I completly disagree with the principle of having to pay for the BBC to receive ITV, C4, five etc - especially in the digital age with more free channels available - though of course some of the licence fee goes into funding Freeview.
And as for the argument re: advertising - it's about choice. You choose to buy a product that chooses to advertise on TV - often because you've seen it on TV. The same argument could apply with Newspapers, but you don't have to pay for The Times to read The Mirror.
At the moment the BBC isn't worth the money - the only thing that makes the BBC worthwhile is coverage of events such as the Olympics.
Programming wise I can't actually recall the last programme I watched on the BBC, while it's commercial rivals provide news services to rival the BBC - and as for Radio - they spend so much time advertising themselves I'd rather see it become a commercial operation.
My main objection though is everytime the BBC makes savings they are not passed onto the licence payers. Commercial rivals run on smaller budgets than the BBC - and I can't say I'm spotting the added investment on screen.
I don't think a BBC funded through advertising would benefit TV as a whole - remember axing the licence fee would have major impacts on commercial rivals - but a subscription service, with additional funding through sponsorship - would be a better solution.
Why would you see the 'added investment on screen'? As you proudly proclaimed not two paragraphs before, you can't remember the last programme you watched on the BBC. I do declare you are a poor judge, sir.
Personally I don't think the BBC is worth the money, as there is simply very little I actually like. Though saying this doesn't mean I'm against the Licence Fee, the best way to fund the BBC IMO, it would be ruined if it had commercials, if it was Subscription based it would probably lose alot of money and overall a decline in programming could occur. But remember there is nothing else like the BBC in this land really, we need it.
It's just there's alot of crap on it right now. We were doing about this in Media Studies the other day, as we were looking at how the licence fee is spent, on average from the £9.80something per month, at least a third of that goes on BBC One, which I don't think is worth it IMO, then £1something goes on BBC Two etc etc. Though spending for Nations and Regions is done seperately, which IMO is worth it, the BBC provies an excellent regional service on TV, Radio and through bbc.co.uk, more in-depth and reliable than ITV.
The Licence Fee should be optional, as I know many people who don't believe the BBC is worth the money, or people who think that Sky offers a more value for money service, which at times is quite right, as it offers more choice for the money you pay. Also remember that Freeview was created by Greg Dyke in order to safeguard the Licence Fee, as the current array of Freeview boxes available cannot decrypt Pay TV signals.
As for Channel 4 wanting Tax money, I would welcome such a move if it started to become finacially unviable, but I cannot see that happening really, as Channel 4 for a non-profit organisation has made alot of money in recent years and has seen it's audience rather steadily, which for a Terrestrial channel is good.
As long as Channel 4 can get 10% on average, they're doing good, that's how it has been for a number of years, where as ten years ago ITV's audience was nearly 50% on average, nowadays IIRC it's about 23%. C4's audience will probably remain rather steadily as it can churn out alot of good programming and at times some rather groundbreaking stuff too. Also remember that Channel 4 want to remain committed to Public Service Broadcasting.
Educational programmes, for a start, which would teach muppets like you how to spell.
Since when has this been a GRAMMA FORUM? Or is it just that you are complete nerds, and have nothing better to do?
GRAMMA??? Nice. Ironic and nice.
Back to the point, the licence costs you around 33p per day. Because you only have to have one per household, it probably works out at even less than that for most people.
And what do you get for your money? Well, you get BBC One, BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, BBC Parliament, CBBC, CBeebies and a wealth of BBC Radio Stations. Then there's the regional TV services (which are widely regarded as being far superior to ITV's dwindling regional services in most regions) and the local Radio Stations. Oh yes, and the BBC "Where I Live" websites, indeed the whole of the BBC's website.
And I haven't even mentioned the whole of the BBC News operation that you can access as much of as you want every single day.
And all for 33p. Less than the price of a Mars Bar. Sounds like a bargain to me.
As for the argument about the BBC's programmes not being worth the money. As far as I'm concerned, the BBC still makes a number of programmes that are superior to those of other broadcasters. The Panorama programme investigating the effects of sexual abuse on people who go on to become criminals last Sunday was the most engaging documentary I've seen for a long time. Little Britain is hilarious, groundbreaking comedy, that was given a chance to grow and evolve through being on BBC3, a channel which embraces new ideas.
Would any commercially-funded broadcaster launch a channel like BBC Parliament? Of course not, it wouldn't get enough viewers. But there are some people who watch it, and it is only through the licence fee that they are able to do this - in any other situations market forces would force any such channel out of existance. And what about the many programmes on ITV which have been axed mid-series due to poor ratings. Commercial broadcasters have to make decisions based purely upon ratings. Public service broadcasters do just that - they serve the public who watch their programmes, regardless of how small that number of people might be.
What about programmes like Countryfile? Or Working Lunch? Or the regional Inside Out programmes? Where are the equivalent programmes on ITV? And compare the BBC's Weather provision with that of ITV - maybe the weather forecast doesn't get massive viewing figures, but for those whose livelihoods are reliant upon the weather just imagine if the 20 second ITV forecasts were the only ones available. The BBC provides a unique service there too.
Now i know i'm going to get shot down for saying this but, The licence fee is not Fair.
I know of a lot of people who do NOT watch anything from the bbc yet still have to fund them. they have no choice in the matter and that's just not right.
With sky you subscribe. and it's your choice if you do that or not. surly it would be better for the public if the Beeb were to become a subscription only service giving the country a choice.
Now i know i'm going to get shot down for saying this but, The licence fee is not Fair.
I know of a lot of people who do NOT watch anything from the bbc yet still have to fund them. they have no choice in the matter and that's just not right.
With sky you subscribe. and it's your choice if you do that or not. surly it would be better for the public if the Beeb were to become a subscription only service giving the country a choice.
Well take one good look at BBC Prime, and you'll want to pay the licence fee forever!
Since when has this been a GRAMMA FORUM? Or is it just that you are complete nerds, and have nothing better to do?
As knowledge of pure maths is required to express oneself in physics, knowledge of English grammar is required to express onself in writing.
So, theoretical knowledge is required before actual knowledge can be expressed.
An extension of your comment would be to state that no knowledge of grammar is required to express onself. If that was true, then deciphering any form of communication would firstly require discovering the individual's personal style of grammar and then comprehending what was written or alternatively guessing in real-time the syntax used. Doing either of the above would require much more time so would result in the world being less productive. So, a standard grammar serves the purpose of providing a standard way to order sentences; thus removing the additional overhead of deciphering differing grammars for each individual.
Incidentally, this helps to explain why people deviating from standard grammar often earn less money and have less social status than those using standard grammar. Namely, because as standard grammar is increasingly deviated from, more time is spent decoding and encoding into the individuals obscure form of grammar and thus less time is spent being productive.
I hope the above explains why using standard grammar is important.
They should scrap the TV Liscence and put Adverts on the BBC. Problem sloved once and for all
But then they would be constrained to commercial pressures like all the other broadcasters and you could wave goodbye to all their decent programmes and channels
They should scrap the TV Liscence and put Adverts on the BBC. Problem sloved once and for all
Where is all of the extra money going to come from. Just because the BBC forced to take adverts isn't going to get advertisers to double their budgets, meaning a huge income fall for all broadcasters.
As said before the BBC do provide a fantastic service. Even if you do not use any BBC services you still benefit - through infrastructure, increased income for other services, and a "standard" for content and delivery.
Simple and most effective form of raising revenue. As mentioned before could I have a refund on 5 pence of the loaf of bread I bought earlier as it was the only once left on the shelf and my purchase was in no way relecting the influence of advertising?