Is the TV Licence fee worth it? Poll results/discussion

Defiant_3

mymatebob wrote: »

If you go back to my original post I was questioning your use of the phrase "forced to watch" - are you conceding that you are not forced to watch BBC News?

Lets make it simple for you shall we. Were have I said you are forced to watch the BBC ?. Can you then please tell me how I watch TV without being forced to subsidise people like YOU.

mymatebob wrote: »

What sort of state do you aspire to then if our (admittedly flawed) democratic one doesn't suit you? And what "truth is seeping out"?

The only thing flawd in this "democracy" is people like you can extract the urine by forcing them to subsidise your entertainment and propaganda broadcaster. I note you've just ignored the majority again because YOU are right and we are wrong aren't we :rolleyes:

mymatebob

okay - you said that the BBC forces it's news on people. If you don't watch or listen to the BBC how to they do that then?

If people disagree with the licence fee then fine I have no problem with that.
OfCom seem to be suggesting that some of it may go to Ch4 anyway, so will that be another channel you can't watch?

Defiant_3

mymatebob wrote: »

okay - you said that the BBC forces it's news on people. If you don't watch or listen to the BBC how to they do that then?

So I didn't say what you originaly said you just twisted the words (surprise, surprise). The BBC forces the public to pay then or else which is forcing people to pay for the news etc

mymatebob wrote: »

If people disagree with the licence fee then fine I have no problem with that.
OfCom seem to be suggesting that some of it may go to Ch4 anyway, so will that be another channel you can't watch?

I think Ch4 do just fine without the BBC and sooner or later you will have to either watch true FTA channels or pay for that dinosaur (BBC) yourself MATE :mad: you just watch it sink though when people get the CHOICE :cool:

Schwade

To me, I want TV and radio media to work like print media.

People have the choice to choose which newspaper they want to read, be it FT, Evening Standard, News of the World, Guardian, Metro.

No one should be paying for one particular newspaper organisation for the ability to access another newspaper.

magyar

Defiant,

I'm finding it impossible to discuss with you. OK, so we got off on the wrong tack, but leaving that aside, you're simply not being rational.

I don't work for the BBC, but of course cannot prove this. Your posts seem to be more of an ad hominem tirade rather than a structured discussion.

You've completely ignored the main point, which is that ITV is not free. You cannot simply 'create cash' from the miracle that is advertising. All advertising does is help companies extract cash from consumers. Yes it reduces prices but it's completely specious to suggest that ITV is 'free'.

In addition you are not applying any value to being advert-free. Whilst it's hard to value, I personally think that an advertisement-free programme is more valuable than one with adverts in it.

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

I'm not I get an email asking for my meter reading and then a week or so later I'll get an another email saying my bill is ready So you see you can make things up all you like but it would seem the majority in this country have just about had enough.

No, I'm not making it up - you criticised others for allegedly twisting your words so I would appreciate it if you didn't twist mine.

I compared paying for your electricity by DD with paying for your licence fee by DD. In both cases, you pay in advance for something you haven't yet used.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

No, I'm not making it up - you criticised others for allegedly twisting your words so I would appreciate it if you didn't twist mine.

I compared paying for your electricity by DD with paying for your licence fee by DD. In both cases, you pay in advance for something you haven't yet used.

Yes, that is true but most electricity companies gives you an incentive to pay in advance (i.e. discounts) because they know they have your money first and presumably because they think no one would use this if there is no incentive...

but in any event, this is not the main issue for BBC, because at least they give people to choose either to pay yearly or DD.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

Yes, that is true but most electricity companies gives you an incentive to pay in advance (i.e. discounts) because they know they have your money first and presumably because they think no one would use this if there is no incentive...

Agreed. However the typical discount is only ~£40 a year cf. average energy bills of ~£1100 so pro-rating this, you'd be looking at an annual discount of ~£5. It would probably be reasonable to offer this, I agree.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Agreed. However the typical discount is only ~£40 a year cf. average energy bills of ~£1100 so pro-rating this, you'd be looking at an annual discount of ~£5. It would probably be reasonable to offer this, I agree.

But they don't really need to because no one is exactly going to go to a competitor which has the benefits of discounted DD. They are a monopoly in its funding despite being in a competitive market against other channels for programmes.

The only choice you have for BBC is whether you want to pay it yearly in arrears or monthly in advance. Either way, you have to pay.

magyar

Schwade wrote: »

The only choice you have for BBC is whether you want to pay it yearly in arrears or monthly in advance. Either way, you have to pay.

Yes you do have to pay. And, as I maintain - you have to pay for ITV as well.

If someone would demonstrate to me that ITV is free then I would happily look at the figures. For example, what is the overall UK advertising revenue compared with the BBC's licence fee income?