Whilst I have always been a stout defender of the BBC licence fee....

I'd be with you on that last point alone!

 

Let's forget it all.

The BBC, education, the Health Service & public transport. (Oh ****, we already privatised the latter, only a 33% price rise in 5 years).

Give it all over to the elite. You must be insane.

 

There is a big difference between a vital service forgetting people to work and shop, a vital service to save lives and a service you have to pay for regardless that shows match of the day and EastEnders on the telly

 

I currently live in Hong Kong and a year or so ago bought a UK TV box, for which I pay US$25 per month (http://www.uktvhongkong.com/). This has been a life saver for me and I absolutely love it. I mostly watch BBC programming and I would probably pay double what I'm currently paying. We are 8 hours ahead of UK, but because all programs on all channels are recorded, we can just flick through the remote and watch any program from the past month instantly.

I know a lot of my friends use the same service and as word spreads, more and more are subscribing. It's fantastic that we now have this option from overseas (yes we could fiddle around with a VPN and connect a computer to the telly, but a small box connected via hdmi operated by an easy remote from the sofa is no comparison).

The point I am making is that it is a crying shame that the money we pay doesn't go to the BBC - it is a missed opportunity which highlights how bureaucratic regulations governing global content delivery hamper the content providers, whilst the innovative Del-Boys of this tech-world prosper. The demand is there, and I would much rather see my $$ be ploughed back into enhanced content!

 

I honestly cannot think of any programme on the BBC that is watched in my house, certainly none on a regular basis.

Its outdated and wrong to charge people for a service they don't use when there are plenty of other options available.

 

Not even Match of the Day?

 

So they're over paying people yet losing their biggest names to other channels at the same time? How does that work?

The BBC shows programmes that just wouldn't get shown on commercial TV. People who have broader interests than the mainstream. Educational programmes, the arts etc. And ultimately the standard of documentaries (not nonsense like Panorama) are far superior. The documentaries on the sky channels are absolutely terrible.

They also make hugely successful commercial programmes that are sold throughout the world.

 

^^^^this^^^^

You don't know what you've got til it's gone.

 

You're on fire today.

 

No , usually had enough of football by that time on a Saturday.

Prefer to watch Premier League highlights on Goals on Sunday with Kammy or Monday Night Football, much better pundits and analysis.

 

No they are losing programmes made by external companies because they don't want to pay for it. F1, football, tennis, family guy, golf, the voice...

Yet the staffing levels have increased pushing the wage bill over the 975m mark.

That's before running costs are raking into consideration.

The biggest programme sold overseas top gear is dying on its arse during recording according to reports over recent filming.

New programmes on BBC four and the odd exception on the mainstream channels the beeb is a massive waste of money.

 

I'm trying to stay out of this thread, but need to correct a few points. It's not that the BBC don't want to pay for F1 and the rest, but more that after the government's continued assault on the Corporation, and the ensuing cuts in their budget, they can't AFFORD to pay for it. And staffing levels have been massively reduced, so not sure where your "increased" comes from.

 

That's the fault of chairmen current and past surely with a lashings of political influence.
If the BBC were allowed to run itself by the people who have its,the viewers and licence payers interests it would be a lot better.
IMO going down the road of swerving away from its initisl principals because of agendas is like cutting of your nose cis its running .
The

 

I wouldn't bother. No-one ever believes that people might not be interested in the same things they are (except BFC of course), the amount of arguments I've had on here with people calling me a liar because I said TV doesn't interest me is ridiculous.

 

So what you are saying is the majority should fund the interests of the minority? I f they are as popular and good as you are saying then people would surely be willing to pay for them?, Same as BBC Four, BBC website and Radio 6music worth the license fee alone, really? I personally use none of them , well maybe the website but its only because its there.
Free from commercial interest? depends what you mean because there's free product placement aplenty, at the end of the day nobody is saying scrap the BBC just let it compete with the rest

 

But that's what the BBC is for ,to cater for minorities as well as the mainstream .
To inform ,educate and entertain.
The minority programmes are really a large selection so although some programmes are viewed by minorities over a time are watched by the majority, in other words it tries to cater for everyone whilst maintaining a mainstream channel.
The competing with other channels bit has lead to the **** we've endured this xmas from all channels. Thank god for BBC 4.imo

 

They could afford it if they spent less allowing motd pundits to live a millionaires life

 

They don't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes. To inform entertain educate. If everything was dictated by commercial interest we would become a much poorer society. Libraries being a prime example of why lots of people are expected to fund something they personally might not use. Although the libraries' death sentence has already been signed sadly.

 

I could live with that if it was mandatory. I don't use the BBC's services but I would suck it up and pay like everyone does through taxation for things they may not personally use. However, what I can't abide is that they act like it is voluntary and then send threatening and intimidating letters demanding payment for something I do not use and have no obligation to pay. Either make it mandatory and I will (begrudgingly) pay it, or let people make their own choices without being threatened. They are pretending to be one thing but their actions are making them another.