Petition To Repeal The Bbc License Fee

[Fiale]

Feel free to sign the petition to get rid of the license fee.

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34655

[Mr Mosquito]

Feel free to sign the petition to get rid of the license fee.

https://submissions....petitions/34655

I've signed it. Let's hope the petition gets 100,000 votes so it can be debated in Parliament.

[marshy]

Signed.

[tpitman]

And end up with adverts on the Beeb as well....NEVER!

[bywaterred]

And end up with adverts on the Beeb as well....NEVER!

+1 im happy with the fee I pay for the services I use

[Mr Mosquito]

Feel free to sign the petition to get rid of the license fee.

https://submissions....petitions/34655

The bosses of the BBC national and international propaganda newsagency network are mainly Guardian reading metropolitan trendies and people who champion the enduring triumph of theatrical rituals over working for a living. That's why I voted for the petition to review the BBC licence fee. I'm happy with BBC science programmes and natural history programmes but very far from happy with the BBC being used as a European Union biased propaganda newsagency.

[CiderHider]

not signed, even with its failings the BBC is an institution for good

[Tins]

The news is only on at certain times and there is many other channels you can watch if you believe it is bias.

The bbc has some of the best programmes, certainly science and nature and also comedy, which is broadcasted without adverts, surely a good thing?

[nebristolred]

No point in this whatsoever. What benefit would you get from losing the license fee? For the fee you pay, the service you get is fantastic. Live coverage of most sports in existence, many channels, many radio stations, online services for kids such as Bitesize which are worth half of the fee alone. On top of this, if the BBC were to go private, we would have to put up with adverts, as well as the fact that the company would be broadcasting purely to make money, and will adapt the programming accordingly. As it stands, the programming is adapted to provide a service to as many people as possible. While the BBC has many faults, getting rid of the license fee is nonsensical.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

I'd pay the fee just for the radio alone. Fantastic value for money

[Rob k]

I'd quite happily lose all my bbc channels and just have my sky channels which I have a choice to pay for, nothing on the bbc is done as good as sky do things.

[real_bristol]

much rather this fee go to the beeb than to the Murdoch monopoly. not signed

[Fiale]

It's great that so many of you are happy with the BBC - I have no problem with you continuing to pay the BBC to watch it's content, I just don't see why you should force me to pay for it when I have no interest in their content.

They get over £3,000,000,000.00 a year from the public - time to reign it in and let those that want to subscribe do so. We are the only country in the world where you have to buy a piece of paper upon threat of imprisonment for the "privilidge" to watch TV, not even China or North Korea force that on people.

[And Its Smith]

I'd pay triple the fee if it guaranteed the quality documentaries, comedies, music shows, radio etc that the BBC produces.

[Eddie Hitler]

No point in this whatsoever. What benefit would you get from losing the license fee? For the fee you pay, the service you get is fantastic. Live coverage of most sports in existence, many channels, many radio stations, online services for kids such as Bitesize which are worth half of the fee alone. On top of this, if the BBC were to go private, we would have to put up with adverts, as well as the fact that the company would be broadcasting purely to make money, and will adapt the programming accordingly. As it stands, the programming is adapted to provide a service to as many people as possible. While the BBC has many faults, getting rid of the license fee is nonsensical.

All of which would be provided by commercial stations. ITV would have shown the whole European Championships anyway. But the BBC had to leap in and spend money buying the rights to show games and pouring ever more money away on presenters and staff. Why? Do they just enjoy spending money?

[Red-Robbo]

It's great that so many of you are happy with the BBC - I have no problem with you continuing to pay the BBC to watch it's content, I just don't see why you should force me to pay for it when I have no interest in their content.

They get over £3,000,000,000.00 a year from the public - time to reign it in and let those that want to subscribe do so. We are the only country in the world where you have to buy a piece of paper upon threat of imprisonment for the "privilidge" to watch TV, not even China or North Korea force that on people.

Actually, that isn't true. You have to buy licences to watch TV in many countries and in places like China and North Korea the cash comes from general taxation. So you pay there even if you have no TV and - of course - there is no editorial independence from the government line.

This wiki page shows that if you move overseas, you often have to pay more for the licence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

[Mr Mosquito]

Actually, that isn't true. You have to buy licences to watch TV in many countries and in places like China and North Korea the cash comes from general taxation. So you pay there even if you have no TV and - of course - there is no editorial independence from the government line.

This wiki page shows that if you move overseas, you often have to pay more for the licence. http://en.wikipedia....evision_licence

Ahhh, but there now seems to be no editorial independence from the hopelessly corrupt and criminal led European Union project with regard to the pro European Union BBC propaganda broadcasts.

[Tins]

It's great that so many of you are happy with the BBC - I have no problem with you continuing to pay the BBC to watch it's content, I just don't see why you should force me to pay for it when I have no interest in their content.

They get over £3,000,000,000.00 a year from the public - time to reign it in and let those that want to subscribe do so. We are the only country in the world where you have to buy a piece of paper upon threat of imprisonment for the "privilidge" to watch TV, not even China or North Korea force that on people.

Because there is no way to regulate it otherwise.

Freeview has bbc 1,2,3,4 and bbc news, it is not possible to cut that off just for a small minority of people.

Plus need a way to stop you listening to radio 1,2,3,4,5,6 whatever, and you won't be allowed to go on BBC.com

[Eddie Hitler]

Because there is no way to regulate it otherwise.

Freeview has bbc 1,2,3,4 and bbc news, it is not possible to cut that off just for a small minority of people.

Plus need a way to stop you listening to radio 1,2,3,4,5,6 whatever, and you won't be allowed to go on BBC.com

Of course it was, the BBC lobbied against freeview boxes being set up so as to limit access as this would have put the BBC into the category of a subscription service that few would have paid for. Inevitably Pravda won.

[Red-Robbo]

Of course it was, the BBC lobbied against freeview boxes being set up so as to limit access as this would have put the BBC into the category of a subscription service that few would have paid for. Inevitably Pravda won.

The BBC part owns Freeview and jointly developed the technology it uses. As it's a free-to-view service, and has always been - by virtue of its charter to broadcast - I can't see how it could ever have been used as a subscription service.

Sky lobbied against DTT (Freeview) on the basis that it was blocked from joining the original Ondigital consortium and saw the thing as a commercial threat to satellite broadcasting and advertising revenue.

[Eddie Hitler]

Well Greg Dyke said otherwise in 2004. They were deliberately designed so as to disallow subscription so that there wasn't then the option of having an opt-in to BBC services as you get with the boxes that allow you to opt-in for Top-Up TV.

I wonder how many people would pay £150 for the BBC channels annually when you get all the others anyway. I watch in order of frequency: Dave, ITV4, BBC4, Yesterday and various bits of others. I would happily do without BBC4 for the £150 saving.

Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped.

The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented.

This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees.

In his book, Inside Story, Mr Dyke admits for the first time that part of the rationale behind the launch of the digital terrestrial service was to flood the market with "dumb" boxes incapable of turning the BBC's channels into "pay as you go" services at a later date.

Because most Freeview boxes do not contain the card slots or encryption technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital was "important to the BBC defensively".

"Freeview makes it very hard for any government to try and make the BBC a pay-television service. The more Freeview boxes out there, the harder it will be to switch the BBC to a subscription service since most of the boxes can't be adapted for pay-TV," wrote Mr Dyke, who was forced out of his job in January following the Hutton report.

"I suspect Freeview will ensure the future of the licence fee for another decade at least, and probably longer," he added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv

[Barrs Court Red]

Fact is its getting increasingly hard to justify a licence fee given the rise of digital media.

I give it 10 years before tops

[Eddie Hitler]

Fact is its getting increasingly hard to justify a licence fee given the rise of digital media.

I give it 10 years before tops

Widening the licence fee for iPlayer has already been discussed, so if you have equipment capable of receiving iPlayer (such as laptop and a broadband connection) then you would pay the licence.

[Red-Robbo]

Well Greg Dyke said otherwise in 2004. They were deliberately designed so as to disallow subscription so that there wasn't then the option of having an opt-in to BBC services as you get with the boxes that allow you to opt-in for Top-Up TV.

I wonder how many people would pay £150 for the BBC channels annually when you get all the others anyway. I watch in order of frequency: Dave, ITV4, BBC4, Yesterday and various bits of others. I would happily do without BBC4 for the £150 saving.

http://www.guardian....sting.digitaltv

But there would never be an option of BBC services being on Top Up TV. That would break the charter by which it operates. As for the freeview service, as I mentioned, it was originally designed by Ondigital - which was founded by Carlton TV, then taken over by ITV I believe.

The fact is, even if you blocked your TV from showing BBC shows - using technology - you'd still have to find a way to bar your radios from receiving BBC stations and your computer from viewing its online content - and presumably, you'd have to make a tax contribution to the cost of running the transmitter system the BBC maintains and for World Service broadcasts.

