If so many people support the Licence Fee...

When you consider the licence fee is a cost usually per household - not per person - perhaps you should consider it even better value.

In another context, my mobile phone operator today offered me more than £12 a month off the monthly line rental to continue my contract with them - double the contribution I put towards the household's tv licence.

It's very simple. In order to own this particular piece of broadcasting receiving equipment, you must have a licence to posess it. The fees gathered from this licence go towards the broadcasting of public access services to that piece of equipment. The whole industry of televisual broadcast is regulated - independently.

The argument regarding the license fee is not as cut-and-thrust about paying for a couple of TV channels you may or may not watch. Your £140-odd a year (per household remember - not per person) pays for radio, internet, disabled, language, community learning, and more bits and bobs. One has only to look at the overcrowded ratings-chasing misery that is the USA television market, slick and shiny as it may be.

As for BBC programming itself, I for one would never trade 55 minutes of uninterrupted television for 20 minutes of advertising per hour. Nor would I trade advert-free Radio and the music sport and comedy you get on Radio 2, 3, 5 and 7 that you just wouldn't get on commercial radio. Nor would I trade BBC's website, free of adverts, for something laden with flash elements desperately trying to sell me something.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Read the following link and try and make an objective view. Sky's great in its own way, but I'd prefer not to have my public services run by Rupert Murdoch.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/research/public_service_broadcasting.pdf

Well, let you carry on paying it then. Like I said, I wouldn't pay for ITV or Sky if I didn't want to, so makes the BBC any different. Outdated policys. So very dated.

OK

you're paying for ITV every time you buy a box of cereal, pay for home insurance and spend money with the numerous companies who pay huge amounts to advertise on commercial tv.

i'd be interested to know exactly what it is you love to watch on sky - because when you remove the bbc and uktv portfolio of channels, you're not left with an awful lot, aside from imported american stuff.

I agree. I don't really see why you'd subscribe to any packages unless you're big into you movies and football.

If it movies people want they would get a much better deal renting DVD's from Lovefilm (or other leading rental specialists) than they would subscribing to Sky.

It is tue that Sky doesn't really offer nearly half as much as they make out. What really bothers me is on Sky you can pay up to £43.50 a month and still have to watch hords of adverts between films/sporting events!

But the money that funds the BBC would never go towards those things, it's not a case of one or the other.

Some would say that culture is just as important as education. A situation whereby the poor only have access to a diet of cheap American programming would be disastrous. Having a radio system consisting purely of the type of commercial radio stations that currently exist would also be a sad loss... because that is what you'd get - you can forget the sort of programming that Radios 1-7 put out, it would be Heart FM all the way... how depressing an idea

I'd be interested too. I'm not particularly interested in sport or movies and have cable and have only fairly recently got access to Sky and apart from Sky News (which I watch anyway as part of my job but quite like anyway) I can't remember the last 'Sky' thing I watched.

Skyfan - what is so good about what Sky churn out?

Even though I cancelled my Sky subscription a couple of years ago, I'm still paying for Sky... In the same way that I'm paying for five, Channel 4, and every other commercial television channel. Those companies who advertise their products of television pass that cost on to me, the consumer. I'm not happy about that, in the same way you are not happy about paying the licence fee... but there is no feasible way for me to opt out of that either.

Skyfan... Never mind you being forced to pay £140-ish for 8 BBC TV Channels (plus 2 or 3 Red Button feeds), 10 pan-UK radio stations plus your local BBC Radio station and bbc.co.uk... (can you honestly say you don't use any of those services?)... you are also being forced to pay for ITV, Channel 4 and five... whether you like it or not.

Sky is being very clever; it has managed to persuade you to pay twice. You are paying Sky a subscription for the privilege of watching the adverts which you've already paid for by purchasing those products.

It's public service broadcasting, so we all pay a little and we all benefit. The BBC does so much more than the commercial broadcasters, and Sky.

+ News that's independent of commercial pressures.
+ Educational road shows around the UK (Bang goes the theory, See me on CBBC, Me and my movie).
+ Niche radio services which couldn't survive commercially but serve the community.
+ Development and investment in new broadcast technologies (HD, the new reflective CSO, new keying and tracking technologies as in the forthcoming return of Bamzooki).
+ Quality sports coverage including analysis during half time.
+ Worthwhile interactive 'red button' content such as additional sports analysis or alternative commentaries.
+ A website offering services such as help learning a new language, school tips and revision advice for teens, and indeed the news (which ITV have axed from their site as they can't afford it).
+ Subsidised music events like the BBC proms.
+ Quality children's programmes rather than just sitcoms and cartoons (Newsround, Sportsround, Blue Peter, Excellent Inventions), including programmes for an age group which ITV cannot afford to serve.
+ Programmes for minority groups otherwise uncatered for, such as 'See Hear'.

That's the tip of the iceberg.

Very well said. I'm amazed at the number of people who think ITV is "free". Whether you own a TV or not you are paying for it whenever you buy a product that is advertised commercially. Similarly you are paying for a portion of Sky when you buy a product advertised on their channels, even if you don't subscribe to it and can't watch their channels.