We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
'Do you believe in the BBC licence fee?' poll discussion
Comments
-
maybe you don't, but you are not the whole nation are you?! some people aren't as fortunate or able, so to cover EVERYBODY it is there. Plus the vast majority of people own a tv so it get to all who watch it, my argument may seem stupid to you but it isn't a selfish one! The vast majority of you people backing the licence are so blinded and set against advertising it beggars belief! Just what the hell is so wrong with it? Some one some where has gone to the effort to make a brand product whatever, why the hell shouldn't they tell us about it. And it shouldn't be that much of a problem these days as quite a few of us have the ability as you say to record programs and skip through the ads, something i do too.
I hope and pray for the day some one wakes up and makes the bbc subscription based, it the fairest way for those of us that don't care what happens to the "institution" and there are enough of blinkered and narrow minded people to keep it going!
Not the fairest way for everyone and therein lies the dilemma.0 -
Exactly. We would end up paying one way or another - just look at the Sky subscription.
Also, you could end up paying out that £150 a year on JUNK you buy after being influenced by the rubbish ADS that would inevitably appear?!!!;)
Ok, or heres another alternative, after scrapping the fee the bbc goes to a subscription base like sky virgin etc. Then who knows they pay modest not ridiculous wages, and form a competitive brand that people choose to have as opposed to sky or virgin and the playing field levels out a bit with them all having to adjust prices to regain customers, (because that's never happened before has it? bt british gas etc etc.)
Competition and choice is what is needed, not just one suits all, because it doesn't.
And really i love the way you almost assume everyone is suckered in by ads, they are at best a feeble way of promoting stuff, but i hardly think we're all just going to head down the high st wallet in hand like zombies till we're skint!0 -
maybe you don't, but you are not the whole nation are you?! some people aren't as fortunate or able, so to cover EVERYBODY it is there. Plus the vast majority of people own a tv so it get to all who watch it, my argument may seem stupid to you but it isn't a selfish one! The vast majority of you people backing the licence are so blinded and set against advertising it beggars belief! Just what the hell is so wrong with it? Some one some where has gone to the effort to make a brand product whatever, why the hell shouldn't they tell us about it. And it shouldn't be that much of a problem these days as quite a few of us have the ability as you say to record programs and skip through the ads, something i do too.
I hope and pray for the day some one wakes up and makes the bbc subscription based, it the fairest way for those of us that don't care what happens to the "institution" and there are enough of blinkered and narrow minded people to keep it going!
Have you ever been to the USA and watched TV there?!!!
That is the future of TV with advertising and it is unwatchable. I don't think you are arguing from a position of knowledge. I know you say that you don't care about other country's TV but you must realise how the UK often follows the US culture model. Anyway, I could also mention from experience the crap TV I've seen while living in Germany and Italy. Maybe you should get out more!!!
In the US, we don't always have free TV coverage through an aerial or competition for TV providers. In many places the only way we can receive TV is to subscribe to the local cable provider (who are crap) and the cost of that far exceeds the BBC license fee plus my current basic Virgin subscription here in the UK. We get far less for paying more.
Ironically, my educated friends in the States look forward to BBC productions (often joint funded by a US channel) and shown on their public service broadcaster who don't have advertising but also don't have any real money to run the service! They have to have telethon begging bowls to raise money in order to show their few good shows.
If you don't want to pay for the BBC you really don't appreciate quality in the media. And you consider us "narrow minded"...0 -
Not the fairest way for everyone and therein lies the dilemma.
Well at the moment everyone is paying, and some of those don't mind it, you apparently included.
so i fail to see how it isn't? If you are happy with the fee then you and the others can continue to pay it, i would rather have the choice what i spend my money on.
I think the real issue most people worry about is that if it did become subscription based, the price would shoot up, but as i've just mentioned in another post what's wrong with a little healthy competition? i'm no fan of the amount of money i pay sky every month, but they carry the best of what interests me, and i can afford it so it's not a snag! But imagine if the bbc were to compete more for things like the premiership, not a massively popular issue with everyone i know, but i'll wager the majority of sky subscribers have sky sports!
And to be quite honest i think whoever has that would win a substantial amount of sky's customers.0 -
maybe you don't, but you are not the whole nation are you?! some people aren't as fortunate or able, so to cover EVERYBODY it is there. Plus the vast majority of people own a tv so it get to all who watch it, my argument may seem stupid to you but it isn't a selfish one! The vast majority of you people backing the licence are so blinded and set against advertising it beggars belief! Just what the hell is so wrong with it? Some one some where has gone to the effort to make a brand product whatever, why the hell shouldn't they tell us about it. And it shouldn't be that much of a problem these days as quite a few of us have the ability as you say to record programs and skip through the ads, something i do too.
I hope and pray for the day some one wakes up and makes the bbc subscription based, it the fairest way for those of us that don't care what happens to the "institution" and there are enough of blinkered and narrow minded people to keep it going!
It's funny because on the whole those who want the Beeb scrapped or subscription based seem dead sure they're all right and we're all morons for liking the BBC. So who's really narrow minded or blinkered? Why are those who favour the current set up idiots exactly? I'd love to understand what makes you think that so strongly. Surely it's about personal preference. I'm none of the above but I value what the BBC stands for a damn sight more than those that just want to make us watch junk, sell us even more junk then make us pay for the privilege! The only people I would consider calling naive (in the nicest possible way!) are those who don't think we'd end up paying way more for content if the BBC licence fee is changed. Do people really think adverts will continue to fund ITV and C5 and it'll all be free and lovely and we'll all go skipping off into the sunset with our £150. Murdoch wants everyone to pay for content regardless of what it's on (internet, TV, Radio etc etc) so scrap the BBC and watch all your subscriptions old and new rise past the current licence fee. If someone could prove to me it won't happen I'd happily rethink. I've seen too much already (sadly most behind the scenes although a lot of it you can google for yourselves!) to think otherwise. I'm neither narrow minded nor blinkered, I think i'm actually the one who has researched enough to understand what would happen.0 -
Well at the moment everyone is paying, and some of those don't mind it, you apparently included.
so i fail to see how it isn't? If you are happy with the fee then you and the others can continue to pay it, i would rather have the choice what i spend my money on.
