'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion
Comments
-
You seem to be obsessed with paying Sky for something that you do not need to?
Do you work for Sky by any chance?
HAHA, touche! No, i'm hardly obsessed with paying sky, infact i believe they have also dropped the ball somewhat since it went to packages and not just the ability to choose individual channels for an individual fee. However my point is that i Choose to have sky, and i choose to pay for it, i don't get charged for it just because i have the ability to receive it. Why then can we not buy equipment that doesn't receive the bbc? why can't it be a subscription channel like many others? Quite simply because with the amount of people that would CHOOSE not to subsrcibe, they wouldn't last long. Not a bad thing in my eyes.0 -
. .0
-
Do you expect to get all your equipment for free for everything?
Not sure what point you are trying to make.
Earlier you were stating, in more than one post, that you had to pay Sky - I pointed out that you did not.
And if you install the dish and cable yourself you will have saved some money on the installation cost too.;)
Of course not, the point i'm making is that there is no alternative to paying the license fee. the whole sky thing was in response to some saying they have had to get sky as they don't live in an area that is able to receive terrestrial tv. Simply highlighting the choices available, and all result in paying the license fee. Sky was simply to illustrate an option, ie you only pay for it if you want it. you don't pay for sky just because you are able to get it.0 -
HAHA, touche! No, i'm hardly obsessed with paying sky, infact i believe they have also dropped the ball somewhat since it went to packages and not just the ability to choose individual channels for an individual fee. However my point is that i Choose to have sky, and i choose to pay for it, i don't get charged for it just because i have the ability to receive it. Why then can we not buy equipment that doesn't receive the bbc? why can't it be a subscription channel like many others? Quite simply because with the amount of people that would CHOOSE not to subsrcibe, they wouldn't last long. Not a bad thing in my eyes.
I see - thanks
I do disagree with you though as the BBC does cover areas untouched by others and might not be able to do so in future, depending on the funding model.
As I said earlier we all pay for things we don't use.
The BBC has much more than it's fair share of rubbish but it does do some great things.
No-one for example provides the amount of children's programmes that the BBC does.
I do not watch them but I do believe we should have them.0 -
. .0
-
Of course not, the point i'm making is that there is no alternative to paying the license fee. the whole sky thing was in response to some saying they have had to get sky as they don't live in an area that is able to receive terrestrial tv. Simply highlighting the choices available, and all result in paying the license fee. Sky was simply to illustrate an option, ie you only pay for it if you want it. you don't pay for sky just because you are able to get it.
The alternative is not to watch live TV - just use catch-up services.
No need to pay a licence fee to anyone at all0 -
. .0
-
. .0
-
OMG, you don't listen.
If you read what I said it was:
"The whole country is available to receive all the BBC channels via satellite free-to-air"
Note how I said "free to air". Just like the equipment I currently use. What's that got to do with "Sky"? I have never paid a penny to Sky in my lifetime. Not sure what the rest of your statement means.
What an idiot.
-rapido
Firstly, knock the insults on the head!
Secondly, wether it's sky or another method you use to receive satellite tv, you have had to purchase that equipment. i think the poster means, why don't the bbc do anything to combat the fact that in some areas of the country, there channels cannot be received without the use of satellite equipment, as some don't even have very good digital reception. So my point is this, he is currently paying for something he cannot receive. in order to receive the bbc channels he would need to buy the same equipment you have. therefore, to justify the fact that he has to pay the license fee (regardless of his inability to receive the channels!) he has to pay out more money, rather than the bbc being aware (like channel 5 were) where there channels can and cannot be received and not charging residents in those areas.
Now even i'm confused, i don't know what was so hard to understand in the first post. And you call me an idiot!!:eek:0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards