The BBC in order to maintain its current range of TV services should be allowed a licence fee increase in April. Regardless if you support the licence fee model or not the BBC should not be used as a political puppet, if the economy is now in recovery the BBC should no longer be faced with a freeze in its funding.
I would recommend an increase this April of £2.50 in the licence fee from £145.50 to £148.00, with a further increase of £2.00 in 2015 to £150.00. This will help counteract the loss of 16% in real terms to the BBC finances.
In return for the increase all the current services should be maintained, with more money made available to develop and improve programming on BBC Two, and reversing the cuts made to local radio in England.
Talks should start immediately regarding the BBC's future, discussing the possibility of a two tier BBC. The would mean BBC One, BBC Two, BBC News, CBBC, CBeebies and Radio 3 to 6 and local radio continuing to be funded by the licence fee, while BBC Three, BBC Four and Radio 1 and Radio 2 becoming commercially funded.
Whether the licence fee should be scrapped or continued in its present. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue and the British public deserve a say on this matter.
Do you not care about the poorest people in society as any increase will hit the poorest people or is bbc more important poor people, Sorry but poor people are more important than bbc.
The BBC doesn't deserve a penny more of my money when they wasted a hundred million quid on a failed IT project and threw money at their London luvvie pals in over generous payoffs. Not to mention being responsible for producing the most dreary and negative programming known to humankind.
The BBC doesn't deserve a penny more of my money when they wasted a hundred million quid on a failed IT project and threw money at their London luvvie pals in over generous payoffs. Not to mention being responsible for producing the most dreary and negative programming known to humankind.
I thought this thread was about the BBC not Channel 5?
The BBC in order to maintain its current range of TV services should be allowed a licence fee increase in April. Regardless if you support the licence fee model or not the BBC should not be used as a political puppet, if the economy is now in recovery the BBC should no longer be faced with a freeze in its funding.
I would recommend an increase this April of £2.50 in the licence fee from £145.50 to £148.00, with a further increase of £2.00 in 2015 to £150.00. This will help counteract the loss of 16% in real terms to the BBC finances.
In return for the increase all the current services should be maintained, with more money made available to develop and improve programming on BBC Two, and reversing the cuts made to local radio in England.
Talks should start immediately regarding the BBC's future, discussing the possibility of a two tier BBC. The would mean BBC One, BBC Two, BBC News, CBBC, CBeebies and Radio 3 to 6 and local radio continuing to be funded by the licence fee, while BBC Three, BBC Four and Radio 1 and Radio 2 becoming commercially funded.
Whether the licence fee should be scrapped or continued in its present. The current situation cannot be allowed to continue and the British public deserve a say on this matter.
Why do you single out certain services that should be commercially funded? BBC Four could never survive commercially in a million years. Just looking at what has happened to More 4 over the years is proof of that.
The licence fee increase would guarantee the future of BBC Three and BBC Four.
Would it though? I am huge fan of the BBC but the corporation can be let down by some poor management decisions. Making BBC 3 online only will save very little especially since BBC1+1 will be broadcasted instead and some of the money saved will go towards BBC1 Drama.
I do agree the Government freeze on the LF for five years and adding extra costs in like S4C Wales and the World service and funding broadband is now crippling a service the majority of the country treasure.
The BBC like many others has made a few mistakes but has been putting its house in order and also cutting costs to now we loos a TV service.
I blame the government and as a life long Conservative supporter I will NOT vote for them next year, solely based on this.
The likes of David Camaron an Grant Shapps, haven't got a clue when it comes to media but seem to have a preference towards the tarnished Murdoch.
I think a LF increase is required to stop the rot and the vandalism by the government.
The real term are more like 20%, I would also oppose BBC Three, BBC Four and Radio 1 and Radio 2 becoming commercially funded.
What really need to to happen is that the BBC, not the government should take control of the LF (with OFCOM and BBC Trust looking over how they spend the money like a hawk) to prevent any more poltical interferance on the matter.
