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

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Please read my answer to your question then instead of ignoring it. Just who do you think you are refusing to read someones answer and then repeating yourself over and over like a child in a car "are we their yet" :rolleyes:

I've just told you I don't understand the English and would like you to either rephrase it or clarify it because it makes no sense to me.

Defiant wrote: »

This from the guy who lives in Cyprus and yet is good enough to tell everyone here how great the BBC TV licence is

How many times do I have to repeat myself? I DON'T LIVE IN CYPRUS, I HAPPEN TO BE IN CYPRUS.

Defiant wrote: »

!!!!!! If it was just a thoery no one would bother advertising :rotfl:

I don't understand that point either. If I pay £10 to advertise somewhere and it generates me a hundred extra sales and I'm making 11p per sale as profit then advertising made sense. However that doesn't tell you anything about how that 11p 'creates cash' which effectively makes the £10 'free'.

Defiant wrote: »

But you have to know because you've been pushing your opinion on this for 3/4 pages now

Fancy getting back to the BBC TV Licence sometime or would that be a no no

I have no idea how to answer your first point. I'm telling you I'm not an expert on the economics of advertising and would appreciate it being explained. The only thing I've been doing for three or four pages is bashing my head against a brick wall trying to get an answer out of you.

And on your final point, this is pertinent to the BBC TV licence because if you cannot prove that ITV is free you cannot make this claim that 'you have to pay for the BBC whether you watch it or not', or more to the point you need to extend that to ITV as well.

TNG

Defiant wrote: »

You mean in the very early years of TV when nothing else existed because we have hundreds of TV & Radio stations today



That's why I think they should make it subscription and then people like YOU can fund it so everyone is happy



Glad to see you've come to terms with you're problem. Do we get to hear you have an opinion the topic anytime soon or is this trolling all you can do?

sorry, you seem to have missed it - go back a few posts and r-e-a-d s-l-o-w-l-y

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

You mean in the very early years of TV when nothing else existed because we have hundreds of TV & Radio stations today

That's exactly what I mean, yes.

Defiant wrote: »

That's why I think they should make it subscription and then people like YOU can fund it so everyone is happy

And presumably you will also shut down ITV so that I don't have to pay for that via advertising, too?

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

And on your final point, this is pertinent to the BBC TV licence because if you cannot prove that ITV is free you cannot make this claim that 'you have to pay for the BBC whether you watch it or not', or more to the point you need to extend that to ITV as well.

You and your two mates aren’t fooling anyone. We have explained the basics of economics to you. You just can’t defend the BBC TV Licence so pushed the goal posts to ITV which I admit is different because it’s usually attacks on Sky when it comes to selfish (subsidise my TV or else) people like you.

Why not get it over and done with and ask the mod to close the thread we all know thats what you are pushing for

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

That's exactly what I mean, yes.

And presumably you will also shut down ITV so that I don't have to pay for that via advertising, too?

Again ITV costs me nothing and you already know this hence the constant push the topic away from the mighty BBC because I love them :rolleyes:

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

You and your two mates aren’t fooling anyone. We have explained the basics of economics to you. You just can’t defend the BBC TV Licence so pushed the goal posts to ITV which I admit is different because it’s usually attacks on Sky when it comes to selfish (subsidise my TV or else) people like you.

Why not get it over and done with and ask the mod to close the thread we all know thats what you are pushing for

You haven't explained anything!

You made one comment which was in such bad English I can't understand it, and then made another comment I don't understand.

If I have missed the explanation elsewhere I'd be happy to be pointed towards it. And, for the record, I see no reason why the thread should be closed - the only reason might be because you're not following the simple site rule of 'being nice to all Moneysavers'.

magyar

Defiant wrote: »

Again ITV costs me knothing and you already know this hence the constant push the topic away from the mighty BBC because I love them :rolleyes:

I'm sorry Defiant, but I'm not the one who has constantly been pushing the topic away.

I have told you that, to my mind, ITV cannot 'generate free money' and magically produce free programmes.

You have failed to give me an explanation of why this is wrong, with the exception of the quotes in my post above which - as I repeat - I don't even understand enough to comment upon them.

Defiant_3

magyar wrote: »

You haven't explained anything!

You made one comment which was in such bad English I can't understand it, and then made another comment I don't understand.

Whats the excuse going to be next time hey :mad:

magyar wrote: »

the only reason might be because you're not following the simple site rule of 'being nice to all Moneysavers'.

Stop being obtuse then and admit you just don't agree with my explination and you never will because the adverts rubbish is the only thing you have to cring too in regards to defending the BBC TV Licence.

Now I suggest you start another thread about ITV instead of trying to hi-jack this one

Schwade

TNG wrote: »

for the same reason that big business has no place in schools.

The agenda changes in order to please shareholders/the share price/the advertisers and as a result, quality of product comes a VERY poor second

Your assumption is commerical programmes comes a very poor second to BBC programmes in quality.

Can you check whether your assumption is correct?

FYI,

1. Royal Television Society has been providing awards to commercial programmes for generations.

2. News, the epitome for your need of "quality", has been awarded by Royal Television Society to Sky News and ITV (organisations to please shareholders/share price/advertisers).

3. If you actually look at the results, BBC does not have any advantage over commerical programmes relating to quality programmes.

4. Print media has been operating successfully in a non-state funding basis where there are newspapers which numerous differences in "quality". Unless of course you believe print media should also be nationalised and state funded due to the poor quality of commerical newspapers we currently have in the UK.

I believe it is your perception of the commercialism that is clouding the facts.

Schwade

magyar wrote: »

Sure! :beer:

I can't deny that when you use the example of 'the Daily BBC' then you can't deny it looks a little odd, but only because it doesn't exist. The BBC exists for historic reasons.

Likewise it's clear that you can have TV without centralised funding, because many countries do. However, I personally feel that centralised licence funding produces better TV, if only for lack of adverts. (I certainly don't deify the BBC and am very critical of many things about them, but I don't feel this means it's the wrong method of funding).

To me, adverts simply are a key issue. I like having TV without adverts and, yes, personally I'm happy to pay for them. I appreciate the point that you may not be, but... well, I disagree. As a turkey, I'm not going to vote for Christmas.

Historical reasons or not, it is still weird in this day and age.

And cool that you like TV without adverts. But maybe there should be a market for people like you who like TV without adverts to subscribe for such TV (just like people with SKY). I still don't understand why the general public need to support this funding if they don't watch BBC and don't mind adverts or whatever it is. Why is the public locked into paying to a particular organisation just to get the ability to watch...it doesn't make sense...