BBC funding

Maybe so, but if they said the bomb is dropping, I doubt anyone would take it as a joke.

You may say The Telegraph and The Sun are very different in format and style. But they can still tell people the same stories. Doesn't mean one newspaper is any worse, just different.

Child starts to lose argument. Child begins throwing things out of pram. Child hit round the head with spare Thomas the Tank Engine book and told to shut up and go back to sleep.

No one tells me what to say. Would you let someone tell you what to say.

Well it is a forum for people's opinions, whether they pay the fee or not I'd say.

Dodge the bullets and the rude people and you can sometimes have a decent debate.

Opinions regarding value for money are worthless when there is no common frame of reference. How can I be persuaded that the "TV TAX is unfair" when the member neither pays it, nor in all likelyhood pays the significantly higher Sky subscriptions either?

It is IRRELEVANT if Skyonefan doesn't watch the BBC as I would conclude that his parents probably do. I also find it highly dubious that he hasn't browsed the BBC websites he claims never to go near.



I suppose that you were referring to me there; but I'm not overly concerned. I pay my licence as well as a subscription to telewest and my shopping bill which covers ITV, so I figure I am entitled to speak of the relative value for money

I go to sky.com for news and not do use BBC site why do you think I do.

I mean the forum in general, its possibly one of the bitchiest I've even been on, but most of the time dispite that its quite fun. And I wasn't being too serious with that comment!

But everyone has an opinion, whether they use the services or not. I mean we all know people who do or who don't so opinions can be taken from that too. And In his case, I suppose he may be including what his licence fee paying parents think.

Anyway I am sort of in the middle on this as I've said I see a reason for a fee, but I don't see why the BBC can't be commercial too. I would hardly say EastEnders or the 100s of other none public service programmes deserve licence funding.

When TV channels start webcasting BBC can ask for a PC Licence to use BBC. But they should not ask for it to watch say SKY one and ITV 1.
How about that.

ok, for one minute lets ignore the fact you are called "S-k-y-o-n-e-f-a-n" [oh please ] and lets pretend you are on the same intellectual level as the rest of us.

so you think the "tv tax" is unfair. you haven't discussed the alternatives or even qualified why you think it is unfair and how an alternative would improve the situation. ok, so lets look at the options ...

adverts ... if the nations largest broadcaster were to enter the advertising market with a channel portfolio that pretty much covers every demographic, commands huge audiences and dwarfs channel 4 and 5, never mind the digital channels what would happen? do you think the already fledgling advertising market would be improved by allowing advertisers to spread their budgets over even more channels? would this be good for existing channels like itv, channel 4 or anyone else?

subscription ... with public service broadcasting [in the true sense of the word, not the watered down itv plc/ofcom interpretation] commitments on commercial channels slowly receding, do you not think there is a strong case for the bbc to continue to provide high quality regional news, current affairs, national news, local radio, ceefax, online et al.? would bskyb, telewest, ntl, flextech or any other subscription tv provider be happy about the corporation marketing its channels in direct competition with them? a corporation which has existed for 80 something years, a corporation which is ingrained in everyones psyche, a brand that people throughout the country and the world immediately trust and identify with?

i think not. a fact demonstrated by the way bskyb opposed the bbc;'s plan to have a 2 tier licence fee some years ago - one for those with digital, and a lower one for those without. bskyb are happy with their near-monopoly in subscription television.

The Government has always run scared of anything approaching the concept of a digital tax, the reason being that the UK has (historically) lagged behind competing western economies in taking the ecomonic advantages of new technology.

This may have changed, as the availability and popularity of broadbnand (and Euro zone recession) has accelarated our domestic take-up of IT beyond certainly Germany (not sure where the UK is relative to France though)

Were the Treasuary to take the view that some form of levy on consumer subscription services, be it broadband or digital TV, would be tenable in not hampering the take-up of economically positive services, then a specific levy designed to fund the BBC and other socially desirable non-commercial media activities becomes a goer.

Trouble is a two-fold problem (1) that a government's definition of socially desirable non-commercial is going to be contentious. (2) The BBC seems incapable of bringing its core costs under control. If these two could be sorted, could it not be possible to fund non-commercial broadcasting from a levies derived elswhere within the broadcasting and consumer telecommunications economies?

Say a tax on TV subscription, and the proceeds of licencing fees from commercial broadcasters plus a levy on domestic broadband. If that raised £bn1.5 to £bn2, then could the BBC make do with that?

You think you are more intellectual as you watch BBC .
BBC is not the be all of UK TV you know there are lots of good tv out there you know.I am not anit BBC,But anit TV Tax,

All I like on BBC is Dr Who My Family & My Hero, If I ve only watch 3 shows on SKY it would not pay for it any more.But you alway have to have the BBC that is not right.

where does it say in my post that i watch the bbc?