Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997875)

The BBC actually make new programmes, a heck of a lot more than Sky/VM. That's what costs money.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 35997856)

I wonder though how many people do consume the BBC without knowing about it? Or how happy people would be with a purely commercial system and what that really means?

I don't resent license fee, don't really notice it but if income was dropped I can afford the license but not all the other stuff that adds up.

And with insertion of ad's into catchup/OD what will people think then about ad free content from the BBC?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997870)

Even though you don't need a licence, these services have to be funded. They might just disappear without a licence fee.

We might be going round in circle with BBC threads. But worth pointing out it's £13 a month, for mostly unique quality content, plus all the extra non TV services. It compares very favourably with Sky/VM subs, who are mostly showing repeats/imported content or reruns of BBC stuff !

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35997870)

Even though you don't need a licence, these services have to be funded. They might just disappear without a licence fee.

We might be going round in circle with BBC threads. But worth pointing out it's £13 a month, for mostly unique quality content, plus all the extra non TV services. It compares very favourably with Sky/VM subs, who are mostly showing repeats/imported content or reruns of BBC stuff !

Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35997891)

l absolutely agree Mr K but you cannot make a horse go to water as the old saying goes.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 35997886)

You do realise that you could have a streaming service for the cost of the licence fee, don't you, and you would get about £70 quid change!

---------- Post added at 12:48 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------



Maybe, but no-one is compelled to subscribe to Sky.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35997951)

Wrong! The "offence" is ACTUALLY watching broadcast TV, not possession of equipment capable of watching broadcast TV. I could own a million TVs capable of watching the BBC and still not commit an offence. That is why they have to catch you actually watching it.

Originally Posted by Raider999 (Post 35997952)

They have obviously changed it then, even being able to record it was an offence.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35997953)

True recording a live TV broadcast is also an offence without a licence but how could you prove that a recording was actually made at an address that did, or did not, have a valid licence? Impossible.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35997996)

I was thinking more of recordings made on portable media rather than say a TIVO. Even then on the TIVO you would have to prove that the recording was made live rather than on demand.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35998011)

PVR, DVD rec, HHD rec etc. Most smart TV's can record to a USB device what you're watching.

You also might have the TV service, which incudes radio channels and OD, available as part of a package to save money. Not actual proof.