Another Take on Lost Channels

Tailor · 01-03-2007, 07:55

In what could be a new era of TV, and whilst we all discuss the impact of losing Sky One, News, Sport News, etc. here's another view.
This came from my wife this morning who grew up in Canada.
"I'm not bothered about losing the SKY channels, it's paying that BBC licence fee that winds me up, we never watch BBC."
And I had to agree with her, it was different as we grew up and BBC dominated the TV, you felt like you were getting something for your money but times have changed. I don't watch there channels anymore now that I have alternatives and so I don't feel I should pay them anything!

DocDutch · 01-03-2007, 07:57

1st of all Tailor, but if say we lose the BBC License fee, where would you get your Topgear, Waking the Dead, Rome (as that was part beeb dosh) erm www.bbc.co.uk erm you name what program that is repeated on all other channels really.

Nugget · 01-03-2007, 08:03

Run for the hills!!!! It's another licence fee thread!!!!!!!!!

Why won't it ever stop?

DocDutch · 01-03-2007, 08:04

amen Nugs

c1rcle · 01-03-2007, 08:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocDutch

1st of all Tailor, but if say we lose the BBC License fee, where would you get your Topgear, Waking the Dead, Rome (as that was part beeb dosh) erm www.bbc.co.uk erm you name what program that is repeated on all other channels really.

Wouldn't miss any of them programs as I've never watched them.

Tailor · 01-03-2007, 08:16

Well I do watch Top Gear but not on BBC 2, I watch them on one of the UKTV channels. Surely UKTV have to pay the BBC for them, sounds like they're getting their money from my licence fee and from UKTV who fund it with adverts.

Paul K · 01-03-2007, 08:27

As far as I know UKTV is a BBC spinoff.

Quote:

Our network is a joint venture between Virgin Media and BBC Worldwide. And just in case you didn’t know, we're also the second largest multi-channel broadcaster in the UK!

awibble · 01-03-2007, 08:41

I dont agree with the tv lience, but you find more and more stuff that it does pay for.

Radio channels, TV channels, Top Gear, Dr Who and many other things.

Tailor · 01-03-2007, 09:05

It's fine to say you watch some of their programs but if they abolished the fee tomorrow and instead offered their channels for ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£11 per month would you pay it ?

Delta Whiskey · 01-03-2007, 09:05

Leave the BBC license fee alone. I would happily pay the fee just to watch documentaries without adverts killing the flow of the story. It would turn the BBC into the Discovery Channel where the programs are packaged into 10 minutes stand alone segments with repetition of the main points after each commercial break. It seems to me that each hour has around thirty minutes of actual program, it becomes unwatchable.

DW

VirginMediaSucks · 01-03-2007, 09:15

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.

mertle · 01-03-2007, 10:15

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.

In my opinion the rules should be changed any person paying for a digital provider (not freeview) but virgin media, top up, sky should have a 50% reduction to BBC. Afterall you are already paying for programmes. This would be like an addon to the costs by the government and paid with your service.

No more licence would be required by any individual, the beeb would get some money and the rest would be to keep the government happy. Afterall the beeb already get advertising share from there digital channels. The get subscription subs for those part owned channels. Why should we pay twice for do what the government is asking us to do to free up analogue.

In time it should be completely faised out to all who pay a provider.

**Hugh** · 01-03-2007, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by mertle

In my opinion the rules should be changed any person paying for a digital provider (not freeview) but virgin media, top up, sky should have a 50% reduction to BBC. Afterall you are already paying for programmes. This would be like an addon to the costs by the government and paid with your service.

No more licence would be required by any individual, the beeb would get some money and the rest would be to keep the government happy. Afterall the beeb already get advertising share from there digital channels. The get subscription subs for those part owned channels. Why should we pay twice for do what the government is asking us to do to free up analogue.

In time it should be completely faised out to all who pay a provider.

BBC programmes are free-to-air; it is not part of the cost you pay for Cable or Sky, so you are not "paying twice".

mertle · 01-03-2007, 10:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

BBC programmes are free-to-air; it is not part of the cost you pay for Cable or Sky, so you are not "paying twice".

I think you missed the point you are paying twice for your television enjoyment. The beeb only get a proportion of the licence fee its called a license its not soley to pay for beeb programming. The government get is cake and try using tv's without one you will get fined. So its nothing to do with what is provided by the beeb. Now when you also pay for tv via a provider you are then paying twice. As most content ends up on retro channels like uk gold in some ways you proportionally pay a small fee for them made too. The beeb end up get a small proportion of subscriber fees and any advertising revenue to subliment the lisence. You also wonder how much the beeb got out of freeview box sales and impending freesat.

You realise for doing what the government requested you are not getting an incentive. Its about time we got a significant reduction to the licence.

Nugget · 01-03-2007, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by mertle

I think you missed the point you are paying twice for your television enjoyment. The beeb only get a proportion of the licence fee its called a license its not soley to pay for beeb programming. The government get is cake and try using tv's without one you will get fined. So its nothing to do with what is provided by the beeb. Now when you also pay for tv via a provider you are then paying twice. As most content ends up on retro channels like uk gold in some ways you proportionally pay a small fee for them made too. The beeb end up get a small proportion of subscriber fees and any advertising revenue to subliment the lisence. You also wonder how much the beeb got out of freeview box sales and impending freesat.

You realise for doing what the government requested you are not getting an incentive. Its about time we got a significant reduction to the licence.

You 'pay twice' because you have chosen to get digital television - I know that I bang on about this every time this comes up but, if you feel that you shouldn't have to pay additional costs for the TV you watch, just stick with terrestrial TV