I'd rather see programmes like Top Gear axed, which at £1m a show would save £10-15m a year. Not bad when they're trying to find £100m in savings. But it's a cash cow for BBC worldwide I guess, despite being completely out of ideas.
So maybe it wouldn't save the BBC any money at all.
Depends how long it can be milked for. The last four series have been woeful, can't see the Yanks lapping it up for much longer. But as has been explained elsewhere there are other long-standing shows the BBC make that have very high production costs that could (and probably should) be axed too.
I'd rather see programmes like Top Gear axed, which at £1m a show would save £10-15m a year. Not bad when they're trying to find £100m in savings. But it's a cash cow for BBC worldwide I guess, despite being completely out of ideas.
So maybe it wouldn't save the BBC any money at all.
Depends how long it can be milked for. The last four series have been woeful, can't see the Yanks lapping it up for much longer. But as has been explained elsewhere there are other long-standing shows the BBC make that have very high production costs that could (and probably should) be axed too.
Never watch it but lots of people do here and abroad so if it makes money then great, means it is helping to pay for the many other BBC programme I do like.
I was a bit shocked that they allowed an oik like SG3toSE7 on the beeb last week though : - )
Stil cant understand why u pay sky 50/60 a month and stil fund the bbc with licence fees...its 2014 go commercial not a big deal must be the only channel funded this way..or go down the us pbc way and have a yearly teleaphon to raise money. can honestly say the bbc is hardly on at mine bar topgear and the football league show.
BBC Worldwide has made more than £1billion since 2007. All of it ploughed back into the pot so I'd suggest, whether you like it or not, programmes like Top Gear more than earn their keep if it subsidises the productions values of shows like The Fall for example.
As I said, I think it's a bit strange to actively want to move to a commercial system of funding for the BBC. I would happily pay the licence fee all over again if it meant I never had to watch (or faff about fast forwarding through) the fecking Go Compare geezer every 10 minutes during the forthcoming World Cup for example...all to save less than the price of a Weatherspoon's pint per week.
Honestly, it'd be simpler and cheaper to axe the TV licence and just have the Govt fund it directly out of general taxation. The TV licence is almost impossible to enforce, the conviction rate for those who do not pay is pathetic and wastes even more of the public's time and money and the BBC pays millions a year to Capita to administer the thing! Considering 95% of those who do not pay the TV licence probably benefit from it in one way or another, and a significant proportion of those who do pay it don't use BBC services at all, would be fairer and easier just to use existing tax take already. I'm not suggesting raising taxes - taxes are too high and inefficient anyway, we need a wholesale restructure of the UK tax system.
Stil cant understand why u pay sky 50/60 a month and stil fund the bbc with licence fees...its 2014 go commercial not a big deal must be the only channel funded this way..or go down the us pbc way and have a yearly teleaphon to raise money. can honestly say the bbc is hardly on at mine bar topgear and the football league show.
"Not a big deal" - well I hope East Terrace and Bournemouth have explained that one to you Adam. I don't see why I should pay extra for my toothpaste to fund Britain's got talent, Dog the Bounty Hunter or Embarrassing Bodies, but that's the way it is.
Half Sky's output seems to be old BBC programmes - Gold, Drama, Dave, Yesterday etc, and even if you really do only watch those two programmes a week, it works out at £1.40 an hour, where else can you get entertained at that cost?
It is the only network ( not channel - again everything they actually do has been outlined elsewhere in this thread ) funded in this way, and that is why they are able to cater for all tastes on all media platforms.
BBC3 was full of the same shite that commercial channels do and BBC4 is the only channel that still bares any resemblance to the Reithian ideals upon which the BBC was based.
BBC3 viewers can find similarly lobotomised programming on the ITV network, but axing BBC 4 would leave very few oases of intelligence left on the box, especially since BBC1 gets more moronic by the day and BBC2 is a shadow of its former self.
Honestly, it'd be simpler and cheaper to axe the TV licence and just have the Govt fund it directly out of general taxation. The TV licence is almost impossible to enforce, the conviction rate for those who do not pay is pathetic and wastes even more of the public's time and money and the BBC pays millions a year to Capita to administer the thing! Considering 95% of those who do not pay the TV licence probably benefit from it in one way or another, and a significant proportion of those who do pay it don't use BBC services at all, would be fairer and easier just to use existing tax take already. I'm not suggesting raising taxes - taxes are too high and inefficient anyway, we need a wholesale restructure of the UK tax system.
Some interesting conjecture and assumptions there old chap, along with a fact or two. Here's a link to an interesting page where a few more pertinent facts can be obtained.
