'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

By very definition, you have to buy equipment to watch tv.

You don't get the equipment for free just because you pay a licence, either here or anywhere abroad that I know of.

-rapido

Obviously a given, no one is suggesting you do or should, and it's still a choice, and so should the bbc be.

rapido

. .

vokesey

lucylucky wrote: »

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.

there are actually many channels (ahem! on sky) that are aimed just at kids (i don't watch them either, honest!), again i don't love sky i just feel there is an alternative to everything the bbc offers. and nor am i against the bbc, i just don't believe it warrants £140 + of my money a year to watch it

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

If they are paying for Sky to get the terrestrial channels, but not watching Sky channels, then they are stupidly wasting money.

They can cancel the Sky subscription and still get the free-to-air channels with their "Sky" equipment.

The BBC channels are available unencrypted, along with ITV, C4, C5 channels. Either with Freesat equipment or any other non-proprietary DVB-S satellite equipment.

This should be seen as very useful as now they can cover almost 100% of the UK, whereas before digital satellite broadcasting of the terrestrial channels, about 1% of the UK population had no possibility to get BBC, ITV, C4 reception at all (doesn't sound a lot, but that is about half a million viewers).

-rapido

Sky equipment was just a generalisation, honestly i think you are reading way too much into this. yes there are options yes there are alternatives, but that is not the debate here. i think we've waded quite away off the point, cut a long story short, i disagree with the license fee completely, i think it's unfair unfounded and a waste of money.

rapido

. .

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

See my last posting. They are all available on satellite for free. I don't know why you were talking about "Sky", and why you suddenly accused me of being paid for by the BBC! That's what I found idiotic.

Okay, now you have 100% coverage, 1% is via satellite admittedly, and you will need satellite equipment to pick it up. In the analogue days there was 99% population coverage, and the other 1% had no chance to get any tv reception.

We already have loads of relay transmitters covering many isolated locations from the main transmitters (mainly villages in valleys). I can't see them spending tens of thousands of pounds for a relay transmitter to cover a small hamlet of half a dozen houses deep in the Scottish Highlands or wherever (or do you want the government to spend money on that?!). Multiply that amount by the number of small hamlets or individual farms or whatever! That is one of the reasons for the satellite relay.

As far as I'm aware, transmitters are an Ofcom/Arqiva matter, not BBC, so the licence is irrelevent. And transmitters must carry all so called "public service broadcasters" which even includes ITV, C4 and C5 (they have public service obligations), not just BBC channels.

Go to another country, and see if they have 99% population coverage terrestrially with hundreds (thousands?) of relay transmitters covering small villages like the UK. And see if they have 100% coverage by satellite.

I'd be interested to know what country that is.

-rapido

Again just a little too deep,other countries are not the point, and it matters not a jot who is responsible for ensuring the signals reach all corners of our isle. The point is would you be happy being charged for something you had to go to lengths to gain access to? or not able to obtain? would you be happy to pay for something everyone else around
you could use but you could not?? And as previously stated sky was an example, that's all, an i hardly accused you of working for the bbc, it was a little attempt at humour, sorry for that!

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

Sounds like you're another one that is blaming your substandard installation on the fact that you can't get BBC channels.

Just because you pay a licence, doesn't mean they'll send men round to fix your aerial!

People don't pay vehicle excise duty and expect the DVLA to fix their engine!

-rapido

No but the roads would be nice! lets not start that on though eh?!

Cleany

baldmosher wrote: »

Cleany I disgaree with your opinion, but that's your opinion.

However on the above point:

Sky BB is NOT the best value (although it's not bad). Even without my mobile discount, the O2 unlimited packages are superior on speed and value. If you're not downloading very much, then OK, I take your point. But £10 a month plus £7.50 line rental for 20Mb unlimited internet and free evening/weekend calls is a whole level above what Sky can offer. And I don't have to buy a load of crap channels from O2.

That's good value. Do you have to be an O2 customer?

I am aware, by the way, that O2 have one of the worse (if not the) traffic filtering systems on their broadband.

baldmosher wrote: »

You don't think £12 a month for F1 and 5live is worth it?

no

Cleany

There's a LOT of snobbery on here.

Some people don't mind adverts.
Some people don't think the BBC is a "national treasure"
Some people don't think the BBC provides quality programming
Some people don't listen to Radio 4 all day
Some people don't think that programmes on other channels are, by definition, rubbish
Some people don't think they're involved in a propaganda war between Rupert Murdoch and the BBC
Some people have to think carefully about spending "only 40p a day"

rapido

. .