£2.78 a week seems rather good value to me. What's a basic Sky package these days? £21.50?
Those calling loudest for scrapping the licence fee are those who stand to gain most from its demise.
That gain will be at viewers' and listeners' expense.
The B.B.C. Page 2
Maybe the option to opt out and have BBC scrambled might be something to consider? Then you would see a lot of people realising that they miss a lot that BBC contributes outside of what you see on BBC 1 and 2.
I personally don't find the Licence Fee too expensive for the benefits it brings. I agree about spending £££s on inane sports commentary and to facilitate rubbish quizzes such as The National Lottery. I found an episode of 'Toast of London' where the BBC Centre had moved to a portakabin somewhere remote to be particularly amusing and incredibly poignant.
I could ramble on about Government and Media Policy, but I really won't.
Quote: Tursiops @ 1st March 2015, 11:31 AM GMT£2.78 a week seems rather good value to me.
And then divide that by 7. And think how much you watch in a day. We watch News at 10, then Scotland 2015, then Newsnight, over 5 days. Nearly 2 hours ( and 3 people watching). That's before you count any other programmes we might watch.
I think the licence fee is great and of course apart from the TV stations it covers the radio too.
But we all know there is too much waste. Apart from the sports programmes why do they need a presenter/disc jockey as well as someone to do the news, and different people to do the weather and the traffic - as well as - for instance - those idiots with Steve Wright.
In what way are the sports programmes "waste" out of interest?
They draw some very healthy viewing figures, and IMO are part of the remit of a public service broadcaster to provide some free-to-air sports coverage.
Quote: AndyGilder @ 2nd March 2015, 9:42 PM GMTIn what way are the sports programmes "waste" out of interest?
They draw some very healthy viewing figures, and IMO are part of the remit of a public service broadcaster to provide some free-to-air sports coverage.
As mentioned before on the radio why do they need 2 commentators who take over from each other after about 20 minutes in each half and most of the punditry is a waste of time. I'd much rather see the action than 3 ex-pros pontificating.
Are the retro dots in the heading done on purpose?
They're called "Initials" so full stops are compulsory.
That's an antiquated attitude, Chappers. It's usually written out "BBC" nowadays.
Well I am antiquated - and correct.
Yes, but it's not compulsory as suggested.
Quote: Paul Wimsett @ 3rd March 2015, 8:02 AM GMTThat's an antiquated attitude, Chappers. It's usually written out "BBC" nowadays.
I've always wondered why the BBC and other UK news organizations capitalize their own name, yet they always write Nasa and Nato instead of NASA and NATO.
Because they're wankers.
(They don't always do it, but it's annoyingly prolific, you're right.)
Quote: DaButt @ 3rd March 2015, 3:16 PM GMTI've always wondered why the BBC and other UK news organizations capitalize their own name, yet they always write Nasa and Nato instead of NASA and NATO.
Because Nasa and Nato have become words in their own right - because they are pronounceable.
The BBC have always just been initials - impossible to pronounce as a word - a bit like the IMF, USSR (as was), along with CBS, ABC, ICI and dare I say, the USA - or Oossa as we shall call it from now on.