Honestly, it'd be simpler and cheaper to axe the TV licence and just have the Govt fund it directly out of general taxation. The TV licence is almost impossible to enforce, the conviction rate for those who do not pay is pathetic and wastes even more of the public's time and money and the BBC pays millions a year to Capita to administer the thing! Considering 95% of those who do not pay the TV licence probably benefit from it in one way or another, and a significant proportion of those who do pay it don't use BBC services at all, would be fairer and easier just to use existing tax take already. I'm not suggesting raising taxes - taxes are too high and inefficient anyway, we need a wholesale restructure of the UK tax system.
Some interesting conjecture and assumptions there old chap, along with a fact or two. Here's a link to an interesting page where a few more pertinent facts can be obtained.
Can't really quote where I got my figures from since they're from Private Eye who don't publish online but they are pretty good at exposing what a wheeze the TVL is and how Capita are taking the Beeb and the taxpayers for a ride. Not really sure what point you're trying to make - says right there on that link that it cost £125m two years ago to administer the licence. Bit of a rip off I think when if it was funded directly by the Government, we could roll that £125m into quality programming, or into more braindead nonsense like Pointless & The Voice, whatever I don't really care.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
Sky are making some brilliant tv at the mo, moone boy for example some of the guff on bbc3 would find it hard to sully the schedule of the long lost men and motors.
I have to admit that I really enjoy BBC3 and I'm a bit gutted by this news. I love Family Guy and some of the trashy reality shows, plus the new comedy they do.
Yeah in all honesty I would really rather keep BBC3. Wonder if the Beeb hadn't spent all that money covering up Jimmy Savile and then spending more money sacking everyone involved with massive pay-offs, they could have kept BBC3?
Why not make BBC3 and BBC4 commercial to make some money? BBC3 for example has a very commercial tv style output.
Isn't Dave the commercial arm of the beeb?
Partially - UKTV (incl. Dave & other channels like Gold and Yesterday) is a joint venture between BBC Worldwide & another company whose name eludes me at the moment.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
I don't believe people who say they never watch or listen to BBC output, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. But if they were telling the truth, why would they be any happier than they are now at paying extra tax rather than a licence fee? And then you can add to them the folk who genuinely don't have a television, that's the point I am trying to put across. As I said previously, I actually agree with you. And as I also said, it's not the BBC's fault that they have to collect the licence fee.
Why not make BBC3 and BBC4 commercial to make some money? BBC3 for example has a very commercial tv style output.
But BBC 4 doesn't have commercial output, it has minority interest programmes that are very good. So it wouldn't work, even if the BBC charter allowed it.
The thing is, a lot of the stuff that is on both Three and Four wouldn't be produced on Commercial channels, and that's where the BBC must come in and provide the space for it. They've done a good job stopping BBC Three becoming as american buy in driven as E4 for example, and the list of really good original stuff is impressive.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
I don't believe people who say they never watch or listen to BBC output, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. But if they were telling the truth, why would they be any happier than they are now at paying extra tax rather than a licence fee? And then you can add to them the folk who genuinely don't have a television, that's the point I am trying to put across. As I said previously, I actually agree with you. And as I also said, it's not the BBC's fault that they have to collect the licence fee.
I think we can infer from the fact that enough people have asked TVL whether they need to pay the licence even if they do not watch BBC that it is the 6th item on their FAQs probably says it all. I agree, it is subject to voodoo polling, but to be honest, the only thing I watch BBC for at the moment is 11-1130pm on BBC3, which is now going out the window, and even then I barely watch it at the moment. I used to watch Question Time but the mixture of crap guests and idiot audiences has turned me off.
And as I said before, we don't need to increase taxes to pay for the BBC. The objections of non-TV owners having to pay for the BBC is much the same as adults who have no kids paying for schools and childcare and such, or non-graduates having to subsidise colleges and universities. The UK is already well over-taxed, lower taxes and encourage growth and the higher tax take will pay for itself. I'm not blaming the BBC for the shoddy state of affairs, but it isn't exactly doing anything about it, the attitude of its top brass is and always has been a culture of waste and throwing money at a problem.
Rothko - my main qualm with the BBC on this front is quite a lot of its primetime output mirrors what's on ITV or Channel 4. I appreciate that the BBC is responsible for 90% of any high-brow/intellectual output on TV which isn't widely watched, hence why it isn't on commercial channels, however it has shelled out millions for the rights of a talent show, which is broadcasts against one of two talent shows already on ITV. Never mind some of the other rubbish that is mirrored across other channels eg crap quiz shows, soap operas etc.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
I don't believe people who say they never watch or listen to BBC output, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. But if they were telling the truth, why would they be any happier than they are now at paying extra tax rather than a licence fee? And then you can add to them the folk who genuinely don't have a television, that's the point I am trying to put across. As I said previously, I actually agree with you. And as I also said, it's not the BBC's fault that they have to collect the licence fee.
