I note there's an option missing from the poll, which I support: the BBC should be funded from a cut of general taxation. (So disregard one vote for "mixture of the above" I just wanted to post a thread!)

It would guarantee public service broadcasting, it wouldn't penalise the poor (poll tax = bad) and it would stop the madness of dragging people through court and even into jail for non-payment. A lot of resources needlessly wasted I feel.

I voted for the subscription fee, because of the options, i think that's the best one.

I do (after some persuation), really like Byron's general taxation idea though. The media plays a very important role in education and informing people, and only a very small amount of tax would pay for the BBC.

How would you do it, by general taxation, I mean? As a percentage of all income tax, and thus variable depending on the government of the day's position on income tax? The alternative is to say 'A sum of X must be paid from the treasury to the BBC per annum' with an agreement to review the amount in n years time. 1/ You cannot guarantee the next government will not lower income tax and generate this money indirectly (tax on alcohol, for instance). 2/ This sets a dangerous precedent - how would you feel if the Tories passed a bill saying the government must spend x amount of money on nuclear missiles and that it was to be reviewed in ten years time?

By making the licence fee separate from general taxation you remove the insecurity of not knowing your budget more than 1 year in advance, and do not set dangerous precedents for guaranteeing where taxation is spent for an amount of time longer than 1 parliament. The Fee is a clumsy system, but it allows some continuity, stability and independence, and none of the alternatives I've heard (including all the ones listed here) can do the same.

---

by Jayjay
How would you do it, by general taxation, I mean? As a percentage of all income tax, and thus variable depending on the government of the day's position on income tax? The alternative is to say 'A sum of X must be paid from the treasury to the BBC per annum' with an agreement to review the amount in n years time. 1/ You cannot guarantee the next government will not lower income tax and generate this money indirectly (tax on alcohol, for instance). 2/ This sets a dangerous precedent - how would you feel if the Tories passed a bill saying the government must spend x amount of money on nuclear missiles and that it was to be reviewed in ten years time?

By making the licence fee separate from general taxation you remove the insecurity of not knowing your budget more than 1 year in advance, and do not set dangerous precedents for guaranteeing where taxation is spent for an amount of time longer than 1 parliament. The Fee is a clumsy system, but it allows some continuity, stability and independence, and none of the alternatives I've heard (including all the ones listed here) can do the same.

---

JayJay supporting a poll tax, good lord, where's the camera?!

My suggestion would be to have a set amount from the Treasury earmarked for public service broadcasting, and bring it up for review in every Parliament. No dodgy precedent: a new government can review it upon coming to power. The BBC Charter is periodically reviewed, so I don't see why it should make the corporation any more or less secure that it is with the licence fee.

With the Murdochs and Desmonds of the world snapping at the nation's jugular public broadcasting is more important than ever, but I don't think letting the Beeb run a private tax fiefdom is remotely fair. How can we possibly justify making someone on minimum wage pay as much for a TV as an Earl?

Can we at least agree that it is ridiculous that a licence fee is mandatory to be able to operate a TV even if it never once is tuned to the BBC?

I put my vote in for the licence fee but I have to say Byron's got me convinced, either way I am totally against the idea of the BBC going subscribtion based or even worse having to opt for advertising revenue.

Edit: The idea of shutting it down doesn't, imo , come into the vaguest consideration.

(Edited by Havoc 03/03/2004 20:19)

---

by Spikeo
Can we at least agree that it is ridiculous that a licence fee is mandatory to be able to operate a TV even if it never once is tuned to the BBC?

---

You pay taxes to support education, medical care and public transport you may never use, indeed might choose not to use if you can afford it. The point is that the BBC services are available to everyone with a television, whether they choose to watch it or not. However with the advent of the BBC website and digital tv services that isn't as true as it once was.


A subscription or dependence on advertising would be utterly pointless. The point of the BBC should be (although of late they seem to have forgotten this somewhat) that they do not have to chase ratings in order to have a source of income.

True that the BBC now broadcasts using a wide range of media (particularly digital tv) that many people don't have access to. At least not yet.

But isn't that what it's there for? The BBC can only really provide good public service broadcasting if it's where the audience is. The audience is moving to digital, and the BBC needs to be there if it's going to stay relevant.

