pay for a TV licence. Its a joke, why should I pay for a service that I would never use. Only people who are probably saying its worth it are Eastenders viewers. BBC should do what every other channel does, fund via adverts, or are they too worried that they will be bankrupt in 12 months because of the rubbish they keep putting on TV.

My sentiments are the same as Sophies we watch far more BBC programmes than commercial, I always record commercial channels should there be something I wish to see then fast forward the adverts. I am so pleased the Beeb has got Formula 1 and Moto GP hurragh no more adverts and broken races.

The morons who fail to appreciate the value (in every sense of the word) that the BBC provides are sufficient proof, for me, that the compulsory licence fee should remain in place as a means of funding it. Any other model, such as an optional subscription, would have to be significantly raised above the level of the current licence fee to offset the loss of revenues from those who would choose not to pay. And yet, those who chose not to pay would still be able to watch the BBC for free via services like iPlayer – unless, of course, access to that was wrapped into the paid subscription.

But, what astonishes me is that, now I live in Amsterdam, I can still receive BBC 1, 2, 3 and 4 via our cable service, which we pay for of course, but I’ve been unable to ascertain if any of what we pay actually goes to the BBC! If it doesn’t, that’s scandalous. I’d happily still pay for a TV licence to support the BBC, but without a UK address, apparently that’s just not possible. And there’s no other way I’m aware of to pay money to the BBC. Charitable donation, perhaps?

It would be a travesty of unparalleled proportions if the BBC were to lose its unique position in global broadcasting, by dumbing down the system of funding just to kowtow to the attention-span lacking couch-potato morons who so stupidly fail to recognise that commercial TV is NOT free! Where do they think the money comes from? From the companies who make the products that are advertised, of course. And where do those companies get the money? From the sale of their products to these same viewers of the commercial channels. Products whose prices are raised to cover the cost of advertising them! Durrrrr….. it’s a moronic system of funding for a moronic audience.

If we had more sense, as a society, we’d have found a way to dispose of TV advertising (and much of the rest too, while we’re at it). It’s a totally unproductive industry. The only people who really profit are the advertising agencies and the people they employ (directors, actors, models etc) to produce the ads. The rest of society is simply subsidising the often glamorous lifestyles of all the pople who work in the advertising industry. If the continued existence of the BBC were only to represent an alternative to this huge social wastage, that alone would be more than enough reason for it to continue!

Finally, I would say that it is way past time that the government did abolish the TV licence (say what? huh? please read on!) – and pay for the BBC out of general taxation, the same way it pays for everything else it funds. It’s ludicrous to incur the additional costs of running a separate service to collect the TV licence fee, which is also subject to evasion that will become even harder to avoid as services move away from the conventional broadcasting model to one that is more about on-demand viewing of online streaming content. But whatever is done, we must ensure that the BBC continues to be a paragon of broadcasting excellence – and it would be nice if, as such, it would stop chasing ratings by including ‘popular’ rubbish such as Eastenders and Strictly Come Dancing in its schedules and focus on more quality drama, documentaries and other content worthy of the standards the BBC maintains.

I willingly pay my license fee, and I also pay for Sky, but with Sky, even though I pay, I still get bombarded with adverts – more than on ITV or C4 . Even with Sky PPV , they still manage to ruin sports events with adverts. So for this reason alone, and there are many more, I would vote to keep the license fee. BBC programs are also better on the whole.

If we have to pay a fee for advert-free tv, why do the BBC make programs so the adverts can be slotted in like Countryfile where they keep telling you what you are about to watch and what you watched a few minutes ago.

Being older than some of your contributors I remember when the only adverts were on Radio Luxemburg and life was a lot beter then. People were not so envious or acquisative. Children actually read books!! Christmas was not all about presents, Sunday was a quite day. Adverts have caused a lot of problems and created a lot of really junk television. Keep the licence fee.

The BBC is not perfect but compared to most of the commercial channel programmes it is wonderful and there is the radio as well, especially the news programmes. Just imagine watching the childish and patronising channel 5 every evening AND having to suffer the deceits and cons of the adverts. I’ll pay the licence fee happily and with thanks.

I am all in favour of keeping the licence fee. I am actually capable of sitting still for half an hour or even an hour and, with a good film, for over 2 hours, without my brain going into melt down. I don’t need break and I especially don’t need adverts. The joy of Sky+ is that I don’t need to watch them, but I would much rather have the BBC without them in the first place. My only problem with the BBC is that they are going the way of the commercial channels without the actual breaks i.e. “coming up next”; “in the next half hour”; or “we have just seen”…again, I don’t need to be told what’s coming with half the story thereby rendering the full story a little boring and predictable, and I usually manage to retain what I’ve watched 3 minutes earlier.

The BBC is, of course, the best, most trusted broadcaster in the world which is why every government wants to destroy it.

It is worth the money for Radio 4 alone. People complain about paying less than 50p per week yet are happy to pay £50 a week to Sky for cheap American rubbish and old BBC repeats. If the BBC was abolished there would be nothing for the other channels like Dave and Yesterday and the likes to show since the cough up repeats of old sitcoms, Coast and the like.

Have a look at Freeview, without the BBC there would be nothing to watch, all the other channels show trash and are a waste of the technology.

I’m in favour of keepint the TV licence fee. Not only does it pay for TV without ads and radio but also for the fantastic website that the BBC runs. I work in a school and the BBC website can always be relied upon to provide great educational content which is accurate and fun for children to use.

True the TV licence seems an outdated oddity, but do I want a complete monopoly by Sky? No I don’t! That would be the alternative! No thanks!