Why should we be forced to pay this, I watch nothing on BBC and dont listen to their radio stations etc
What do you watch then?
Anyway, you're NOT forced. If you don't use their services, don't pay the licence fee! Do you feel the same about things like national insurance and council tax? Would you feel aggrieved about paying into a service that you don't use?
If the BBC really were "popular" and "the nations favourite" I somehow doubt so many households would bother to pay a lot of money to Sky every year.
By that logic, people must also be dissatisfied with the output of ITV, Channel 4 and five - all of which are available free on terrestrial (free at the point of delivery, at any rate, not including the marketing budgets of companies and government departments which advertise on those channels).
Which kind of destroys the argument that commercial TV provides a good enough alternative and that we don't need the BBC.
Anyway, you're NOT forced. If you don't use their services, don't pay the licence fee! Do you feel the same about things like national insurance and council tax? Would you feel aggrieved about paying into a service that you don't use?
I can assure you, there are vast amounts of non-BBC content available on both Sky, Virgin Media etc.
Yes, you are forced to pay it. It's not a simple case of not paying it. If you don't pay, you can't get Sky, Virgin Media etc either!
By that logic, people must also be dissatisfied with the output of ITV, Channel 4 and five - all of which are available free on terrestrial (free at the point of delivery, at any rate, not including the marketing budgets of companies and government departments which advertise on those channels).
Which kind of destroys the argument that commercial TV provides a good enough alternative and that we don't need the BBC.
If the BBC were doing it's job who in their right mind would pay hundreds each year to Sky?
If the BBC were doing it's job who in their right mind would pay hundreds each year to Sky?
Again, by extension, what does that say about ITV, Channel 4 and five? Three large commercial players who by your logic don't provide good enough programming.
I subscribe to Sky, voluntarily, for extra choice; not as an alternative to watching the BBC. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If you had evidence that those Sky subscribers don't watch the BBC then you might have a point. But you haven't, so you don't.
If the BBC were doing it's job who in their right mind would pay hundreds each year to Sky?
I want to watch new movies and live Premier League football which the BBC could not afford or at least justify paying for, that's why I have Sky. And I think I'm in my right mind.
I can assure you, there are vast amounts of non-BBC content available on both Sky, Virgin Media etc.
Yes, you are forced to pay it. It's not a simple case of not paying it. If you don't pay, you can't get Sky, Virgin Media etc either!
...then, providing someone doesn't use their services, maybe they should refuse to pay and bring a test case to court.
PS) I can assure you that there are vast amounts of syndicated programmes produced by the BBC that are shown on non-BBC channels. Because someone doesn't watch a BBC channel (for example) doesn't mean that they don't watch a BBC programme.
Oh, my life. Can we PLEASE have a separate section for BBC. I'm sick of coming into the Broadcast section and half of the threads are to do with the BBC with 90% to do with the license fee or expenses.
For the record, I am happy to pay both Sky and the License Fee.
Oh, my life. Can we PLEASE have a separate section for BBC. I'm sick of coming into the Broadcast section and half of the threads are to do with the BBC with 90% to do with the license fee or expenses.
For the record, I am happy to pay both Sky and the License Fee.
The irony is that you continue to contribute to them.
If the BBC were doing it's job who in their right mind would pay hundreds each year to Sky?
...and what would it take for the BBC to 'do their job'? I mean, what programmes would they need to show and how much extra would you be willing to pay for it?
Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.
Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers
Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?
I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.
yes.
if you completely ignore the fact that no two non BBC channels are watched as much as BBC1 and BBC2.
if you completely fail to appreciate the significance of the fact that just 4% or so of channels of Sky (ie the BBC channels) make up for roughly 33% of viewing.
you don't need to be a maths genius to recognise that that is hugely disproportionately high.
And what quality programming does sky actually make? 95% of Skys channel contents is pap TV. I think the move to sky is mainly due to there monopoly over Sport and there superior HD offerings.
Noone, well certainly not me, is saying that people who pay for Sky NEVER watch the BBC.
What I am saying is, that despite this so-called huge entertainment package offered to us by the BBC, 9.4 million people still choose to take out a Sky subscription at considerable additional cost.
