/ Technology

Why I’m in favour of the TV licence

Man watching TV

The Adam Smith Institute recently called for the BBC licence fee to be scrapped. But it’s incredible value and without it the BBC wouldn’t produce the same range of high-quality programmes.

You can’t buy much for 39p. Yet that’s all the licence fee costs each day. And for that you get access to a whole world of entertainment, with two TV stations, five national radio stations, plus local services and even more available digitally and online.

Yet some people still object to paying even this tiny amount. Their argument seems to be ‘why should we have to pay for something that we might not use?’

Read Mike Briggs argue this view in his Conversation ‘Why I want the TV licence to go.’

An unfair tax?

The reality is that we accept the principle of paying for stuff we don’t use every day. I don’t have children but have to pay for schools and teachers, for example.

Libraries, museums and galleries are all financed from public funds (albeit through general taxation) and it’s accepted that we benefit from their presence, irrespective of how often we visit them. And TV and radio plays a more prominent role in our lives than any of these institutions.

And unlike in these examples, you do have a choice – you don’t have to buy a TV licence. You can even watch TV by going online (probably using the BBC’s excellent iPlayer service).

Opponents of the licence fee argue that the BBC should be self funding. Yet output from its rivals shows the limitations of commercial TV. The guaranteed income from the Licence fee allows the BBC to produce shows to suit every taste and to invest in high quality programmes. Could you seriously imagine a commercial station spending five years, and £16m, creating Planet Earth?

The dire alternative

In contrast, the commercial stations have dumbed down outrageously as they chase ratings and slash costs with reality programmes, Z-list celebrities and American reruns.

And that’s before you consider the annoyance of adverts. Oh, and if you find ads a pain, get ready for product placement in programmes, which the commercial channels are desperate to introduce in 2011.

When you consider all this, is it really any surprise that eight of the ten greatest British TV programmes (as chosen by the BFI) were shown on the BBC?

Replacing the licence fee with a subscription model wouldn’t work either. Unless it was set at an extremely high level (thereby excluding all but the wealthiest) it wouldn’t generate enough revenue, so programme quality would fall.

An independent, trusted voice

Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of shows on the BBC that I could live without. But the BBC isn’t run for my benefit, its for us all. And we’re tuning in – 97% of the population uses BBC services each week.

We trust it too. Polls show that over 50% favour the BBC’s political reporting over any other source (Sky came second with a measly 7%).

That’s not to say the licence fee is perfect (the limited concessions are totally insufficient), but it’s something that needs tweaking, not replacing. Without it, British TV, one of the few institutions that we can still be proud of, would wither away. And I, for one, am happy to pay 39p a day to prevent that happening.

Read the other side of the story in Mike Brigg’s ‘Why I want the TV licence to go’ here.

What do you think about the BBC TV licence fee?

I agree with Jon and think it's worth the price (58%, 156 Votes)

I agree with Mike and think it should be optional (42%, 112 Votes)

Total Voters: 268

Loading ... Loading ...
Comments
Guest
Sophie Gilbert says:
14 September 2010

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.

Profile photo of richard
Guest

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..

Profile photo of dave d
Guest

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.

Profile photo of Patrick Steen
Guest

In other news the BBC Trust has proposed freezing the current cost of the TV licence for the next two years. Sounds like a good idea to me… http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11325325

Guest
Rebecca says:
16 September 2010

I don’t agree with the TV license at all. We have put too much power (and money) on BBC’s hands. Just remember every now and then there is a news about how much they paid to make somebody redundant, and they are talking about xxx,xxx! They live on public money but operate like a private firm with no control.

I watch news online via other channels like Yahoo, Google or Reuters which cover more news of the same story, and thus more objective. BBC very often reports only one aspect of it (or their perspectives primarily), and a lot of people nowadays realise they are not objective any more. This is a shame because BBC used to be the pride of the country. In some circles, BBC is actually called British Bias Corporation. I even think that they are partly to blame for what we are today. Their reports of the world and events around us have made Brits live in their perceived world rather than the real one. We trust this national broadcaster so much that we don’t cast any doubts any more.

To give license fee to one broadcaster only is unfair to other broadcasters who have to struggle to find money to make ends meet.

We should pay only when it can be proved that it’s adding value to the country, not because of a historical reason, and definitely not because it’s BBC.

Guest
Ronald says:
16 September 2010

I think I can agree that they survive on taxpayers money, but are slightly out of control.

Guest

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.

Guest
marivah says:
17 September 2010

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.

Guest
geordieinexile says:
17 September 2010

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

Guest

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.

Guest
R Axford (Hull) says:
17 September 2010

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.

Guest
David Fuller says:
17 September 2010

It’s a tragedy that we’re having this conversation, because without the BBC we will all be subject to
”The world according to Murdoch”. The Murdoch empire would dominate absolutely. With the proliferation of TV channels, advertising revenue has become so thinly spread that the main terrestrial channels have suffered huge losses in revenue, individually, and BskyB, having ‘hoovered-up’ most of sport and movies, have surely become too dominant. The Murdochs now want to emaciate the BBC, as it is now their only serious competition. Get rid of the licence fee, and we will end up with subcription channels with adverts as the only way to see half decent programmes and we will have to suffer ‘FOX-News’style reporting. Not for me thank-you. The worrying reality of all this is that I have already heard people complain that they shouldn’t have to pay for a TV licence as they are already paying so much for Sky and they ‘never watch BBC’!
We do really need to wake up and think what life would be like without ‘Auntie’

Profile photo of Mike Briggs
Guest

I’ve just jumped over from my board to butt in . . . I think it’s fantastic so many people would gladly pay for the BBC. It proves, as I thought, that the BBC would have a rosey future without the compulsory licence. A leaner, streamlined BBC free from pressure of chasing ratings could concentrate on its core market of viewers who demand quality (such as everyone on this page).

Sky is a red herring and simple enough to avoid

Profile photo of richard
Guest

Sorry Mike Briggs I think you are wrong. It is the license fee that makes the BBC such good value with all the Radio and TV channels – without pressure to raise extra revenue to compete with other broadcasters.

Sky is certainly NOT a red – herring – It exists to compete with the BBC – so money that the BBC HAS to pay for certain broadcasts – there are bidding wars remember – this is in direct competition with Sky. and the BBC needs all the money it gets to produce a well balanced broadcasting service rightly renowned across the world.

Guest
Beekeeper IW says:
17 September 2010

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.

Guest
Simon Weatherall says:
17 September 2010

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.

Guest
Sheila P says:
17 September 2010

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.

Profile photo of nigelh
Guest

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.

Guest
Eva Simmons says:
17 September 2010

If everything goes commercial (i.e. paid for by adverts and not the licence fee) we will get in Britain the same kind of TV you get in America. Anyone who has spent time in America will know what I mean. Who needs it? BBC TV has the marvellous things on it – although for me the radio programmes alone are worth the licence fee. If it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it.

Guest
jusinryoutaose says:
31 January 2013

Or, if it’s aged between 8 and 16, watch the door while Jimmy fixes it for you.

The issue is not whether some people think it’s value for money. The issue isn’t really about the aforementioned licence-fee sponsored paedophile, or all the other cupboards chocka-block with skeletons of varying grotesqueness (although these are certainly relevant).

People who support the licence in the main love the BBC, have always owned a telly, and therefore probably know very little about the way the system is enforced and the impact it has on Britain’s most socially, economically and mentally vulnerable people. They probably don’t know for example that the enforcement agents don’t work for the BBC but for a private company, and receive a commission for every frightened old lady they bully into subscribing, and every single mother they put in the dock. They probably also don’t know that these people don’t have any more legal standing than a double-glazing salesman.

Americans do have to put up with adverts. They even have to put up with them during episodes of Groundforce and Changing Rooms on BBC America, but at least they don’t have to pay to make the programmes. The British public does that for them, just like we do for the ones the Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians watch. (New Zealand and Australia abolished their licence fees, the former after a successful campaign of civil disobedience. The Australian public never had to pay for Neighbours, by the way, as it was broadcast on one of their commercial networks.)

Arguments against the licence fee tend to run on for pages, encompassing issues including but by no means limited to conflicted interests, the evils of monopoly, the concept of a poll tax, human rights and disenfranchisement of the citizenry, with concrete examples of abuse, corruption and scandal in support of all points.

Arguments for the licence fee tend to be shorter, and remind us that lots of people like the Archers, Rupert Murdoch is a capitalist, and ‘we’ ‘need’ ‘quality television’ (with obvious significance to the separate air quotes). Even the politicians don’t seem to have much more to say in favour of it, but then again when you’re on 60 grand and up a year plus expenses, 39p a day really isn’t that much.

Guest

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.

Profile photo of alfa
Guest

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.

Profile photo of beehive03
Guest

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.

Profile photo of wincey
Guest

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.

Guest

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.

Guest
Paul W Sullivan says:
20 September 2010

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.

Guest
D. Jones says:
20 September 2010

The licence has given the BBC too much power. Why should 500 students in Halls of residence and sharing a kitchen be hounded to pay individual licence fees? Did you notice MP’s were claiming theirs back on second homes? what are our children setting up when they leave to go to University?
You can legaly watch a portable TV out of your home only if it’s not plugged into the mains, but if you watch it live on new hand held technology out and about thats OK! Another words if you can be nailed down they will criminalise you, if you can’t they have to give up. Get with it BBC you need to serve the customer not worry them to death.

Profile photo of nigelh
Guest

Let’s be clear about this, shall we? The BBC does NOT run the licence fee collection service, nor does it have any say in defining the laws that relate to it or the amount it receives from the revenues collected. All of those things are the purview of the government. It all used to be handled by the Post Office before privatisiation, but the TV Licence set-up is, presumably, now another of those infamous QUANGOs….

So, if you have a gripe with the laws that relate to the need to licence students’ TVs in Halls of Residence (which legally are no different to any block of flats, so it makes sense to me that the licenicng rules should be the same for them anyway), you should write to your MP. Either way, stop blaming the BBC for things that it has no more control over than you or I do!

