http://www.techradar.com/news/televisio ... fee-675745

Thankfully I'm not paying it yet...

[LIFTED] robbing bastards!

Mark

I thought you only had to pay the licence fee for the BBC?

That's where the money goes but it is essentially a Television tax.

Mark

I think it is ridiculous when the cost of a licence is greater than the cost of a television set. There are very few things that I watch on BBC channels. I do want the BBC to stay but in. reduced capacity to what it is.

Some useful info from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_fee#United_Kingdom

The TV licence costs less than a basic Sky package, and I think there are far more BBC production I enjoy than Sky productions. Does Sky even make anything, or are they just resellers of American imports and boring sports and news sellers?

I'm currently watching Being Human and I'm looking forward to Doctor Who. I also enjoyed Torchwood.

The only other show I watch is Heroes, which is on more than one channel including the BBC.

There's several satirical quiz and music shows I also enjoy, and they're mostly BBC.

If I bought the DVD box sets, it would probably cost more than the TV licence. Considering I watch so little TV, I think that's surprisingly good value.

However, I do think the TV licence is immoral. I want them to use a subscription model, which will be perfectly practicable when the digital switch over is complete. Don't pay, don't get. Your choice. Much fairer than the current tax with all it's bizarre and perverse loopholes.

I would definitely choose to pay, even knowing my money subsidised a few radio stations such as 5 live which I never listen to. The radio budget is such a tiny percentage I'm really not hard up enough to be bovered.

Regarding the BBC world services, I think they should be separated and paid from general taxation. It's the official face of our nation to the world and I think it's worth a few pennies.

You are holding back. Come on let it out.

I would have thought that as they have nearly completed the digital switchover, and are making cut backs they should really freeze the license fee when the economy is in such strict financial straits.

I'm not a fan of the TV tax at the best of times, so putting the price of it up now just seems retarded to me.

Mark

They make much less non-sport content than the beeb despite having roughly twice the total turnover. The shows they used to make were almost universally rubbish but they've very much upped their game in the last couple of years. The documentary stuff Ross Kemp has been doing may not be to everyone's tastes (not mine really..) but it's been winning awards so there must objectively be some quality there. Still, there's probably only 4 or 5 hours of 'entertainment' content on Sky's channels a week that they've actually paid to have made.

Sky is overall I'd say less good value than the BBC but the bare fact is if you like any sort of sport, you more or less have to have Sky. That's the business plan they have - buy all the sport, make people pay big subs to watch it, throw a load of cheap stuff in for free. Seems to work for them.

I think that it should be paid for out of general taxation, Maybe countered with a reduction in personal allowances. Though with us still barely out of recession it should be frozen for a couple of years.

You say that, but I'd rather pay it and have no adverts. What I object to is paying for TV (eg Sky) and still having to watch adverts too.

I currently watch next to nothing on the BBC so I'd rather not pay it and put up with the adverts like on every other channel.

Mark

The BBC's full of ads anyway - if it's not some red nightmare telling you you're watching the BBC, it's endless trailers for something or other... As a result I wanted to show David Tennant what his windpipe looked like at Xmas, and I only watch a few programmes on the Beeb

What are adverts? Are they those things I record through every time I watch something?