BBC and The TV Licence

The license fee is the thing that makes the service (amongst all broadcasters) so good.

If you take the license fee and use advertising:

Advertisers will have a say on BBC T.V. Programmes making it more commercially aware.
ITV News channel was scrapped (wasn't profitable). Advertisers wouldn't like 'BBC News 24'
Channel Three, Four, Five wouldn't have to keep their programmes up to the funded 'BBC's any more.
Their advertisers wouldn't need such good programmes, for viewers to watch.
Things spiral out of control.

If they choose subscription:

People choose not to pay subscription (license), in favour of other's coverage (somebody enjoying quality soaps, quality forced by 'BBC's good example)
BBC cannot retain their quality. If twenty percent stop paying, then the quality will be eighty percent of what it was.
Commercial broadcaster no longer needs to hold on to dominance by quality anymore.
Advertisers will force the channels to use cheapest programming. Lowering the quality:profit ratio.

To prove I like commercial broadcasters:

If there weren't commercial broadcasters, and there was a 'BBC' monopoly, then the BBC wouldn't need to keep their service as good as they do now. They'd be nothing to compare to. The comercial broadcasters keep their quality up because they have made the 'BBC' so good.

I think television is like an eco-system. Don't chop the trees down, or try to introduce more animals (this doesn't mean channels, introducing changes in regulations)

Look what the allowing of taking over other 'ITV' stations has caused.

Even if you don't use the 'BBC', your licence fee goes towards the maintance of the quality programmes that are on the other brilliant networks.
N.B. The above isn't statistical fact. These are my opinion which I figured out myself.

Not to mention that even the cheapest Sky subscription package is considerably more expensive than the licence fee. If your financial situation were that screwed up then you'd be better off with neither!

The Licence fee might be seen as an out-of-date and pointless tax but if you break it down into what it actually goes on, it suddenly looks very attractive.

Every time this issue comes up, the point is made of why should we pay £127 a year "to watch the BBC". No other mention is made by the person who starts the debate of the other areas of the BBC until somebody points it out halfway down page 2, which is then usually subequently ignored by the originator of the debate.

£126.50 breaks down to 34p a day. For 34p a day, you pay for eight BBC Channels, Ceefax, digital text, ten national radio stations, 40 local radio stations in England alone, and the BBC website. This alone works out to half a penny per service per day. Now that is great value.

Compared to Sky which starts from £510 a year (full package, all channels) and £1.39 a day, runs about 25 channels roughly and only breaks down to 5p per Sky channel per day.

You pay for all these services - but I hardly use any of them! And radio stations and the BBC website can be accessed by anyone who doesn't pay for them either!

If the british public were given a referendum on it, Would be about 60/40 % result but I think I know which way.


The BBC is like a 68 year old still breast feeding, time to slap it in face and let stand on its on two feet and fend for itself, and the people who talk about SKY. Sky arn't forcing you to fund for their services just becuase you've bought a TV set

Let's put it this way - the British public see it as a tax - so what is the SKY subscripton (nothing but a TAX from a private company).

If there was a referendum the public would vote against the lience, but they would soon want it back once the BBC started to dumb down, iintroduce commercials, and just create programmes to chase viewers. It would create a TV system very akin to the US and some European countries (think were RTL is based!)

British television is very unique and popular and good. It is through these qualities that the rest of the world envy us. How much would they pay for a decent television network like we have got?

Most popular shows would easily survive, Eastenders, Little Britain would find sponors and people to advertise in ... a matter of seconds


anyway 8 times out of 10, the adverts are better than the programes

Sky have forced most people I know to subscribe, not for the stack of crappy US imports and repeats (of mainly BBC shows) on the platform, but by more-or-less monopolising the screening of football, cricket and rugby matches over the past 15 years or so. Most of the "thinking" people I know reluctantly subscribe to Sky for the sport only, they don't want to line Murdoch's pockets further.

Well if BBC became commercial it would turn into UKTV

Jesus is me or is everyone in the world now left wing wackos

I doubt Little Britain would ever have been commisioned by a commercial station.

Go back to watching Bewitched... and adverts.

The BBC OWN!!!!!!! UKTV ... oops ive let the cat out the bag .. they own channel 4 aswell you know