Well if you want all that is on the Sky platform you'll need Sky, you wouldn't expect it all from the BBC at the same licence cost would you?
It's still a lot of course, surprised me! I would imagine that means a lot more than 9million people have Sky since it would be a household thing.
If the BBC really were "popular" and "the nations favourite" I somehow doubt so many households would bother to pay a lot of money to Sky every year.
that's like arguing that football isn't popular because people spend more time not playing or watching football than they spend playing or watching football.
its like arguing that coronation street isn't popular because people spend more time watching something other than coronation street.
its like arguing that titanic isn't very popular, even though its the highest grossing movie ever, because every other movie added together grossed more than titanic did.
no two non BBC channels are watched as much as BBC1 and BBC2.
how can that mean anything other than the fact that BBC1 and BBC2 are very popular?
anyway, i've made this point several times before, but it always gets ignored.
so i don't suppose this time will be any different...
...then, providing someone doesn't use their services, maybe they should refuse to pay and bring a test case to court.
PS) I can assure you that there are vast amounts of syndicated programmes produced by the BBC that are shown on non-BBC channels. Because someone doesn't watch a BBC channel (for example) doesn't mean that they don't watch a BBC programme.
I'm surprised no-one has taken this to court already (or it simply wasn't reported). However, with the constant resentment of paying the TV License Fee (on DigitalSpy alone), I'm surprised more individuals haven't.
For the record, I'm not against the TV License Fee. I regularly enjoy BBC content (The Street, Life of Riley, Scott Mills etc). However, I still feel that it's entirely possible to view TV and listen to the radio, without having experienced any BBC content.
I think the issue most people have, is not necessarily the cost of the TV License Fee. But how it is spent. I would too be against it if I felt that a large %age was for TV personalitites salaries.
if you completely ignore the fact that no two non BBC channels are watched as much as BBC1 and BBC2.
That's like saying the two most used types of public transport within London are the Underground and buses, so therefore they must be the best way of getting around. BBC is the only channel that has two stations within the basic five that everyone gets. A monkey holding a remote would have the BBC on more than any other channel.
That's like saying the two most used types of public transport within London are the Underground and buses, so therefore they must be the best way of getting around. BBC is the only channel that has two stations within the basic five that everyone gets. A monkey holding a remote would have the BBC on more than any other channel.
Well no it inst like saying that. It is saying for all of the choice that is on the many Sky channels the most watched channels on SKY are BBC1 and BBC2. **EDIT** as well as all of the terrestrial channels
I think many are confusing the amount of people that have SKY to mean that they have SKY because they do not want the BBC, it just isn't the case.
Sky have 9.4 million subscribers and that number is increasing daily.
Most subscriptions are [annually] 2 or 3 times the TV Licence fee - Is this a sign of what little entertainment the BBC offers
Would the same number CHOOSE to pay the BBC?
I think not. Its time the Licence fee was scrapped and people given the choice.
Errr sorry but even Sky's cheapest package is higher than licence fee + you get to watch adverts with sky!
As mentioned already Licence fee funds their radio stations, Internet services, TV channels and interactive services and HD channel all without adverts. So I say licence fee represents much more value than anything Sky offers.
By the way I am one of 9.4 million Sky subscribers as well.
Comments
What do you watch then?
Anyway, you're NOT forced. If you don't use their services, don't pay the licence fee! Do you feel the same about things like national insurance and council tax? Would you feel aggrieved about paying into a service that you don't use?
By that logic, people must also be dissatisfied with the output of ITV, Channel 4 and five - all of which are available free on terrestrial (free at the point of delivery, at any rate, not including the marketing budgets of companies and government departments which advertise on those channels).
Which kind of destroys the argument that commercial TV provides a good enough alternative and that we don't need the BBC.
I can assure you, there are vast amounts of non-BBC content available on both Sky, Virgin Media etc.
Yes, you are forced to pay it. It's not a simple case of not paying it. If you don't pay, you can't get Sky, Virgin Media etc either!
If the BBC were doing it's job who in their right mind would pay hundreds each year to Sky?
Again, by extension, what does that say about ITV, Channel 4 and five? Three large commercial players who by your logic don't provide good enough programming.
I subscribe to Sky, voluntarily, for extra choice; not as an alternative to watching the BBC. The two aren't mutually exclusive. If you had evidence that those Sky subscribers don't watch the BBC then you might have a point. But you haven't, so you don't.
I want to watch new movies and live Premier League football which the BBC could not afford or at least justify paying for, that's why I have Sky. And I think I'm in my right mind.
Don't fib, just a quick look at your previous says you watch East Enders.
...then, providing someone doesn't use their services, maybe they should refuse to pay and bring a test case to court.
PS) I can assure you that there are vast amounts of syndicated programmes produced by the BBC that are shown on non-BBC channels. Because someone doesn't watch a BBC channel (for example) doesn't mean that they don't watch a BBC programme.
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Schoolboy error!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=31769903&postcount=385
For the record, I am happy to pay both Sky and the License Fee.
The irony is that you continue to contribute to them.
...and what would it take for the BBC to 'do their job'? I mean, what programmes would they need to show and how much extra would you be willing to pay for it?
yes.
if you completely ignore the fact that no two non BBC channels are watched as much as BBC1 and BBC2.
if you completely fail to appreciate the significance of the fact that just 4% or so of channels of Sky (ie the BBC channels) make up for roughly 33% of viewing.
you don't need to be a maths genius to recognise that that is hugely disproportionately high.
good idea for a thread though.
Iain
so Steve, do you think that choice, and choice alone should be the only consideration?
Iain
Well if you want all that is on the Sky platform you'll need Sky, you wouldn't expect it all from the BBC at the same licence cost would you?
How many on Sky are made by Sky?
that's like arguing that football isn't popular because people spend more time not playing or watching football than they spend playing or watching football.
its like arguing that coronation street isn't popular because people spend more time watching something other than coronation street.
its like arguing that titanic isn't very popular, even though its the highest grossing movie ever, because every other movie added together grossed more than titanic did.
no two non BBC channels are watched as much as BBC1 and BBC2.
how can that mean anything other than the fact that BBC1 and BBC2 are very popular?
anyway, i've made this point several times before, but it always gets ignored.
so i don't suppose this time will be any different...
Iain
I'm surprised no-one has taken this to court already (or it simply wasn't reported). However, with the constant resentment of paying the TV License Fee (on DigitalSpy alone), I'm surprised more individuals haven't.
For the record, I'm not against the TV License Fee. I regularly enjoy BBC content (The Street, Life of Riley, Scott Mills etc). However, I still feel that it's entirely possible to view TV and listen to the radio, without having experienced any BBC content.
I think the issue most people have, is not necessarily the cost of the TV License Fee. But how it is spent. I would too be against it if I felt that a large %age was for TV personalitites salaries.
If you look at my post history, you will see that I don't!?
Except they're not rejecting it.
Even in Pay-TV homes, the majority of viewing is to NON-PAY channels.
You don't seem to realise that not EVERYONE subscribes for the TV.
Sky have been rather clever moving into broadband and telecoms.
Now, if the BBC were to move into this too......
That's like saying the two most used types of public transport within London are the Underground and buses, so therefore they must be the best way of getting around. BBC is the only channel that has two stations within the basic five that everyone gets. A monkey holding a remote would have the BBC on more than any other channel.
I have and you do.
Well no it inst like saying that. It is saying for all of the choice that is on the many Sky channels the most watched channels on SKY are BBC1 and BBC2. **EDIT** as well as all of the terrestrial channels
I think many are confusing the amount of people that have SKY to mean that they have SKY because they do not want the BBC, it just isn't the case.
That report is a year old!
See today's article which says:
"Sky now has 9.442m customers, with annual net customer additions of 462,000 "
NB. 8,980,000 at June 2008 + net additions of 462,000 = 9,442,000 at June 2009!
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/digitaltv/a168273/customer-growth-hd-takeup-drive-sky-profits.html
Errr sorry but even Sky's cheapest package is higher than licence fee + you get to watch adverts with sky!
As mentioned already Licence fee funds their radio stations, Internet services, TV channels and interactive services and HD channel all without adverts. So I say licence fee represents much more value than anything Sky offers.
By the way I am one of 9.4 million Sky subscribers as well.