I think the license fee is perhaps the lesser of several evils. No corporate prostitution to big advertising accounts, and a (recently tested) decent amount of freedom from political interference. Maybe there's room for a debate about whether the license fee's set at the right amount, or whether pensioners should get a license free or for a nominal charge. Otherwise I'd say it ain't broke, so let's not fix it.

---

by Demona
(quotes)

You pay taxes to support education, medical care and public transport you may never use, indeed might choose not to use if you can afford it.

---

These things are basic necessities to enable society to function. I hardly think the BBC falls into that category.

---

by Spikeo
Can we at least agree that it is ridiculous that a licence fee is mandatory to be able to operate a TV even if it never once is tuned to the BBC?

---

I'm forever having arguements (erm well-worded debates) at work about the BBC Licence fee. Technically I am *required* to pay nearly £10 a month because someone says I have to in order to cover BBC1, 2 and whatever else it goes towards.

However, I probably only choose to watch either of these channels about 2 hours a week max (that's with the introduction of Hustle ) unless there happens to be a film on that hasn't been repeated 20 times.

I do however, choose to pay to have cable tv which unfortunately is more expensive than sky at £28.00 basic including the extra radio stations - but it's all I was originally allowed in our flat (ie no dish) and we get less interruptions on broadcast than my in-laws who's dish trembles with every drop of rain it seems

I can understand bbc channels probably being a godsend to the elderly and unemployed who have the time and inclination to sit and watch hours and hours of the stuff. But anything that I would have been likely to watch was shoved on bbc2 and edited to shreads before I got home from work.

Thus my arguement at work always goes like this - why should I pay £10 for effectively 2 channels, when I already pay £28 for the channels I voluntarily watch?

I suppose it could be argued that it would be like someone paying for their roadtax and only using their car a few times a month (but that would really be going on a tangent - do not follow up on this - it's just be thinking too much )

The licence funding can't be going to anything of much use anyway to be unable to compete against certain things going awol. They lost formula 1 (which now has bloody adverts in! You wouldn't put adverts in a football match you idiots ), they've probably lost a lot of other sport that I know nothing about and they lost Robot Wars (damn you - now channel five have ruined it even more so - which I didn't think was possible ), they lost 24 (and I hear the fans sobbing over the ads in that and I've still not seen it) and now they've gone and lost the Boat Race (how many ads can ITV wack in that I wonder )

All in all the only good thing about the BBC *is* the lacking of adverts - but if they can't come up with the quality of tv in the first place to make people wonder what they are paying their money towards, then why should people have to pay the licence?

I'm not sure what alternatives would suit to be honest. Me - I could happily forego the channels.

/money-pincher rant

Much as i dislike the TV tax, i do believe it's the best way to produce inovative (IE non hollywood formula) programing.

The probnlem is that the BBC is playing it safe recently. there's very little original programing coming out of the BBC, for what it's being paid it should be producing more.

I believe the licence should stay. BUT the BBC should be made to be more inovative at the same time.

Anyone think ITV would have comissioned Red Dwarf? No, me neither. nor wouth the BBC today tho.

I agree with everything Sam says (except the bit about Robot Wars - nerd )

Why doesn't the bbc charge cable providers and sky for them to be allowed to show their channels. This means that if you have sky or cable you pay a few quid more a month for your TV subscription with them, but you don't have to pay for the license fee again.

Everyone that doesn't have a cable or sky ergo uses the aerial for their TV signal pays xx license fee. As they only get BBC etc

On one side you loose some "paperwork" as the license fee for a lot of people only need to be collected from their TV provider but on the other hand you do need to keep track if people have cable / sky etc so you "win" some.

Overall it seems to be a fairer system that way.

Ooh and on the note of you don't put commercials in football.... well football seems to have scheduled intermissions.... F1 lacks those

---

by Chambler
Why doesn't the bbc charge cable providers and sky for them to be allowed to show their channels. This means that if you have sky or cable you pay a few quid more a month for your TV subscription with them, but you don't have to pay for the license fee again.

---

I cant speak for cable, but if you want BBC (and the other 3 and BBC 3, 4 and radio) through sky, it's free. You can get a freeview card that costs nothing because the chanels that card provides are free.

I think charging for the freeview card by Sky would just complicate matters not to mention adding charge to existing packages.

And the Licencing people wouldnt have cool computers to trace people on! What would they do all day?

On a different note, you can, if you dont own a TV (though you dont have to) get a much cheaper radio licence. I think only old people with a great sence of responsibilty choose to pay this though. it's £12 a year.