A.B.Yaffle Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Its nice to watch wonga dummy free TV, I cant stand the adverts sky is a ripp off a constant deluge of adverts and repeats,BBC is a sort of sanctuary were you can watch TV that is comfortable and relaxing, there news covering is the best in the world BBc3 and 4 are very good channels with some really interesting programs from time to time, the licence fee is a bit of a pain sometimes but is a small price to pay for a advert free service. Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to watch the BBC. It could exist by charging those people who think it is so good, and the law could allow people to watch free channels if they want to without forcing them to pay for the BBC whether or not they want to watch it. All these people who are saying they want us all to subsidise their viewing pleasures are rather selfish, in my opinion. The technology exists to easily encrypt the BBC and allow people a choice; it wouldn't need to rely on advertising if people are really so keen on the BBC that they would be willing to pay to watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Nobody is saying you shouldn't be able to watch the BBC. It could exist by charging those people who think it is so good, and the law could allow people to watch free channels if they want to without forcing them to pay for the BBC whether or not they want to watch it. All these people who are saying they want us all to subsidise their viewing pleasures are rather selfish, in my opinion. The technology exists to easily encrypt the BBC and allow people a choice; it wouldn't need to rely on advertising if people are really so keen on the BBC that they would be willing to pay to watch it. I don't watch commercial TV, but every time I go shopping I'm subsidising somebody else who is viewing it. So by your argument every product in the supermarket should have a lower price for those of us who don't watch commercial tele. Net advertising revenue at ITV alone is running at £1.5billion / year. That is money that all of us have indirectly paid to ITV every time we shop whether we watch it or not. How is that any fairer ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.B.Yaffle Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 I don't watch commercial TV, but every time I go shopping I'm subsidising somebody else who is viewing it. So by your argument every product in the supermarket should have a lower price for those of us who don't watch commercial tele. Net advertising revenue at ITV alone is running at £1.5billion / year. That is money that all of us have indirectly paid to ITV every time we shop whether we watch it or not. How is that any fairer ? You can choose where to shop, can't you? Find shops that advertise less. According to the poll at the top of this thread, most people want to pay to watch the BBC. If they encrypt it and double the price of the license for people who choose to watch it, they would be able to spend even more on "Don't tell the bride", "masterchef" etc. There wouldn't need to be any adverts, and those of us who choose to watch Sky Sports or whatever wouldn't be forced to unfairly pay for your choice of TV. Then everyone would be happy, surely? I really don't see why I shouldn't have the choice of watching non-BBC TV without paying for your favourite programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.B.Yaffle Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 And anyone who argues that we need a "national" TV service should argue for it to be paid for from public taxation rather taking extra money off people who choose to pay to watch Sky Sports or ITV. The BBC license fee is one of the most unjust laws in a civilised country, and I hope someone challenges it in EU law before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ousetunes Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Not read the entire thread but I would pay the licence fee for BBC radio alone. Life would be a duller place without Radio 3, 4, 2 and 5 Live. Re: tv. I'd put BBC4's excellent content on BBC1 at prime time and shift all the drivel to BBC3 as late as possible. Finally, I hate programmes constantly bring interrupted by irritating adverts. Give me the Beeb any day. In this life a rarity: value for money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 And anyone who argues that we need a "national" TV service What makes you think it is simply a "TV service"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 According to the poll at the top of this thread, most people want to pay to watch the BBC. Which poll is that? The one at the top of this thread has the question: "should the bbc/tv licence be scrapped" with 66% of answers currently showing: "no i would like to keep it as it is" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkleyIan Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 You can choose where to shop, can't you? Find shops that advertise less. According to the poll at the top of this thread, most people want to pay to watch the BBC. If they encrypt it and double the price of the license for people who choose to watch it, they would be able to spend even more on "Don't tell the bride", "masterchef" etc. There wouldn't need to be any adverts, and those of us who choose to watch Sky Sports or whatever wouldn't be forced to unfairly pay for your choice of TV. Then everyone would be happy, surely? I really don't see why I shouldn't have the choice of watching non-BBC TV without paying for your favourite programs. Sky receive about £250 million in advertising revenue, but since I don't have it how can I know what products I have to avoid buying to stop subsidising your choice of viewing? Is there a list of every product that is advertised on Sky so that I can remove them from my shopping basket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 For the sake of 39p a day per household, I will stick with the licence fee - its far cheaper than a sky subscription. Typical pro-BBC propaganda that attempts to make the BBC tv licence fee appear cheaper than it actually is. £145.50 sounds expensive for the politically correct rubbish that the BBC puts out, so better to use the '39p per day' marketing angle, as devised by the public relations companies employed by the BEEB out of the proceeds of the licence fee. The BBC doesn't permit its customers to pay daily for the privilege of watching 'Cash in The Attic', so the 39p per day angle is simply a sales device to fool the unwary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INTERVIEWER Posted March 15, 2012 Share Posted March 15, 2012 Net advertising revenue at ITV alone is running at £1.5billion / year. That is money that all of us have indirectly paid to ITV every time we shop whether we watch it or not. How is that any fairer ? Its much fairer. For a start, Persil (and every other ITV advertiser) don't send round heavies to the private homes of non-customers, demanding entry under pain of a large fine, court appearance and criminal record... But that is exactly what the BBC does. The word 'fair' simply doesn't exist in the BBC vocabulary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.