John Wright Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 The divide seems to be 50/50 (this may not be true, I'm baseing this on the feedback on this forum, the BBC's own Have Your Say forum and a few others). So why not make the BBC channels/radio stations a subscription service and the let the consumer vote with their wallets. Because the reason the BBC is the best broadcasting corporation in the world is that it isn't commercial. Do you want to end up with CNN reporting? or worse Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Absolutely. I can't believe some of the stuff that is shown on Fox, and a lot of Americans must just eat it all up. It's the only one of the few good things to say about the BBC and certainly the most important - at least it isn't driven purely by commercial and corporate interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I'm sure I don't pay for the movie package. I pay to Sky the cost of the minimum package. No more, no less. I'm sure the cost you are factoring in would be minimal per person and thus unnoticable. Unlike the £140 odd that the BBC are stealing off me every year. You notice the Licence fee as you pay it directly. ITV 1 alone collects in excess of £1Billion a year alone in advertising. Sky collects about £300 million. If we allow for say £500,000 for all other TV channels that is about £30 each man, woman and child or £120 per family is paying to cover TV advertising costs their shopping. So you are paying for it you just do ot realise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I pay to Sky the cost of the minimum package. No more, no less. I'm sure the cost you are factoring in would be minimal per person and thus unnoticable. Unlike the £140 odd that the BBC are stealing off me every year. Your non BBC TV is effectively cross subsidised by the licence fee anyhow since much TV is produced by independent production houses who get some of their work from the BBC but who also make content for other channels. The licence fee supports the industry as a whole even outlets which are not directly funded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 God bless the BBC say I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 God bless the BBC say I. Absolutely. A cold winters night, heating up full, a nice bottle of Merlot and an episode of Spooks (back on screens Nov 4th) Can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 The divide seems to be 50/50 (this may not be true, I'm baseing this on the feedback on this forum, the BBC's own Have Your Say forum and a few others). So why not make the BBC channels/radio stations a subscription service and the let the consumer vote with their wallets. Because the reason the BBC is the best broadcasting corporation in the world is that it isn't commercial. Do you want to end up with CNN reporting? Thats subjective in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wideload Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Absolutely. I can't believe some of the stuff that is shown on Fox, and a lot of Americans must just eat it all up. It's the only one of the few good things to say about the BBC and certainly the most important - at least it isn't driven purely by commercial and corporate interests. I thought you would have enjoyed the Sons of Anarchy! (i do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wazir Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Thats subjective in my opinion. Yes, that's thing with forums, they are about opinions. Opinions are, by their very nature, subjective. If it's facts you want you might consider trying an encyclopaedia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Just had a TV Licence inspector on the doorstep. Did he have a suit on? I saw someone in a suit in Atholl Street today, and thought I'd take a picture of him, as it might be rare and worth a couple of quid in a few years. Seriously though, I noticed a man in a suit in our road today, knocking specifically on the doors of two houses where the owner has moved abroad, is getting some work done, and awaiting new tenants. Classic licence inspector territory I'd imagine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Thats subjective in my opinion. Yes, that's thing with forums, they are about opinions. Opinions are, by their very nature, subjective. If it's facts you want you might consider trying an encyclopaedia... And your point being (if you actually have one that is)? I feel the TV TAX is daylight robbery. 99.9% of households own a TV (and a computer from the ability to receive internet TV) so if you want to watch TV you need a licence. Simple and effective. Surprised they havent introduced a fridge tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
localyokel Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Surprised they havent introduced a fridge tax. Why? What content have they beamed to your fridge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 one quick question: Do I still need to pay it when using satellite tv receiver only? I'm using FREEsat so it shoulld be FREE as the name suggest of any kind of charge Yes you do. The law is that any equipment which is capable or receiving any TV programme as it is being broadcast requires a licence. It's quite clearly pointed out on their website. Not true. You have to actually receive programmes. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennybrew Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Whilst I'm no fan of these bully boy doorstep tactics, or the licence fee itself, I think that shooting an inspector (legitimate or not) is still somehow frowned upon and could get you into Very Serious Trouble, Wazir. Why ? you can still shoot a scotsman on sight can you not? yes you can .. on new years eve if he is a pure scott and you are a pure manx and it is his fist time on the island and you are on douglas head... do not ask me WHY or HOW i know this , its just a random thing lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Whilst I'm no fan of these bully boy doorstep tactics, or the licence fee itself, I think that shooting an inspector (legitimate or not) is still somehow frowned upon and could get you into Very Serious Trouble, Wazir. Why ? you can still shoot a scotsman on sight can you not? yes you can .. on new years eve if he is a pure scott and you are a pure manx and it is his fist time on the island and you are on douglas head... do not ask me WHY or HOW i know this , its just a random thing lol You could just chase him off with a rampant rabbit Jenny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.