BBC licence fee poll.
Poll: BBC licence fee poll.
Total Members Polled: 1030
Discussion
turbobloke said:
chrispmartha said:
Nothingtoseehere said:
chrispmartha said:
Precisely, some people are so blinkered by their issue with paying a TV license that they can't get passed that.
The fact is we do have to pay the license in this country, its just one of those things we have to pay you may aswell use the service, as you day Radio 6 and BBC 4 are full of great stuff
You're so blinkered into thinking everybody likes the same as you.The fact is we do have to pay the license in this country, its just one of those things we have to pay you may aswell use the service, as you day Radio 6 and BBC 4 are full of great stuff
I have no interest in R6 or bbc4 and as for that series.... No thanks.
People who want to watch BBC output should pay for it,. Those who don't want to watch any of it should not have to pay. Arguing the toss over bits and pieces of content should be a matter only for those who want to watch BBC programming, i.e. whether they should have to pay for the lot regardless of what they would choose to view, or only the bits they like and would want to watch. For others it should be a moot point as they ought not to be funding something they don't use, i.e. watch, in any way. The other non-BBC element (10% approx) of the licence fee could still be paid so they/we can watch other live broadcasts.
My take on it is we are all better off for having the BBC paid from our broadcast license, you clearly disagree, unfortunately for you it looks like we have at least 10 years of this being the case.
anyway you've never answeted this simle yes/no question, do you have a TV license?
Sky is currently running ads on cable for individual sports channels so you pay for the sport(s) you want to watch and not others that you don't watch.
What a shockingly reasonable principle that could be applied to the BBC's entire output as well as parts of it.
Want to watch = pay, don't watch = don't pay...and in the process don't subsidise selfish types who are happy to sit back and soak up the propaganda which is part-paid by others within a captive client base.
What a shockingly reasonable principle that could be applied to the BBC's entire output as well as parts of it.
Want to watch = pay, don't watch = don't pay...and in the process don't subsidise selfish types who are happy to sit back and soak up the propaganda which is part-paid by others within a captive client base.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/141570-10-new-sky-...
"Sky customers themselves can opt for just one, two or three of the channels to reduce the monthly cost."
Even better, if sport on Sky isn't your thing and you don't watch any of the new dedicated channels, you don't pay anything. That sure 'reduces the cost'. WakeTFU beeb/gov't.
"Sky customers themselves can opt for just one, two or three of the channels to reduce the monthly cost."
Even better, if sport on Sky isn't your thing and you don't watch any of the new dedicated channels, you don't pay anything. That sure 'reduces the cost'. WakeTFU beeb/gov't.
turbobloke said:
Sky is currently running ads on cable for individual sports channels so you pay for the sport(s) you want to watch and not others that you don't watch.
What a shockingly reasonable principle that could be applied to the BBC's entire output as well as parts of it.
Want to watch = pay, don't watch = don't pay...and in the process don't subsidise selfish types who are happy to sit back and soak up the propaganda which is part-paid by others within a captive client base.
Propoganda - you see your paranoia is clouding your view.What a shockingly reasonable principle that could be applied to the BBC's entire output as well as parts of it.
Want to watch = pay, don't watch = don't pay...and in the process don't subsidise selfish types who are happy to sit back and soak up the propaganda which is part-paid by others within a captive client base.
Sky, reasonable :-) the new sports structure is good as it means I can save a bit of money as I don't watch football (Rugby League is my game) however I am under non illusions that even if i'm not paying for sky premiership the fee i pay is still contributing to the ridiculous amount of money that goes into football.
Tv license yes or no?
turbobloke said:
People who want to watch BBC output should pay for it.
I'm cool with that.Should the licence fee be scrapped, I'd still pay the equivalent cost per month to listen R3 as a "chillout" tax (except when they broadcast some of Arnold Schoenberg's offerings, upon which I'll ask for a refund)
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
chrispmartha said:
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
It's totally absurd. I've not had a TV license for around 18 months , quite simply because I found myself watching little or nothing on live channels, a couple of hours a week, if that. From memory , I think Robot Wars was the last thing I watched on the BBC . The penny dropped that everything that I was watching and worth watching, was streamed online. Thats how its stayed.
Fact is though, if I became aware of the odd programme airing on any channel , I'd not be able to watch it under threat of sanction, that, is f
king ridiculous. The "license" should be scrapped and a form of PPV or subscription model introduced, freedom of choice, and no more endless letters , threatening a "case" being opened , and indeed, visits from goons who want to enter your home. Time the BBC was funded by modern options,choices, etc, not outmoded authoritarian enforcement.
Randy Winkman said:
Cold said:
If the BBC'S output is as wonderful as some claim then surely they'll have no trouble in attracting advertisers.
They wouldn't. So?Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
It's totally absurd. I've not had a TV license for around 18 months , quite simply because I found myself watching little or nothing on live channels, a couple of hours a week, if that. From memory , I think Robot Wars was the last thing I watched on the BBC . The penny dropped that everything that I was watching and worth watching, was streamed online. Thats how its stayed.
