Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35825014)

It's absurd to equate the cost of a TV licence with the price of a theatre ticket, which is what you seemed to be doing earlier. The TVL works out at around £3 a week. I took the kids to the panto last Christmas and the cheapest seats in the house were £20 *each*.

Yes, you can of course have a free-to-air national TV broadcasting service without imposing a charge on those who use it. The quality of those networks is however not so good. Even in the USA, where the advertisers potential audience is more than five times the size of the UK, free-to-air TV is swamped with cheap, low quality dross. What we see of US TV in the UK is highly distilled, has often been made to show on networks that require a subscription, and these days is normally shown in the UK on a network requiring subscription, given the producers' need to recoup the high costs of making it.

For a *tiny* contribution from all TV users in the UK, the BBC produces quality output and caters for a wide range of interests. Even for those who do not watch it, its output sets a benchmark that forces its competitors to keep their own standards up.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35825071)

The BBC is fantastic value for money when compared to Cable or Satellite. Most of their output is original, and most cable channels just repeat it. Not just tv, radio and websites -all ad free.

Lots of people agree with me:- ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35825079)

Oh yes fantastic value, 145 quid a year for something I never use is cheap at twice the price and it's not anyway compared to itv or channel 4 which cost nothing directly.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35825079)

Oh yes fantastic value, 145 quid a year for something I never use is cheap at twice the price and it's not anyway compared to itv or channel 4 which cost nothing directly.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35825088)

How much do you spend on cable, satellite subscription in a year for mostly repeated programming of low quality dross? Are you sure you never use the BBC - local radio, weather, traffic, website? I think many take these things for granted. If we relied on commercial TV, some of the best TV drama would never get made - we'd be left with tabloid TV.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35824978)

I wasn't talking about normal tax, I was referring to Stuart's assertion that tv is essential for schools. Do they only watch the BBC?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35825088)

How much do you spend on cable, satellite subscription in a year for mostly repeated programming of low quality dross? Are you sure you never use the BBC - local radio, weather, traffic, website? I think many take these things for granted. If we relied on commercial TV, some of the best TV drama would never get made - we'd be left with tabloid TV.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35825071)

The BBC is fantastic value for money when compared to Cable or Satellite. Most of their output is original, and most cable channels just repeat it. Not just tv, radio and websites -all ad free.

Lots of people agree with me:- ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35825088)

How much do you spend on cable, satellite subscription in a year for mostly repeated programming of low quality dross? Are you sure you never use the BBC - local radio, weather, traffic, website? I think many take these things for granted. If we relied on commercial TV, some of the best TV drama would never get made - we'd be left with tabloid TV.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35829438)

great, if they were going to do it properly and not rip people off then they need to manage as a pay per view service. Sky boxes use cards so Sky know who you are what package/channels you have access to and the BBC should be managed the same way. Like wise, just as you have to register/sign in for Sky Go, if BBC want to start charging people to use iplayer then they should get them to register with name, address, tv license number etc and sign in when they want to use it. Failure to implement such a system just makes a mockery of the whole system and means some people license payers are paying for other people to use the service. If you think I am being stupid then look at it this way. What would you think if 4 millions people paid for Sky in their home to watch on tv/boxes but Sky let non-paying people access Sky Go/other services online and have it all for free?

TV is multi platform now and whether it is online or on the "tv" everyone who wants to watch it should pay for it. I think the sticking point is that they need to change the name from "tv license" and call it "media license" or "BBC license".