Why TV License?

[Jacques]

Also if you think you are not paying for non BBC channels - think on.

These channels are funded by adverts. Adverts are paid for by products. You buy the product. You pay for the programming.

Advertising revenue is finite, there is only so much to go around. More channels and less to spend on each channel and therefore less money to spend on programing. This is why you now have the shite ITV Play channel - itv can't fund it's programming without more money becuase the advertising revenue is spread too weak accross too many channels.

If anything the BBC should provide better quality as it is second only to RTL1 for revenue put back into programming with 40%.

Just because it's free to air doesn't mean it is.

[Peter]

But of course you can choose not to have sky and not pay for it. One has to pay for the BBC whether you want it or not.

And they don't send you to prison for not buying enough veet leg wax to support commercial TV.

If the BBC is so confident its providing value for money, they should be able to go subscription based without fear.

[Jacques]

OK - it costs you more to watch FTA than it does the BBC. One lot on money you can see go out of your bank account one you can't because it's hidden in a products cost. Take away the threat of prison and what is your gripe?

Do you want the BBC to be FTA and have commercial breaks? Is there advertising revenue available to support this? If not will the cost of Veet go up to compensate and cost you more 'invisible' money?

Would a subscription BBC be the answer? What if each channel was subscription based?

I suspect that it's just down to the prison thing really.

[Skunk]

Got rid of the telly ages ago, best move I have ever made. Told the Licensing people, they sent a bloke round to check about 2 months later he didn't ask about the PC and whether it had TV capabilities, haven't heard from them since !thumbsup!

[Peter]

I'd like a choice to opt out of BBC programming, as the current system prevents me from legally doing so without opting out of the whole television thing.

I choose to pay for sky because I find it value for money for my personal needs, maybe I'd subscribe to BBC services if they priced it right. Freedom of choice is all I ask for. Right now, people are forced, and punished for not paying a compulsory fee to finance a minority sevice they may not want.

[Bob Singleton]

Peter wrote:

Right now, people are forced, and punished for not paying a compulsory fee
to finance a minority sevice they may not want.



==========================


Hardly a "minority" service when something close to 95% of the population tune in to a BBC programme (either on TV or radio) every day.

[Peter]

About 34% audience share accross all channels according to their own figures (2005)

[Dorrin]

If we didn't all meekly pay up how would the Beeb afford ?18M to pay Wossy, God know's how much to pay Norton, pay the jollies to cart 100's of their employee's round the world to cover new's stories that a team of 3 could manage quite easily. Broadcast radio programmes from round the world when there is no need for them to move from Broadcasting House eg Radio 1 shows direct from Ibiza, does the listener gain anything because some overpaid DJ and a massive sound crew are broadcasting live from the beach at San Antonio? probably not, the only people who gain are aforementioned overpaid DJ and crew.
They still turn out some quality programmes but they are now the exception and not the rule.

[Bob Singleton]

Bob Singleton wrote:

> DanG wrote:
>
> > Bob Singleton wrote:
> >
> > >Sky don't actually produce any programmes, unlike the BBC.
> >
> >
> >
> > That's flat out untrue Bob. Dream Team, Mile High, Hex, Big
> > Ron Manager, Conspiracies, Football Icon, Braniac:Science
> > Abuse, plus many, many more.
> > Some of these programmes are utter shit, but then so are most
> > of the ones on the BBC, ITV, C4, and C5 too.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think Bravo, for example, pisses on the 'Big
> > Five' domestic channels. But that's just me!
> >
> >
>
>
> Braniac is produced by Granada, not Sky.
> Mile High was produced by Hewland International, not Sky.
> Hex was produced by Sony Pictures, not Sky
>
> Can Dream Team, Big Ron Manager etc., actually be considered as
> "produced" when compared to Life on Earth, Bleak House etc.
> After all, it's just a couple of guys with a camera following
> others around and then being voiced-over. Hardly much of a
> "production".
>
> I subscribe to Sky (well, via Ntl) but the ?131.50 I pay the
> BBC is far better value for money than the ?500+ I pay for Sky,
> UKTV, Living, Bravo etc.
>
>


To add to the list of programmes some think Sky produce but don't... Football Icon is produced by North One.

I can't be bothered to watch Big Ron Manager, Dream Team and others to watch the credits to see who produced them, but it wasn't Sky. Apart from their own rather shoddy and ultra-right wing news, and sports coverage, Sky buy in all their programmes and produce nothing in house.

The cheapest Sky subscription (taking into account special offers) is ?157.50/year. For that you get a very basic package which, depending which 2 "mixes" you choose, will give you Sky One, Hallmark, UKTV Gold, UKTV Style and other repeat shows plus BBC1-BBC4, ITV1-ITV4, Chanel 4, E4, More 4, Five, etc.

Chanels such as Sky One, UKTV, Hallmark, Bravo etc., are jam-packed full of ads... so as well as taking your money via subscription, they also sell your viewing time to advertisers.

[DanG]

Good point Bob, but the BBC doesn't produce all of its own stuff either...Talkback and others do. Plus the BBC sells on the rights to its productions, but we don't see a decrease in the Licence Fee.

As a lot of people on here are saying, they don't mind having to pay for the Beeb, they don't like being FORCED to pay for the Beeb.