BBC licence fee should be scrapped, says thinktank - The Guardian

lucylucky

wymondham wrote: »

no, you don't pay for a commercial broadcaster, so it is poorer value.

Many years ago I would have agreed the BBC was superior, but not these days.

You don't really believe that do you?

Dan:_4

ninky wrote: »

for how much longer though? they are already pulling the sports news from freeview.

Thats okay, it will be included in my Sky Sports package.

lucylucky

Dan: wrote: »

Thats okay, it will be included in my Sky Sports package.

How can you watch it for free then?

StevieJ

Dan: wrote: »

I watch Sky News, Sky Sports, UK Gold, Discovery. Otherwsie I Watch DVDs. Honesty there is not 1 single programme I watch on BBC (or ITV for that matter)

You mean constant repeats :eek: BTW how much does your SKY cost you?

Dan:_4

lucylucky wrote: »

How can you watch it for free then?

I dont have freeview, I pay a Sky subscription fee.

StevieJ

ultrawomble wrote: »

I still can't believe that people pay to watch adverts. :rotfl:

Good point SKY is the worst of all worlds :eek: BTW I do subscribe to SKY.

Dan:_4

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean constant repeats :eek: BTW how much does your SKY cost you?

God knows. About 40 quid I think - this inlcudes all the sports channel.

cepheus

Sky news is constantly interrupted with adverts isn't it. What does it have that BBC news24 doesn't? I think everyone has a moral duty to shun anything Murdoch has touched

Doesn't everything half decent that is shown on Sky come out on Terrestrial a few years later?

smamst

The only world class output that the BBC produces that justifies the licence fee is their wildlife programs, however wait a few months after the initial broadcast and you can watch on DVD via their commercial enterprise. Either cut the fee by 50pct or freeze it at it's current rate for the next ten years.

Mr_Mumble

Those talking about the cost of the BBC only being £145 a year ignore the cost of imprisonment, the cost to the court system, the value of the EPG slots and bandwidth that could be auctioned off, the vast land bank, the capital investment from private enterprise if the BBC was broken up... the likes of CNN would set up a UK channel in no time, money stuffed into British TV production would multiply if Time Warner, Disney, Vivendi, Viacom et al could get a foot in the door.

The UK TV space is increasingly becoming an unhealthy duopoly. Bertelsmann (through subsidiary RTL) selling Five showed how poor competition is in the UK. When a media giant that owns the world's largest book publisher gives up on Blighty its hard to see who is going to provide the capital to make top quality British TV. The geniuses at OFCOM have managed to make foreign capital injections into British TV production ridiculously difficult (there'll be a little bit of co-financing for period dramas but that's about it.)

StevieJ wrote: »

You mean constant repeats :eek: BTW how much does your SKY cost you?

UK Gold being half-owned by the BBC! BTW Sky could cost a million quid and would still be superior value to the BBC because it doesn't rely on chucking poor people in jail for its financing.

ultrawomble wrote: »

I still can't believe that people pay to watch adverts. :rotfl:

Indeed, TV License = pay to see BBC/ITV/C4/Five ads. Sky+ and you pay not to see 'em, that's what you meant yeah? The rise of Tivo type devices (along with bittorrent) is why the free-to-air business model is going down the drain and we have an expansion of pay TV services. The BBC, thanks to their jail enforcement incentive, and Sky, thanks to spending billions on a pay distribution platform, are the big winners.