I think we can infer from the fact that enough people have asked TVL whether they need to pay the licence even if they do not watch BBC that it is the 6th item on their FAQs probably says it all.
I think all you can infer from that is there are a lot of pee taking chancers who thought/think they are being clever by putting forward the excuse that they don't watch the BBC. I doubt there is anyone in the UK, as in not one single person, who can say that they never watch a BBC production of some sort, or listen to a BBC radio station of one kind or visit a BBC website or even benefit from someone who has been trained through the BBC.
What about the Olympic coverage, Royal Weddings, State Funerals, World Cups, The Grand National, the Six Nations or just the nightly news...are you seriously suggesting that there are people, even if they hate the reality rubbish and quiz shows, who never stumble across a BBC production like these and watch them? Even on an infrequent basis?
I don't think you believe that any more than I do tbh.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
I don't believe people who say they never watch or listen to BBC output, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. But if they were telling the truth, why would they be any happier than they are now at paying extra tax rather than a licence fee? And then you can add to them the folk who genuinely don't have a television, that's the point I am trying to put across. As I said previously, I actually agree with you. And as I also said, it's not the BBC's fault that they have to collect the licence fee.
I think we can infer from the fact that enough people have asked TVL whether they need to pay the licence even if they do not watch BBC that it is the 6th item on their FAQs probably says it all.
I think all you can infer from that is there are a lot of pee taking chancers who thought/think they are being clever by putting forward the excuse that they don't watch the BBC. I doubt there is anyone in the UK, as in not one single person, who can say that they never watch a BBC production of some sort, or listen to a BBC radio station of one kind or visit a BBC website or even benefit from someone who has been trained through the BBC.
What about the Olympic coverage, Royal Weddings, State Funerals, World Cups, The Grand National, the Six Nations or just the nightly news...are you seriously suggesting that there are people, even if they hate the reality rubbish and quiz shows, who never stumble across a BBC production like these and watch them? Even on an infrequent basis?
I don't think you believe that any more than I do tbh.
I'm talking purely about licence fee-payers who do not watch any BBC channel on broadcast telly. Most people in my age-demographic, people I talk to (under 30s) don't watch any of the BBC channels being broadcast live. This is why I'm advocating abolishing the fee since these people still watch iPlayer, the website, listen to the radio etc. which don't require owning a TV licence to enjoy legally.
But you say yourself ( which is the conjecture bit ) that a significant proportion who pay their licence don't use BBC services at all ( I do not believe that for one moment, by the way ). How would the people who genuinely don't - ie those who do not even possess a tele - react to your idea? Look how cross people who do admit to using BBC services get just because they watch UK living more than they do BBC1?
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
1) It's conjecture based on factual observation i.e. that a lot of people pay the licence fee and either watch far more satellite TV than BBC or don't watch BBC at all. This is by far the most common objection people have to the licence fee, that they don't even watch BBC, they just want Sky 1 or Sky Sports. In fact it's the 6th item on the link to the TVL FAQs you yourself posted!
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
I don't believe people who say they never watch or listen to BBC output, so we will have to agree to disagree on that point. But if they were telling the truth, why would they be any happier than they are now at paying extra tax rather than a licence fee? And then you can add to them the folk who genuinely don't have a television, that's the point I am trying to put across. As I said previously, I actually agree with you. And as I also said, it's not the BBC's fault that they have to collect the licence fee.
I think we can infer from the fact that enough people have asked TVL whether they need to pay the licence even if they do not watch BBC that it is the 6th item on their FAQs probably says it all.
I think all you can infer from that is there are a lot of pee taking chancers who thought/think they are being clever by putting forward the excuse that they don't watch the BBC. I doubt there is anyone in the UK, as in not one single person, who can say that they never watch a BBC production of some sort, or listen to a BBC radio station of one kind or visit a BBC website or even benefit from someone who has been trained through the BBC.
What about the Olympic coverage, Royal Weddings, State Funerals, World Cups, The Grand National, the Six Nations or just the nightly news...are you seriously suggesting that there are people, even if they hate the reality rubbish and quiz shows, who never stumble across a BBC production like these and watch them? Even on an infrequent basis?
I don't think you believe that any more than I do tbh.
I'm talking purely about licence fee-payers who do not watch any BBC channel on broadcast telly. Most people in my age-demographic, people I talk to (under 30s) don't watch any of the BBC channels being broadcast live. This is why I'm advocating abolishing the fee since these people still watch iPlayer, the website, listen to the radio etc. which don't require owning a TV licence to enjoy legally.
Really? So they never watch Glastonbury on the red button then? Or won't be watching England v Italy in the summer? I don't believe you.
I guess you didn't read the part where I pointed out taxes don't need to raised, only made more efficient to increase tax take. But if we didn't do that, then reducing the threshold for higher or basic income tax by only a matter of pounds could easily raise the necessary revenue. I suggest next time you actually read posts before making pointless sarky comments.
Bournemout hAddick - cherry picking a bit as those are events that don't even happen every year and a commercial broadcaster would pick them up if he BBC wasn't guaranteed them.
Comments
I was a bit shocked that they allowed an oik like SG3toSE7 on the beeb last week though : - )
Andy Kershaw once said something like 'the bbc may not always give people what they want but gives them what they don't realise they need'.
In a commercial world, artistic and creative ideas and edgy projects may not make the cut.
Not all of us want to live in a world of Sarah Lancashire dramas on the TV and 'we're smiling all the time' Heart FM in the car.
As I said, I think it's a bit strange to actively want to move to a commercial system of funding for the BBC. I would happily pay the licence fee all over again if it meant I never had to watch (or faff about fast forwarding through) the fecking Go Compare geezer every 10 minutes during the forthcoming World Cup for example...all to save less than the price of a Weatherspoon's pint per week.
Half Sky's output seems to be old BBC programmes - Gold, Drama, Dave, Yesterday etc, and even if you really do only watch those two programmes a week, it works out at £1.40 an hour, where else can you get entertained at that cost?
It is the only network ( not channel - again everything they actually do has been outlined elsewhere in this thread ) funded in this way, and that is why they are able to cater for all tastes on all media platforms.
BBC3 viewers can find similarly lobotomised programming on the ITV network, but axing BBC 4 would leave very few oases of intelligence left on the box, especially since BBC1 gets more moronic by the day and BBC2 is a shadow of its former self.
BBC3? do one.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15/
I actually agree with your idea, but failing that method of collection, how else can it be done? It works out at 3.5% of costs as you can see from the table.
For the record the government did collect the licence fee until 1991, when they decided to make the BBC responsible, hardly the Beeb's fault?
2) The licence fee is a relic from an age where there was still a significant portion of the country who did not or could not receive broadcast television. Nowadays I imagine if you knocked on 20 doors in any town or city, you would hardly ever find more than 1 house in any sample that did not receive broadcast TV, and even less who don't benefit from the BBC's services in one form or another (radio, Internet, other services etc.). It's a public service broadcaster - let it be funded like every other public service is funded, regardless of who actually uses it - roads, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums, pensions etc. are all funded out of general taxation in one way or another. You fund the BBC out of that as well, meaning you don't need to to pay a contractor hundreds of millions of pounds every year to collect it as HMRC already collect it.
The real people who should be annoyed are those who do pay the licence fee when millions out there don't but still enjoy the free services off iPlayer, radio, the website etc.
Sigh
And as I said before, we don't need to increase taxes to pay for the BBC. The objections of non-TV owners having to pay for the BBC is much the same as adults who have no kids paying for schools and childcare and such, or non-graduates having to subsidise colleges and universities. The UK is already well over-taxed, lower taxes and encourage growth and the higher tax take will pay for itself. I'm not blaming the BBC for the shoddy state of affairs, but it isn't exactly doing anything about it, the attitude of its top brass is and always has been a culture of waste and throwing money at a problem.
Rothko - my main qualm with the BBC on this front is quite a lot of its primetime output mirrors what's on ITV or Channel 4. I appreciate that the BBC is responsible for 90% of any high-brow/intellectual output on TV which isn't widely watched, hence why it isn't on commercial channels, however it has shelled out millions for the rights of a talent show, which is broadcasts against one of two talent shows already on ITV. Never mind some of the other rubbish that is mirrored across other channels eg crap quiz shows, soap operas etc.
What about the Olympic coverage, Royal Weddings, State Funerals, World Cups, The Grand National, the Six Nations or just the nightly news...are you seriously suggesting that there are people, even if they hate the reality rubbish and quiz shows, who never stumble across a BBC production like these and watch them? Even on an infrequent basis?
I don't think you believe that any more than I do tbh.
Also I think we should abolish road tax and take it out of regular taxation (while not raising tax either).
Council tax could also be rolled into regular taxation on the condition that it doesn't raise the amount of tax we pay.
Simple and I can't believe the incompetent BBC Trust haven't proposed this already.
Bournemout hAddick - cherry picking a bit as those are events that don't even happen every year and a commercial broadcaster would pick them up if he BBC wasn't guaranteed them.