If people are prepared to pay £800 for Sky/Virgin/BT a year, then I am sure they can manage paying half (or even less) for the LF and not have to pay for Pay TV.
If not, then the government should extend the amount of people it already pays the licence fee for...
How much funding the BBC receives should not be in the hands of a political party, this responsible should be passed over to OFCOM or a newly created independent body.
Under the current system the BBC has become a political puppet, with the government pulling the purse strings. The corporation's independence is compromised, services are jeopardised, it is clear the way the BBC is funded needs to change.
The real term are more like 20%, I would also oppose BBC Three, BBC Four and Radio 1 and Radio 2 becoming commercially funded.
What really need to to happen is that the BBC, not the government should take control of the LF (with OFCOM and BBC Trust looking over how they spend the money like a hawk) to prevent any more poltical interferance on the matter.
If people are prepared to pay £800 for Sky/Virgin/BT a year, then I am sure they can manage paying half (or even less) for the LF and not have to pay for Pay TV.
If not, then the government should extend the amount of people it already pays the licence fee for...
Do you ever think before you trot out these ideas? Try putting the option of a licence fee of £400 before the UK public and see what response you get. Similarly presenting it as an either or suggesting that they would pay £400 for the LF and not have to pay for payTV. How does that work? At the moment people can choose to pay £145 and not have to pay for payTV - why would they pay another £250. What would they get for that extra money? And all it would actually mean would be that you were paying £400 for the LF then another £800 for Sky.
I pay for Sky because it offers me what I can't get from FTA tv. How do you envisage this would be different with your bloated LF forced on everyone whether they want to pay or not?
Do you ever think before you trot out these ideas? Try putting the option of a licence fee of £400 before the UK public and see what response you get. Similarly presenting it as an either or suggesting that they would pay £400 for the LF and not have to pay for payTV. How does that work? At the moment people can choose to pay £145 and not have to pay for payTV - why would they pay another £250. What would they get for that extra money? And all it would actually mean would be that you were paying £400 for the LF then another £800 for Sky.
I pay for Sky because it offers me what I can't get from FTA tv. How do you envisage this would be different with your bloated LF forced on everyone whether they want to pay or not?
If TVL goes up to much some may have to stop there sky or other pay tv subs and that would not be fair to them and hurt sky and the other pay tv broadcasters .
Indeed, I can actually see a scenario where some licence fee payers will be calling for the licence fee to be cut further now that a significantly worse service is being delivered by the BBC.
This point here demonstrates how the BBC needs to smartly play the PR game in terms of explaining the BBC Three proposal (which I don't think they've done well). Without being political, the BBC should be explaining and stressing that the proposal is due to extra services (eg; World Service) now being funded through the License Fee without any increases being made to accompy the new responsbilities. As such to make sure there's money to continue properly funding other things such as drama, this is why the BBC Three proposal is being made.
If the BBC starts explaining and stressing the background behind the proposal, the large majority of public opinion will be against the license fee continuing to be frozen. At the moment, many people who are only seeing the headlines of 'BBC Three Moving Online-Only' etc think the BBC are making this decision because they don't care about Three's audience
...Not to mention being responsible for producing the most dreary and negative programming known to humankind.
I'm sorry but your opinion (nor anyone else's) opinion about what type of programs the BBC shows doesn't mean you have the right to say they shouldn't get more money simply because they aren't catering to your needs
David Cameron should stop the freeze to improve broadcasting.
Tories changing things to improve something for the average person... Not going to happen.
If it doesn't involve their friends or big businesses being able to make loads more money, the Tories aren't interested.
And then people wonder why the BBC has to make HUGE savings and cut services.
Time and again the BBC are used a political puppet, a way to childishly score points or make a point.
They just blame the BBC and it's supposed wasting of money, something that has been pushed by the paper media and sadly gullible morons have fallen for it.
