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

rapido

. .

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

Unfortunately, ensuring radio waves reach "all corners of our isle" is totally beyond the government's control, it's hardly "too deep".

Annoyingly, they have a habit of being blocked by objects such as hills and mountains.

Unless they massively increase taxes to pay for the thousands of relay stations that would be required. We'd probably be talking about expenditure of £1,000+ for each of the 200,000 households (calculating 2 or 3 viewers per household)... doesn't that make 200 million pounds to reach the last half a million viewers? Not very "money saving". That's not even considering the cost of the land, planning permission, ongoing maintenance costs, electricity, etc...

Alternatively we could flatten all the mountains, but that would probably cost more.

If you went to the USA or Canada (for example), you'd find many places that aren't covered by terrestrial transmitters at all, and you HAVE to subscribe to cable or satellite to get all your channels (including the ones paid out of taxation, e.g. PBS, CBC), even if you never watch any of the subscription channels. They are not free-to-air on satellite over there.

Now THAT is genuinely being forced to pay extra for what you've already paid for.

-rapido

do you even read what i put? or are you just picking out words and responding to them? you have completely missed every point i've tried to make, so i'll give up trying to make them.
However, i'll try one last time, i don't live in any of the countries you have used in your examples, ergo i give not a monkeys toss for how they manage to fund there tv networks. I live in the uk, and i disagree with the tv licence, you have made you opinion clear (i think?) i have tried to make mine, and to offer thoughts on others, i AM forced to pay the licence fee which ever way you look at it and i'm not happy with that FACT! I do not believe it offers value for money, it may for some, they may use the bbc services more often than i do, i don't know and i don't care.
Incidentally, how much of a difference to the coffers do you think it would make for the bbc, if they were to tour the country actively testing where the signal does and doesn't reach, and then ceasing to charge in areas where it may be necessary to say, PURCHASE ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT to receive what the rest of the nation can??
Or offer a rebate on the first year to offset the cost of said equipment?? I dare say they wouldn't miss it if it is infact as you say just the odd hamlet of 12 or so homes!

vokesey

rapido wrote: »

Also some people don't mind paying £19 a month for 19 channels of adverts!

Or are they paying £19 a month for the hundreds of channels that are nothing to do with Sky, and completely free to air?

-rapido

Maybe they are, but that's their choice!

Cleany

rapido wrote: »

Also some people don't mind paying £19 a month for 19 channels of adverts!

Or are they paying £19 a month for the hundreds of channels that are nothing to do with Sky, and completely free to air?

-rapido

you may dislike adverts so much as to describe a channel with them on as being a channel "of adverts". which they aren't of course.

But then at least they have a choice don't they.

rapido

. .

Eric_Pisch

Cleany wrote: »

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 shouldn't be allowed to vote

AfterMath

only a quarter agreeing in totality with the licensing fee,
and nearly half saying it should go.
Whether you like the BBC or not that is public speaking...
Time for change........

Eric_Pisch

AfterMath wrote: »

only a quarter agreeing in totality with the licensing fee,
and nearly half saying it should go.
Whether you like the BBC or not that is public speaking...
Time for change........

on a very select representation of the population

i suspect you would get a similar result here if you held a pole that said abolish all income tax or vat

lets hold the official poll on the times website and see what happens

although the mass flock are being influenced heavily by murdoch and his cohorts decades of anti beeb propaganda ..

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

ok, so now give up tv and watch online you mean? why should people have to go to such extremes just to avoid what is at the end of the day an unfair tax??

You think it is an unfair tax - I do not, but if you have a PC and a decent broadband connection (which many do not I know) then it is hardly an extreme measure.

One way of saving money.

lucylucky

vokesey wrote: »

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

Indeed there are however no-one but the BBC provides as much children's programming, made specifically for a British audience.

As I said not for me, but I do think it is important to have.