TV License price fix?

that just wishful thinking?

It's a statement designed to curry favour. They will probably raise the price long before 2016 and either come out with a very good reason why they were unable to keep their promise, and/or say that the people raising the price are not the same people who made the promise so they are not bound by it. Standard political tactic for just about everything.

I believe in Oct 2010 it was said the TV licence fee was to be frozen for six years at £145.50

is that just wishful thinking?

So, do you think we should get rid of BBC radio and TV? If not, how would you fund them?

Robert

So, do you think we should get rid of BBC radio and TV? If not, how would you fund them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I certainly think that we should get rid of BBC Local radio. If it can't "self fund" it shouldn't exist IMHO.

(not that it will save more than a few pennies per license, mind)

tim

Very simple - they encrypt their transmissions and if you want to subscribe you hand over your money.

Sky have been doing it successfully for 20+ years.

Pointing a gun at the heads of your average British sheeple and saying "you WILL hand over £140+ a year irrespective of whether you watch a single minute of BBC output and if you don't pay you'll go to prison" is always likely to raise the hackles of anyone with a working brain cell.

Oh, for the pedantics, don't waste your breath telling me you can't be jailed for not paying for a tv licence.

or is that just wishful thinking?

Subscription? Advertisements? The relevant government department could subsidise high quality children programme's and there are a few other things that should be supported somehow, but Radio 1, 2, 5, TV programmes like Eastenders or Top Gear could be produced on a purely commercial basis.

Or they have repeated appeals for donations, and rely heavily on BBC created material (US public service radio - I'm not sure if there is any TV equivalent there).

*Any* national broadcasting company, no matter how it is funded, is used as a propaganda tool for the government of the country. If you believe otherwise, you are naive.

Funding from general taxation is arguably a more fair system, because people are generally taxed in proportion to their earnings.

And in any case, if my licence fee were only to fund the BBC as you infer, why should I need to have a licence if I only ever watch ITV?

The equivalent in the US is surely VOA (Voice of America)?

As for BBC created material - I agree that some of it is very good indeed. It is in fact plenty good enough to be supported by the normal commercial method of selling it for profit - just like Hollywood does.

The TV equivalent is the Public Broadcasting Service.

VoA is a rough equivalent of the World Service.

Which, if I am not mistaken, is the BBC.

BBC TV and Radio cannot seriously be called public service broadcasting. There is the same mix of entertainment, news and documentaries as the general content commercial stations.

But is paid for from central taxation.

What documentaries are there on 'general content commercial stations'?

The last thing we want is the BBC becoming like Sky!

You don't need a TV license if you don't watch any live TV. You can listen to BBC radio for free.

In message , Mark writes

Zackly! BBC TV and radio channels are amazing value, especially since the length of time allowed for adverts on the commercial channels has been increased.

And it doesn't cause eye strain, and if you have imagination the pictures are better.

And is the only national broadcasting station that is justifyable.