TV License UP AGAIN!

Paul_Herring

IvanOpinion wrote:

If the BBC did away with the license would it then rely on advertising or encrypt all its stations forcing people to pay?Ivan

Or alternative number 3, keep acquiring the money off the government, which will will be obtained from us using a(nother) stealth tax. Maybe the government could raise a tax on pay-per-view subscriptions or regular cable subscriptions....?:rolleyes:

black-saturn

I Pay it by Direct Debit on a monthly basis and if you do it that way you hardly even notice it.

It's a bit much though when you consider that in this area of my town you can't get a signal on terrestrial television so in order to be able to watch TV you HAVE to have sky or freeview. Yet they still charge us for the TV licence.

jockettuk

ive been paying mine by monthly dd and i just got my licence in and ive paid up untill end of july this yr.. great i said im moving mid july so i will ring them up and they cancel it.. i also cancel dd at my bank but technically i will owe something from april till july when the price goes up.. be interesting if they contact me lol..

russellandkatrina

tomstickland wrote:

Actually, £130 per year to avoid adverts, that's almost worth it.

How on earth can you say that the BBC is free from adverts? Between each programme there's a good few minutes of plugs for their services - Freeview (which I can't even get in my part of the world), digital radio, even the TV licence itself... before even mentioning the same trails for the same rubbish programmes! Personally, I'd like to see what the BBC would be like with even MORE adverts!
Furthermore, why should people be forced to pay for programmes that are exclusively shown on the digital services provided by the BBC when a third of the country won't be able to get them for at least another 7 years?

Basil_Fawlty

Exactly - there are as many trailers as there would be adverts (if they had adverts).

surfcat

Perhaps a better topic would be "why should we pay a subscription to sky for hundreds of channels we never watch, and have to watch adverts?"

I've really never understood the argument that the BBC is not good value for money. It's far better than anything else on offer.

surfcat

spaceage wrote:

Exactly - there are as many trailers as there would be adverts (if they had adverts).

Which Murdoch-owned tabloid did you read that in? If you watch an hour long programme on the beeb you get maybe 57mins plus scheduling informations to fill in.... and name any other TV station that does not advertise its own programmes.

If you watch an hour long programme on ITV (eg, the Bill) you'll get 4 lots of adverts in the hour, totalling about 3 mins each.

trickytrolleys

It annoys me that they wont broadcas adverts but they dont mind popping them on other channels! And what really gets my goat is how they make us pay for the cr*p they show then stick it on dvd / video and expect us to pay again!! All the mags they sell bring in plenty of cash - and they broadcast to the rest of the world for free!

madfrenchgirl

OH and I hae decided that once we get our house, we will take the aerial down and invite their inspectors to confirm it and then do away with this stupid license... any TV channel's quality has gone downhill, even the news sicken me... Why shouldI pay for watching adverts and stupid programme sin the likes of tv reality? I really thought the BBC had some value until i watched "(dont) pay off your mortgage in 2 years"... got me very gutted with the bib. We will use the money to get a DVD rental subscription! At least we wont be paying to watch adverts and crap programmes!

Basil_Fawlty

surfcat wrote:

Perhaps a better topic would be "why should we pay a subscription to sky for hundreds of channels we never watch, and have to watch adverts?"

I've really never understood the argument that the BBC is not good value for money. It's far better than anything else on offer.

You aren't forced to subscribe to Sky.

However, just having a TV in the house means you must have a license.