Fact is though, if I became aware of the odd programme airing on any channel , I'd not be able to watch it under threat of sanction, that, is f
king ridiculous. The "license" should be scrapped and a form of PPV or subscription model introduced, freedom of choice, and no more endless letters , threatening a "case" being opened , and indeed, visits from goons who want to enter your home. Time the BBC was funded by modern options,choices, etc, not outmoded authoritarian enforcement.
It's amazing that the issue of paying a licence fee was such a non-issue for so many years. It's almost as if a foreign media-mogul billionaire had spent the last 25-30 years utilising the reach of his print media to attack the main competitor for his broadcast empire. Imagine that. Outrageous eh? And it's almost as if we've reached the point where this billionaire media-mogul has got so many people so convinced that the BBC is evil that they willingly promote his company as some sort of 'fair' deal compared with the BBC. Incredible.
Somebody once asked me, on the MASSIVE other BBC-bashing thread, if I worked for the beeb (I don't). Maybe I should start asking whether some posters work for Murdoch?
Somebody once asked me, on the MASSIVE other BBC-bashing thread, if I worked for the beeb (I don't). Maybe I should start asking whether some posters work for Murdoch?
chrispmartha said:
Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
It's totally absurd. I've not had a TV license for around 18 months , quite simply because I found myself watching little or nothing on live channels, a couple of hours a week, if that. From memory , I think Robot Wars was the last thing I watched on the BBC . The penny dropped that everything that I was watching and worth watching, was streamed online. Thats how its stayed.
Fact is though, if I became aware of the odd programme airing on any channel , I'd not be able to watch it under threat of sanction, that, is f
king ridiculous. The "license" should be scrapped and a form of PPV or subscription model introduced, freedom of choice, and no more endless letters , threatening a "case" being opened , and indeed, visits from goons who want to enter your home. Time the BBC was funded by modern options,choices, etc, not outmoded authoritarian enforcement.
There is little doubt that under PPV or subs, there would be some BBC content I'd watch and be prepared to pay for, but from past experience, very sparse, and most definitely not worth £145 per annum.
Nothingtoseehere said:
Who said the BBC is evil?
There's quite a big thread running on its (perceived) lefty bias. Nothingtoseehere said:
Don't watch it,don't want to pay for it,not that complicated is it?
You pay the fee to receive live broadcasts. If you don't want to watch live TV, don't pay it. Not that complicated, is it?Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
It's totally absurd. I've not had a TV license for around 18 months , quite simply because I found myself watching little or nothing on live channels, a couple of hours a week, if that. From memory , I think Robot Wars was the last thing I watched on the BBC . The penny dropped that everything that I was watching and worth watching, was streamed online. Thats how its stayed.
Fact is though, if I became aware of the odd programme airing on any channel , I'd not be able to watch it under threat of sanction, that, is f
king ridiculous. The "license" should be scrapped and a form of PPV or subscription model introduced, freedom of choice, and no more endless letters , threatening a "case" being opened , and indeed, visits from goons who want to enter your home. Time the BBC was funded by modern options,choices, etc, not outmoded authoritarian enforcement.
There is little doubt that under PPV or subs, there would be some BBC content I'd watch and be prepared to pay for, but from past experience, very sparse, and most definitely not worth £145 per annum.
chrispmartha said:
Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Hosenbugler said:
chrispmartha said:
Cotty said:
chrispmartha said:
turbobloke said:
Don't watch should mean don't pay. Simple as.
Not really how it works unfortunately for you, not even at Sky, theres many things on there I don't watch but still pay for.Do you have a tv license?
But if you do watch live tv you do need a license, just like many other countries in the world, the bonus for us in the UK is we actually get a world renowned and respected state broadcaster in return, unlike the other countries with a broadcast license
It's totally absurd. I've not had a TV license for around 18 months , quite simply because I found myself watching little or nothing on live channels, a couple of hours a week, if that. From memory , I think Robot Wars was the last thing I watched on the BBC . The penny dropped that everything that I was watching and worth watching, was streamed online. Thats how its stayed.
Fact is though, if I became aware of the odd programme airing on any channel , I'd not be able to watch it under threat of sanction, that, is f
king ridiculous. The "license" should be scrapped and a form of PPV or subscription model introduced, freedom of choice, and no more endless letters , threatening a "case" being opened , and indeed, visits from goons who want to enter your home. Time the BBC was funded by modern options,choices, etc, not outmoded authoritarian enforcement.
There is little doubt that under PPV or subs, there would be some BBC content I'd watch and be prepared to pay for, but from past experience, very sparse, and most definitely not worth £145 per annum.
As already said, I don't watch live TV because I watched very, very litlle of it. So as for £145 per annum, for something I rarely/don't watch , nope, not at all.Utter waste of money. No different to buying £145 of food a year you know you'll not eat,just a waste.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff