Coming soon to Virgin TV (2012) Vol. 1

[Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

The Broadcaster to challenge Sky woyld be the BBC if it had more money

As a publicly funded broadcaster the BBC can never do this.

ITV would be the more obvious choice, but of course they tried (and spectacularly failed) to do it 10 years ago, and probably have little appetite (or cash) for a repeat performance now.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

POT CALLING KETTLE springs to mind here Den

Well l never Master.

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by Gunslinger

As a publicly funded broadcaster the BBC can never do this.

ITV would be the more obvious choice, but of course they tried (and spectacularly failed) to do it 10 years ago, and probably have little appetite (or cash) for a repeat performance now.

If it had a much bigger licence fee (also more widely applied) It can be done!

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by Alan Fry

If it had a much bigger licence fee (also more widely applied) It can be done!

I barely watch any BBC shows and dont want to pay any TV license let alone have it increase.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I barely watch any BBC shows and dont want to pay any TV license let alone have it increase.

I feel the same way. Always felt the BBC should become a subsription service relying on people to `opt` in rather than being force to `subsribe` to them.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

I feel the same way. Always felt the BBC should become a subsription service relying on people to `opt` in rather than being force to `subsribe` to them.

Yes l have to agree but for the forseeable future BBC's model will remain the same and unless someone is brave and prepared to take the bull by the horns then we are stuck with the license fee model.

[richard1960]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

I barely watch any BBC shows and dont want to pay any TV license let alone have it increase.

The thing is muppetman a lot of ex BBC shows appear on uk Gold,Watch, and Alibi all produced using the licence fee i would think many who watch satellite TV not on here but the general public, probably do not equate the licence fee to what they watch via satellite/cable their TV choice would be dimished if not for the licence fee.

I for one think the licence fee is worth every penny mate out of personal choice i prefer BBC news 24 to sky news as its less showbuisiness and celebrity based for one.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by denphone

Yes l have to agree but for the forseeable future BBC's model will remain the same and unless someone is brave and prepared to take the bull by the horns then we are stuck with the license fee model.

Yes it will take a brave person to challenge the BBC over this unfair `t.v tax`

[richard1960]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

I feel the same way. Always felt the BBC should become a subsription service relying on people to `opt` in rather than being force to `subsribe` to them.

The TV choice would dimmish for the worst in my view if that were to happen by all chipping in together for the licence fee more can be made available to everybody rather then a subscription opt in,i think £145.50 a year is very good value for what we get.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by richard1960

The TV choice would dimmish for the worst in my view if that were to happen by all chipping in together for the licence fee more can be made available to everybody rather then a subscription opt in,i think £145.50 a year is very good value for what we get.

Couldn't disagree more but each to their own

[richard1960]

Originally Posted by muppetman11

Couldn't disagree more but each to their own

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one mate.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by richard1960

The thing is muppetman a lot of ex BBC shows appear on uk Gold,Watch, and Alibi all produced using the licence fee i would think many who watch satellite TV not on here but the general public, probably do not equate the licence fee to what they watch via satellite/cable their TV choice would be dimished if not for the licence fee.

I for one think the licence fee is worth every penny mate out of personal choice i prefer BBC news 24 to sky news as its less showbuisiness and celebrity based for one.

I agree the BBC do make some good programs but as for good value for money that`s an opinion,one I personally don`t share. My argument is simple,you should`nt have to pay for something you might not want. If you want sky or virgin you give them a call and aranged a subscription to them BUT with the BBC you HAVE to `subscribe` to them even if you only want to watch pay tv from sky or virgin,or simply only want to watch the free commercial channels. I object to that and I know many,many others do too.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by richard1960

The TV choice would dimmish for the worst in my view if that were to happen by all chipping in together for the licence fee more can be made available to everybody rather then a subscription opt in,i think £145.50 a year is very good value for what we get.

So everyone should chip in to fund the BBC even if they don`t want it? By that argument everyone should chip in to pay my sky subs so sky can provide a better service. I would opt out of BBC channels if the choice was there,saving me £145.00 a year!

[richard1960]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

I agree the BBC do make some good programs but as for good value for money that`s an opinion,one I personally don`t share. My argument is simple,you should`nt have to pay for something you might not want. If you want sky or virgin you give them a call and aranged a subscription to them BUT with the BBC you HAVE to `subscribe` to them even if you only want to watch pay tv from sky or virgin,or simply only want to watch the free commercial channels. I object to that and I know many,many others do too.

Do you watch any BBC tv shows you try getting a subscrption to sky for £145.50 a year.! The only reason they do it at that price is because evrybody contributes i love seeing shows or news without adverts stuffed in every 10 mins and the range of programmes is also there from politics to drama.

And whilst BBC is cutting down on live sport on its channels BBC radio five live is covering more sport on the radio airwaves for those that cannot afford satellite/cable subs.

I still stick with my point its very good value,even Mr Murdoch has said the BBC should do what it does best produce good quality shows in the past,i suppose thats to give him something to show on his satellite channels.

---------- Post added at 16:01 ---------- Previous post was at 15:55 ----------

Originally Posted by telegramsam

So everyone should chip in to fund the BBC even if they don`t want it? By that argument everyone should chip in to pay my sky subs so sky can provide a better service. I would opt out of BBC channels if the choice was there,saving me £145.00 a year!

I do not want my taxes to subsidise rail travel as i do not use the railways!but i realise there is a greater good to be had so i do not mind chipping in,sky as is virgin media a private company so would not want to see my licence fee going to them.

Also the BBC is funding the digital switch over for those that cannot affrod it out of the licnece fee as i said its for the greater good.

Mind you sky already gets money from the BBC to carry their channels so in an indirect way sky is getting some of the licence fee.

[muppetman11]

Originally Posted by richard1960

Do you watch any BBC tv shows

Not really hence my reluctance to pay it.

Originally Posted by richard1960

you try getting a subscrption to sky for £145.50 a year.!

I'd rather have the £145.50 a year off my Sky sub

Originally Posted by richard1960

The only reason they do it at that price is because evrybody contributes

If only they did Richard