In an ideal world, the BBC wouldn't be in the position it is in, i hope with all might might that the BBC Trust rejects the closure of BBC Three and i also hope the Tories are out at the next election, maybe then we will get a BBC that gets the LF raise it needs and not have to see services closed.
The BBC Trust is BBC Three's last reprieve, but if it does get saved, BBC Three does need to be changed, to bring up its appeal and to get more people viewing.
Simple solution just make the BBC pay tv (it already is anyway), scramble the channel and let them charge what they want for it, those that want it pay for it & those that don't it's money saved. Everybody will be happy then because those that moan about the LF will not have anything to moan about, and those that stick up for the BBC and enjoy it, are free to continue watching.
The much more likely situation would be the BBC going commercial, funded through advertising.
A stand alone BBC subscription just would not work, those who suggest it and actually think it would happen, are just plain retarded. Almost as retarded as those that expect Sky to make their Sports channels available free.
A commercial BBC would not necessarily get rid of the Licence Fee anyway, the money would just be spent elsewhere, boosting private profits. We would still have to pay it, the useless ***** in Government love to throw mass amounts of money at private companies to do f*ck all. Just look at all of the money the various companies like Triage get from the DWP to supposedly 'help' get the unemployed into work.
Of course it is.....for those that contribute via taxes/National Insurance. One day though it may be needed so it is an essential, the BBC most certainly isn't
Much simpler to just say Public Services. Tories despise the idea of anything being done for the benefit of the public rather than for monetary gain.
Which we all know was just a way to cut funding to the BBC, without looking like the bad people by reducing the amount of money they get.
They just blame the BBC and it's supposed wasting of money, something that has been pushed by the paper media and sadly gullible morons have fallen for it.
The BBC Trust is BBC Three's last reprieve, but if it does get saved, BBC Three does need to be changed, to bring up its appeal and to get more people viewing.
Fully agree with your comments except for BBC Three needing more viewers.
It performs very well week in and out for the demographic it is aimed towards.
Not to mention it's the only real PSB voice for young adults, who are LF payers and they deserve to be catered for, in the same way BBC Four caters for its demographic and so on.
Whether the cost be £145.50 or more , a lot of people cannot justify this expenditure. If you were to ask me how much i would give based on an average years viewing of bbc channels then they'd get max £12-15...
And a lot of people like yourself don't realise how many external things the BBC has to pay, that you use even without watching any BBC TV channel.
The BBC is part of the 4/5 companies responsible for funding Freeview, and is responsible for 50% of the funding of Freesat with ITV.
Remove this money from them, which is public money, and do you think the commercia companies are going to want to make up this loss, or indeed continue to put as much in.
They are commercial companies wanting to make a profit, spending vast amounts of money for little return is not going to make profits.
They would cut the amount of money they put into Freeview meaning that the service would become poorer.
But then you're one of the people who wrongfully equate the TV Licence to only the BBC channels...
The BBC lost all credibility when they moved up north to Salford and let us foot the bill
You mean the move that Labour made them undertake, to make them less London Centric. It really is a pointless move, having BBC operations in the London made far more sense, especially if they are going to have guests appearing on the shows, the people are far more likely to be close to London rather than near Manchester (which is not in the North... >:()
Comments
Do you not care about the poorest people in society as any increase will hit the poorest people or is bbc more important poor people, Sorry but poor people are more important than bbc.
Hunt had no influence in the decision to freeze the licence fee, it was a decision made by Cameron & Osborne.
I do agree the Government freeze on the LF for five years and adding extra costs in like S4C Wales and the World service and funding broadband is now crippling a service the majority of the country treasure.
The BBC like many others has made a few mistakes but has been putting its house in order and also cutting costs to now we loos a TV service.
I blame the government and as a life long Conservative supporter I will NOT vote for them next year, solely based on this.
The likes of David Camaron an Grant Shapps, haven't got a clue when it comes to media but seem to have a preference towards the tarnished Murdoch.
