Quote:
Originally Posted by VirginMediaSucks
The licence fee is what.. ten times what Sky wanted for their basic channels?
It would be nice to pay for the channels and programmes you actually want. I object to paying for rubbish like EastEnders, for example. At least with the BBC you can get VOD for free and good things like the BBC News website.
My two cents worth.. the BBC should be a public service broadcaster first and foremost and not be in the business of relentlessly pursuing market share.
|
Can't you see the inherent contradiction in what you're saying? First you moan that you would prefer it if your licence fee was paying for things you actually want. Then you moan that the BBC is pursuing market share.
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't by your book. Do you want them to pursue your share of the market by making stuff you want to watch or not?
---------- Post added at 13:56 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
Regardless of whether or not the BBC provides good quality TV/radio that are worth the licence fee, the simple fact remains that we should be given a choice as to whether or not we want to watch/listen to these, not forced to do so just so we can have the legal right to own a TV.
|
You misunderstand the whole concept of public service broadcasting. It's not surprising, as subscription based TV has become the norm in the UK, for the whole licence fee debate to become muddled up with whether it's fair to force people to pay for services they don't want, but the licence fee is not a subscription, it's a licence, just like the tax disc on your windscreen that entitles you to drive your car regardless of how many miles you drive, at what time of day, by whatever road, whatever the popularity of that road.
Except, of course, suggest replacing the current motoring taxation regime with a system of pricing based on use, and all hell breaks loose ...
Not that I'm prejudging any opinion you might have on road pricing, but hopefully you get my point.
The Licence Fee supports the existence of the BBC in order to allow the BBC to ensure a consistent, high level of TV and radio broadcasting in the UK. They effectively set a bar which the commercial channels have then to aim at, rather than descending to the level of appalling trash.
Anyone who is in any doubt about what a totally commercial TV environment is like should go and spend a while in the USA. TV there is acres upon acres of utter dross with the occasional gem if you look hard enough. It's easy to think the US must be full of top quality stuff because over here we get a distillation of the best of it, but the truth is something else.
Even if you never watch a single BBC programme, view a single BBC webpage or listen to a minute of BBC radio (I have seen people on this forum who claim this, by the way, and I am shall we say extremely skeptical about how likely that is), the quality of the UK-produced content you do consume has been influenced by the presence of the BBC in the market. And that, IMO, is well worth paying £2.50 a week for.