Guest

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.

Guest

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!

Guest
E Castle says:
28 September 2010

True, Jon, you don’t have to buy a license if you don’t watch live TV..but the bullying & intimidation you will get from TV Licensing if you don’t buy or renew one suggests they simply won’t accept that some people don’t watch TV. You can call them or log into their website to plead your case for exemption, but they state that even then you might get a visit from their investigators..’Trendy’ media types who hob nob & feed off (often literally) the institution that is the BBC often find it convenient to sneer at those who choose to opt out here.

Guest
William Cowper says:
23 May 2011

I am one of the very few who have never owned a “television receiver” and have therefore never needed a license. I am very shocked by the belligerence of the TV Licencing’s letters. What no-one can tell me is this – am I legally obliged to declare to them that I don’t have such equipment? They demand this all the time, but you’re not believed, because they say they might still come and visit you to check! What other quango has such powers?

Profile photo of dave d
Guest

As pointed out by Nigel I do wish that people would not comment on something that they don’t actually understand, thereby both making themselves look like twits and also clouding the waters.
The License fee is, as Nigel says, collected and administered by NTVLRO, now shortened to “TV Licensing” which is, as Nigel says, a QUANGO (if you don’t know what a QUANGO is get a text book on GCSE politics and look at Thatcher’s policies of the 1980’s – it’s on the basic GCSE curriculum so it should be understandable by a University student.
There is a reference much further up this board to not wishing to know about historical systems and only being interested in the fee as it is now: that’s a very short-sighted view and it’s similar to the mistake made over the administration of the fee; if you don’t understand the history you don’t stand a snowball’s chance in **** of understanding the present. To clarify see my contribution about 3 weeks ago on Mike’s anti-license fee board: the license is fo rthe RECEIVER (i.e. the equipment) and it is a license to OPERATE the receiver, not a license to pay the BBC per se. The reason that it goes to the BBC is because there were no other broadcasters when it as introduced, indeed TV had not even been invented and it was a WIRELESS receiver license.
Whether or not historically a mistake was made in not updating the system when the IBA was born is a whole other issue but we have what we have because it was not changed at that point.

Guest
Chrimbo says:
20 May 2012

Your comment might be valid, if you managed to spell ‘licence’ correctly…

Profile photo of Patrick Steen
Guest

Hello Chrimbo, the content of Dave’s comment is what matters and not the spelling. We take spelling and grammar very seriously for our own articles, but commenters are not required to heavily proof-read their comments as that would slow down the debate. Thanks.

Guest
Jennifer Goodings says:
3 December 2010

I can only assume that those who have posted comments to keep the licence fee can comfortably afford to do so. A lot of us out there are not on high salaries and really struggle to pay for it and worry constantly with the threatening letters and prospect of prison etc. As a single working parent the cost of a licence represents 70% of my take home pay per week and I have to go without eating and heating to pay for it. I really resent paying for this unjust tax in an age of choice which is what we should have – this is a democracy after all. I never watch the BBC as I find the content boring so I say let the 58 % who voted to keep it pay for it and let the other 42 % who want choice have that choice

Guest
Chrimbo says:
2 October 2011

The only question to ask yourself is “are you happy to pay people like Mr Paxman £1.5m a year”
(reportedly).?

Profile photo of rarrar
Guest

I all for continuing the funding of the BBC.
However it would be far more cost -effective to simply fund it direct from taxation.
Almost everyone has a TV, so why all waste money with all the administration, bureaucracy and enforcement costs associated with the TV licensing organisation and remember the costs to retailers of having to do monthly returns of all TV sales ?

With the rise of Internet TV viewing, its becoming even more difficult to enforce anyway.

The Government already sets how much the BBC gets paid through the license fee anway so no change there required.

Guest
giles says:
24 May 2012

The BBC has gone beyond simply providing an important non-commercial service. They need cutting back. 39p a day is too much. If I live to be the age of my grandparents, at current prices I would have paid over £12000 for TV and radio channels I rarely used.

The license prevents me from watching free commercial channels which impacts my freedom and human right to “receive and impart information and ideas through any media”.

I was bullied and treated like a criminal by TV Licensing and was unable to get a refund when I sold my TV despite following the proper proceedure. It makes no difference to me that the BBC and TV Licensing are separate.

Guest
Remian Priyvate says:
29 June 2012

If anyone objects to the idea of BBC funding from General Taxation (Have no TV, why should I pay tax to support the BBC), just remember Schools are paid from public taxes and many people without children still have to pay. If Education is for the “public good” and can be paid from general tax, then so is the BBC (at least the “informative” and “educational” output from it). If they also produce entertainment somehow NOT for the Public Good, then maybe that should be optional and paid by subscription.

Seriously, if it was JUST about money they would have gone over to general taxation ages ago. Remember not too many years back the TV Licence Database was going to be used to seed the National ID Card Database? Officially cancelled, but … do you REALLY trust the Database State?