I think a LF increase is required to stop the rot and the vandalism by the government.
2)
Shouldn't joke but it reminds me of this sketch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
What really need to to happen is that the BBC, not the government should take control of the LF (with OFCOM and BBC Trust looking over how they spend the money like a hawk) to prevent any more poltical interferance on the matter.
If people are prepared to pay £800 for Sky/Virgin/BT a year, then I am sure they can manage paying half (or even less) for the LF and not have to pay for Pay TV.
If not, then the government should extend the amount of people it already pays the licence fee for...
Under the current system the BBC has become a political puppet, with the government pulling the purse strings. The corporation's independence is compromised, services are jeopardised, it is clear the way the BBC is funded needs to change.
Do you ever think before you trot out these ideas? Try putting the option of a licence fee of £400 before the UK public and see what response you get. Similarly presenting it as an either or suggesting that they would pay £400 for the LF and not have to pay for payTV. How does that work? At the moment people can choose to pay £145 and not have to pay for payTV - why would they pay another £250. What would they get for that extra money? And all it would actually mean would be that you were paying £400 for the LF then another £800 for Sky.
I pay for Sky because it offers me what I can't get from FTA tv. How do you envisage this would be different with your bloated LF forced on everyone whether they want to pay or not?
If TVL goes up to much some may have to stop there sky or other pay tv subs and that would not be fair to them and hurt sky and the other pay tv broadcasters .
If the BBC starts explaining and stressing the background behind the proposal, the large majority of public opinion will be against the license fee continuing to be frozen. At the moment, many people who are only seeing the headlines of 'BBC Three Moving Online-Only' etc think the BBC are making this decision because they don't care about Three's audience
I'm sorry but your opinion (nor anyone else's) opinion about what type of programs the BBC shows doesn't mean you have the right to say they shouldn't get more money simply because they aren't catering to your needs
A source for Hunt having absolutely no influence, please.
Tories changing things to improve something for the average person... Not going to happen.
If it doesn't involve their friends or big businesses being able to make loads more money, the Tories aren't interested.
Which we all know was just a way to cut funding to the BBC, without looking like the bad people by reducing the amount of money they get.
They just blame the BBC and it's supposed wasting of money, something that has been pushed by the paper media and sadly gullible morons have fallen for it.
The BBC Trust is BBC Three's last reprieve, but if it does get saved, BBC Three does need to be changed, to bring up its appeal and to get more people viewing.
A stand alone BBC subscription just would not work, those who suggest it and actually think it would happen, are just plain retarded. Almost as retarded as those that expect Sky to make their Sports channels available free.
A commercial BBC would not necessarily get rid of the Licence Fee anyway, the money would just be spent elsewhere, boosting private profits. We would still have to pay it, the useless ***** in Government love to throw mass amounts of money at private companies to do f*ck all. Just look at all of the money the various companies like Triage get from the DWP to supposedly 'help' get the unemployed into work.
Of course it is.....for those that contribute via taxes/National Insurance. One day though it may be needed so it is an essential, the BBC most certainly isn't
Fully agree with your comments except for BBC Three needing more viewers.
It performs very well week in and out for the demographic it is aimed towards.
Not to mention it's the only real PSB voice for young adults, who are LF payers and they deserve to be catered for, in the same way BBC Four caters for its demographic and so on.
No they did not.
And, for the record, that move was forced upon the BBC by Labour!
The BBC is part of the 4/5 companies responsible for funding Freeview, and is responsible for 50% of the funding of Freesat with ITV.
Remove this money from them, which is public money, and do you think the commercia companies are going to want to make up this loss, or indeed continue to put as much in.
They are commercial companies wanting to make a profit, spending vast amounts of money for little return is not going to make profits.
They would cut the amount of money they put into Freeview meaning that the service would become poorer.
But then you're one of the people who wrongfully equate the TV Licence to only the BBC channels...