Felidae
 |
Yes, absolutely. Two reasons;
Having lived in countries where they did not have a BBC equivalent, I was quickly annoyed by the number of adverts and commercial aspects there were to the channels. With have advert free channels in this country, the other more commercials ones are by default much more limited in their frequency. You try watching the Simpsons with three sets of adverts in them.
Also, don't that the BBC is quite a flaship for the UK with it's world wide radio and TV and quite popular. It also develops some very good programs which most commercial channels wouldn't even think off. Look at The Blue planet for example, it takes years to make such a program - could you imagine ITV have such along term view?
Also, don't forget all the Radio stations that it funds - not just Radio 1-4, but also the more local ones; Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, etc.
Okay, that's more than two reasons. But having done without it for three years, it's quite easy to now realise just how good it is. |
|
michael o47
 |
For what the B.B.C put on it should be made to be self funding,Its been funded by us for to long.They pay second rate people huge wages for poor preformances. And there are to many repeats. I think they should give us a refund for every repaet they put on, after all we have paid for it once. |
|
sallyaboulter
|
no then i could buy more shoes |
|
Black Orchid
 |
If we have to pay then i think we should just pay for the programmes on BBC that we watch , It would be about £ 1 a week for me .
The cost of a tv licence is way over the top .
At least with sky there's a lot more choice |
|
Varisha
|
i don't think all of us should, those of us who has digital should not pay extra to fund for BBC. It seems like BBC not popular as it was way back before sky was introduced. xx |
|
just trying to make a difference
|
No, let advertisers pay the fees! |
|
treving 42
|
Yes it should as I am loathe to think of a total commercial TV service for obvious(to me)reasons.
I notice that BBC websites outside the UK are to carry advertising, the reason being that people who receive the BBC abroad for free should help finance it in one way or another - hopefully this is not the thin end of the wedge though I wont hold my breath.. |
|
cunny
|
Of course they should - despite its failings it is still high quality and the only independent broadcaster in the UK - commercial TV panders too much to the lowest taste - to get the most advertising revenue. |
|
SPUDULIKE
 |
no |
|
Best of British
|
no its a sham, its so bloody expensive i hate paying it. had a man round to our home at 9 at night trying to let himself in saying he needed to find out what we were watching,we have just moved and have not had chance to tell them! i hate it |
|
lulu
 |
Yes, of course |
|
Barne-Hurst
|
NO!let them prostitute themselves on the open market, just
as everyone else has to do! Why should they be kept,
and not have to worry about what their viewers think. |
|
nicechap
|
If it is not the licence fee then it will be through advertising and we get quite enough of that from the commercial channels like ITV. |
|
Dragoner
|
No. It is time to shove the BBC out into the wild ocean of the free market and let it become a commericial enterprise.
The license fee is now costing me and my partner three weeks worth of food each year.
We're both pensioners on fixed incomes.
The future for TV is sponsorship. You can already see this happening big-time with sponsorship of such as Corrie and other soaps.
Why not do the same for such as East Benders?
The BBC spend most of our money on broadcasting abroad in foreign languages to people who just want to blow us up.
Time to cut the crap and save our small revenues for more important things.
BBC, drop dead! |
|
| |
|
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Business & Finance 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