Personally, I'm happy to pay £3 a week just for BBC4 and Radio 6 (and the website!)

Whenever I'm in the States I try to watch the telly and usually give up in disgust before I reach the hour mark, beaten down by the relentless frequency of their advertising. That's the system you get when you don't have a strong ad-free PSB.

[Eddie Hitler]

I'm happy for a vastly reduced licence for the radio, transmitters and world service. It is the level of the licence fee and the way that is squandered that annoys me given that there is no choice but to pay it if you have a TV, as most of us do.

Examples of squandering:

1. Executive salaries
   
2. Paying to show blockbuster films that would be shown by commercial stations
   
3. Paying rights for and sending vast numbers of staff on events that would be shown by commercial stations (Euro 2012, Olympics, Wimbledon, Grand National)
   
4. Chasing viewer numbers with populist programmes: Eastenders being the prime example.
   

US TV is spoiled by the advertising but it is the restrictions put upon the commercial broadcaster with respect to the frequency and duration of these adverts that prevent us going the same way, not the existence of the BBC.

If all Freeview boxes had come with subscriber technology then you could indeed be paying £3 a week for BBC1, 2, 3 and 4 and be perfectly happy about it, and I could equally well not be doing this. We would then both be happy.

[Eddie Hitler]

I'll just add a couple of useful links for anybody more militant than me that wishes not to pay the licence fee at all:

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/

[Red-Robbo]

I'm happy for a vastly reduced licence for the radio, transmitters and world service. It is the level of the licence fee and the way that is squandered that annoys me given that there is no choice but to pay it if you have a TV, as most of us do.

Examples of squandering:

1. Executive salaries
   
2. Paying to show blockbuster films that would be shown by commercial stations
   
3. Paying rights for and sending vast numbers of staff on events that would be shown by commercial stations (Euro 2012, Olympics, Wimbledon, Grand National)
   
4. Chasing viewer numbers with populist programmes: Eastenders being the prime example.
   

US TV is spoiled by the advertising but it is the restrictions put upon the commercial broadcaster with respect to the frequency and duration of these adverts that prevent us going the same way, not the existence of the BBC.

If all Freeview boxes had come with subscriber technology then you could indeed be paying £3 a week for BBC1, 2, 3 and 4 and be perfectly happy about it, and I could equally well not be doing this. We would then both be happy.

I certainly can't argue against your points 1-4 there, Eddie. And I used to work for them!

The BBC management thought process is unduly skewed towards TV (who you'll be unsurprised to hear, took virtually no cuts during the latest sackathon) and there is a "bugger the cost" approach from those running the medium. It's all a bit lovey on TV, with its over-emphasis on "the talent" (ie those who stand in front of the camera, rather than those who make this possible) and a wilful blindness to alternative ways of doing things.

During my time as a journalist at the corporation, I always preferred to watch C4 News - produced at a fraction of the cost - to the Beeb's TV offerings.

[Mr Mosquito]

I certainly can't argue against your points 1-4 there, Eddie. And I used to work for them!

The BBC management thought process is unduly skewed towards TV (who you'll be unsurprised to hear, took virtually no cuts during the latest sackathon) and there is a "bugger the cost" approach from those running the medium. It's all a bit lovey on TV, with its over-emphasis on "the talent" (ie those who stand in front of the camera, rather than those who make this possible) and a wilful blindness to alternative ways of doing things.

During my time as a journalist at the corporation, I always preferred to watch C4 News - produced at a fraction of the cost - to the Beeb's TV offerings.

Red-Robbo, I'm very much in agreement with Herr E. E. Hitler with this discussion. It was very honest of you - as a former BBC employee - to admit to prefering to watch the C4 News - produced at a fraction of the cost - to the BBC's openly European Union and Labour Party inspired Cultural Marxist news offerings. Over the years, the BBC has built up the image of Labour leaders Tony Blair and Gordon Brown into demi god like status. In reality, these two Labour Party leaders are both anti English and EU loving traitor politicians that have sold our country down the river of EU subjugation.

[Barrs Court Red]

Double post

[Barrs Court Red]

Widening the licence fee for iPlayer has already been discussed, so if you have equipment capable of receiving iPlayer (such as laptop and a broadband connection) then you would pay the licence.

An utter non starter for so many reasons. The main one being it would be seen as an Internet tax on business.