I'm happy to pay 10 quid a month to keep those adverts away from the BBC channels.


Some TV adverts are great but other adverts drive me crazy and make me determined not to buy the product.

I'd pay £10 a month for something worth watching. Why is TV so dire at the minute?

Originally posted by alchresearch
I'd pay £10 a month for something worth watching. Why is TV so dire at the minute?


I like BBC News24 so it's always dire.

Sky News would be great without the ads.

I grudgingly pay £10 per month for BBC channels that I hardly ever watch, so that I can legally watch the other channels.

Its incredible that in this day and age the law still says we must pay the BBC £10 per month even if we only watch ITV or Sky. The BBC should find some alternative funding... maybe people could be given the option of paying £10 if they want to watch the BBC, but the BBC daren't go down that road because they realise very few people would think it worth paying for!

Incidentally, does anyone know if anybody has ever challenged the British TV licence laws in Europe?

We get away lightly in the UK. In Germany people will soon have to have a licence to watch TV on their PCs. This from Ananova:

Germans may need licence to watch TV on computers

Computer owners in Germany will need a TV licence in future after German TV and Radio Licensing Authorities proved PCs could be used to watch the telly.

The fee will be collected whether the computer has been equipped to receive radio and television with a "TV card" or not, and will apply to all PCs with an internet connection from January 1, 2007.

Most private households already pay the state fee for TV and radio, but this could become a costly factor for commercial businesses using the internet.

As most offices rely on the internet, they could face a significant rise in annual costs.

The authority has not decided whether the fee will be collected based on plots of land, office units, or individual PCs.

The move comes days after the authority decided to raise the monthly fee by 58p pence to £11.06 from 2005.

Originally posted by Patchy
I grudgingly pay £10 per month for BBC channels that I hardly ever watch, so that I can legally watch the other channels.

Its incredible that in this day and age the law still says we must pay the BBC £10 per month even if we only watch ITV or Sky. The BBC should find some alternative funding... maybe people could be given the option of paying £10 if they want to watch the BBC, but the BBC daren't go down that road because they realise very few people would think it worth paying for!

Incidentally, does anyone know if anybody has ever challenged the British TV licence laws in Europe?

BBC does a lot more than just telly.

But the BBC makes an absolute fortune with BBC Worldwide and the video and DVD sales of their better programmes.

But, i'm looking forward to when the entire BBC back catalogue is on line. I just hope they don't use realplayer.

Originally posted by alchresearch (partial amount quoted)
[B...I just hope they don't use realplayer. [/B]

They always seem to use RealPlayer. I was trying to watch SE Region News one eve, and all I got from it was a blue screen(!) and no news. The Beeb haven't replied to my E-Mail I sent about it.

Alex

I don't mind the adverts but I detest the " Compansation, have you had an acccident "" clear your debts by taking out a loan" how the hell can you do that.
These loan companys need banning on all TV channels and maybe then It may improve its quality.

All you see is grade Z actors and celebs doling out loans, Vordaman, Bryers and other shamefull hasbeens, is that what they have come to.

:mad:
Distastefull.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
BBC does a lot more than just telly.

But it still seems unjust to fund it out of forcing people to buy a TV licence even if they don't watch BBC. Now the BBC have branched into Internet and DVDs etc, should they force people who use the Internet to buy a licence to fund the BBC internet site... even if we don't visit the BBC site? :cool:

I wouldn't mind so much, but they give away all their radio programmes to all and sundry across the world for free!

Originally posted by Patchy
I grudgingly pay £10 per month for BBC channels that I hardly ever watch, so that I can legally watch the other channels.

Its incredible that in this day and age the law still says we must pay the BBC £10 per month even if we only watch ITV or Sky. The BBC should find some alternative funding... maybe people could be given the option of paying £10 if they want to watch the BBC, but the BBC daren't go down that road because they realise very few people would think it worth paying for!

Incidentally, does anyone know if anybody has ever challenged the British TV licence laws in Europe?

Well said! It's now technically possible for the BBC to become a subscriber service just like many of the Sky channels are.

I don't see why we should have to pay for a ny service we don't use.

If everything went pay per view, the only people to make any cash out of me would be Channel 4!:D

I could watch bbc with adverts easily and have 10 pounds a month extra for the mobile :)

Does anyone remember Michael Moore's TV Nation show on BBC2 in the early 90s before he became a famous film-maker? I remember one episode in which he made the shocking revelation to fellow Americans that people in Britain can get sent to prison if they watch Sky without paying extra money to the BBC to fund the BBC's channels.:rant:

To all you who whinge about the licence fee.
Why should I have to pay a 10% premium on EVERYTHING I buy to cover advertising costs when I don't even watch commercial TV.

Long live the Beeb :)

Originally posted by Cols
To all you who whinge about the licence fee.
Why should I have to pay a 10% premium on EVERYTHING I buy to cover advertising costs when I don't even watch commercial TV.


Because a private company has the right to pay for advertising... but you have a choice what company to buy from! When it comes to TV we don't have a choice. If we choose to subscribe to the Sky channels the government forces us to pay the BBC for their TV channels and internet etc even if we are not interested in using their services. If most people shared your view that the BBC are worth £10 per month then the BBC wouldn't have any problem with becoming a subscription service, but I think the BBC realise that most people would rather opt out and watch the ITV or Sky channels if they had the choice!

Originally posted by Patchy
Because a private company has the right to pay for advertising... but you have a choice what company to buy from!
Whatever company I buy from, I will not be able to deduct the cost of TV advertising. I bet you that the supplement I pay for advertising far, far exceeds the £120 per year you pay for the licence.

Originally posted by Cols
Whatever company I buy from, I will not be able to deduct the cost of TV advertising. I bet you that the supplement I pay for advertising far, far exceeds the £120 per year you pay for the licence.

But you have the choice to buy it or not. If I choose to buy a Sky TV package then I should be able to. But I don't think I should be forced to pay an extra £10 per month to the BBC for services which I will never be using. The Sky company is seperate from the BBC company, so I should be able to choose to use one or the other or both.

If you didn't own a TV would you still be happy to pay £10 per month to the BBC if you were to sometimes view the SkyNews website but never go on the BBC website? If you think we should pay the BBC to watch SKY or ITV then logic says you think we should pay the BBC if we use the SKY or ITV websites even if we don't own a TV. And maybe we should pay the BBC £10 per month if we refuse to sign a letter assuring them that we are not going to access the SkyNews or ITV websites, seeing as legally we have to sign a letter telling them whether or not we are watching TV.

Originally posted by Patchy
But you have the choice to buy it or not.

If you didn't own a TV would you still be happy to pay £10 per month

1) I have to clothe and feed myself you know. That involves buying things, and I can't avoid buying things from companies that advertise on commercial TV. You don't want me to starve and walk round naked do you :)

2) I would happily pay £10 a month just for Radio 4.

Come on, there must be other Beeb supporters out there.

Originally posted by Cols
2) I would happily pay £10 a month just for Radio 4.

Me too.

Come on, there must be other Beeb supporters out there.
Hear hear! Long live the Beeb.

--
Sometimes, after an electrical storm, I see in five dimensions.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not against people watching the Beeb if they choose to! But the people who choose to watch it should pay for it. It would be easy enough for the BBC to block their channels to people who don't wish to subscribe, and those of you who want it can pay for it! That seems the fairest way of doing it for people who want choice in which channels to watch!

I watch the BBC sometimes but object to the licence fee because the BBC does already advertise - albeit their own products but they are adverts nevertheless.

Personally I don't mind the adverts as they can give a break so that you have time to get a drink or go to the loo but I do object to being charged to see adverts under the pretence that the BBC doesn't screen adverts when they clearly do.

I would happily pay £10 a month just for Radio 4.

Me three!!

Originally posted by Siân
I would happily pay £10 a month just for Radio 4.

I think we do... :suspect:

It's been hashed out elsewhere. The beeb must be funded independently from advertising if it is not to lose its vital status as a public corporation, but the licence fee is regressive and unpopular (although I dont have a problem with it, its not much).

The licence fee isn't a a payment to watch BBC, but a payment to enable Great Britain to have the farthest reaching, most widely respected and multilingual broad and narrowcasting service in the universe.It has the world largest, and arguably best, website and is seen as a beacon of truth and objectivity in parts of the world where they are very scarce.

Put adverts in and all that is lost.

I would not disagree to an alternative funding of the BBC, as it starts to digitize it's colossal archive and branch out, but to fund it with advertising simply puts the BBC in the pockets of procter & gamble et al.

I happily pay my £5 a month (2 adults in the house) and I barely watch more than 3-4 hours a week. Of course R4 and R3 are on almost constantly. With world service during the wee hours.

British Terrestrial Television is a relatively small percentage of BBC output, your licence fee is keeping the Great in Great Britain, and making sure the "sun never sets" on British Broadcasting - an empire of the airwaves!

Originally posted by wendy
Personally I don't mind the adverts as they can give a break so that you have time to get a drink or go to the loo but I do object to being charged to see adverts under the pretence that the BBC doesn't screen adverts when they clearly do.

You are not being charged to watch television.You are being charged for the privilege of owning a television. It may sound archaic, and it is, but that is how the BBC gets its money. If it came from government directly then the govt could dictate what the BBC shows; if it came from corporate advertising, then the corporations would have their thumb on the windpipe when it came to the survival of any given programme. When the money comes directly from the population, then we decide what ends up on the BBC terrestrial TV and Radio channels.

If you really want a say, you can join the bbc as a governor.

Key difference, if the advertisers (in this case the BBC) pull out then the program still gets shown.

Many a time, especially in the US, where programmes have been axed because the advertsisers/sponsors of the show have disagreed with the content.

Let that happen, and all we will end up watching are extended adverts and product placements anyway - interspersed with ads for the selfsame products.

Long live Auntie.