I think the real issue most people worry about is that if it did become subscription based, the price would shoot up, but as i've just mentioned in another post what's wrong with a little healthy competition? i'm no fan of the amount of money i pay sky every month, but they carry the best of what interests me, and i can afford it so it's not a snag! But imagine if the bbc were to compete more for things like the premiership, not a massively popular issue with everyone i know, but i'll wager the majority of sky subscribers have sky sports!
And to be quite honest i think whoever has that would win a substantial amount of sky's customers.
Mr Murdoch does not like competition, he actively seeks to remove it.
The BBC cannot afford to bid for many things as Sky has bought up the rights and priced them, and other broadcasters, out of the market.
I have no idea of the breakdown of who has what packages on Sky, I know that I cannot choose the channels I wish to watch without them being bundled into a number of "packs"
If you think it is fair to go with a system that you propose there will be others who think it is not fair - ergo the system is still unfair.
Not everyone can win.0 -
Have you ever been to the USA and watched TV there?!!!
That is the future of TV with advertising and it is unwatchable. I don't think you are arguing from a position of knowledge. I know you say that you don't care about other country's TV but you must realise how the UK often follows the US culture model. Anyway, I could also mention from experience the crap TV I've seen while living in Germany and Italy. Maybe you should get out more!!!
In the US, we don't always have free TV coverage through an aerial or competition for TV providers. In many places the only way we can receive TV is to subscribe to the local cable provider (who are crap) and the cost of that far exceeds the BBC license fee plus my current basic Virgin subscription here in the UK. We get far less for paying more.
Ironically, my educated friends in the States look forward to BBC productions (often joint funded by a US channel) and shown on their public service broadcaster who don't have advertising but also don't have any real money to run the service! They have to have telethon begging bowls to raise money in order to show their few good shows.
If you don't want to pay for the BBC you really don't appreciate quality in the media. And you consider us "narrow minded"...
Firstly i was careful not to label any one in particular "narrow minded" just that some of the views are, that is my opinion. And where exactly does the great fear of masses and masses of advertising suddenly come from?the other networks get by just fine as they are, so where is the need or likelyhood of increasing it coming from?
I'm glad you have educated friends, being in the Armed Forces some of mine are too, and while i'm no Einstein the Navy trust me enough to supervise aircraft maintenance, something i've done whilst getting out to some places like Norway, Germany (where i lived for 4 yrs), Spain (another 4 yrs) , Croatia, Corfu, Portugal, Gibraltar,Cyprus, and also some not so nice places called Iraq and Afghanistan! So thanks for your concern but sometimes i get out a little more than i'd like.
As for wether i like paying for the bbc, that's not the point, read some of my other posts, in there you'll find a little word called "choice"0 -
It's funny because on the whole those who want the Beeb scrapped or subscription based seem dead sure they're all right and we're all morons for liking the BBC. So who's really narrow minded or blinkered? Why are those who favour the current set up idiots exactly? I'd love to understand what makes you think that so strongly. Surely it's about personal preference. I'm none of the above but I value what the BBC stands for a damn sight more than those that just want to make us watch junk, sell us even more junk then make us pay for the privilege! The only people I would consider calling naive (in the nicest possible way!) are those who don't think we'd end up paying way more for content if the BBC licence fee is changed. Do people really think adverts will continue to fund ITV and C5 and it'll all be free and lovely and we'll all go skipping off into the sunset with our £150. Murdoch wants everyone to pay for content regardless of what it's on (internet, TV, Radio etc etc) so scrap the BBC and watch all your subscriptions old and new rise past the current licence fee. If someone could prove to me it won't happen I'd happily rethink. I've seen too much already (sadly most behind the scenes although a lot of it you can google for yourselves!) to think otherwise. I'm neither narrow minded nor blinkered, I think i'm actually the one who has researched enough to understand what would happen.
Well then please enlighten us. You are essentially saying that should the bbc change how it is funded then RM suddenly swoops over all media transmissions thus somehow owning everything overnight and forcing us all to pay through the nose for everything?!
I think with that in mind we should pull out of afghanistan and go after him instead!
I don't profess to know a great deal (or anything) about how business works, but i do know that no one person or company would be allowed to own all media companies and carriage methods.
There are people in place to prevent just such things happening, ie the Competition commission and the OFT. So while murdoch may dream of media world domination and death by adverts i'm afriad it won't be happening with or without the collapse of the bbc.
I haven't called anyone an idiot by the way, i've simply questioned why every one is so against advertisement funding? I'm not on here to insult or start name calling, this is a debate, not a slanging match! Yes it is about preferences, and mine is not to be forced to pay for something i'm not that bothered about.0 -
Mr Murdoch does not like competition, he actively seeks to remove it.
The BBC cannot afford to bid for many things as Sky has bought up the rights and priced them, and other broadcasters, out of the market.
I have no idea of the breakdown of who has what packages on Sky, I know that I cannot choose the channels I wish to watch without them being bundled into a number of "packs"
If you think it is fair to go with a system that you propose there will be others who think it is not fair - ergo the system is still unfair.
Not everyone can win.
It's not unfair, you will at least have the choice!0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards