Lots of people seem to critisise the BBC for having to pay for a license to watch what they say are all reapeats. Yet Sky charges a lot more to watch even more repeats and so many adverts. How many times can they put Dinner Ladies or Only fools and horses on? If you want to spend a night watching tv 9 times out of 10 you end up watching ITV or BBC.
2006-11-13 05:17:00 · 8 answers · asked by g4vkeuk02 1 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
No.
The BBC for all it's faults is a decent TV / Radio service.
The issue with calling for a stop to license fees is we may lose the BBC as it is now. It's probably more of an issue because Sky charges you, it really should be free if it carries advertising. People don't think they should have to pay twice.
If I had to pay for just one it would be the BBC even although sky offers more channels for it's fee.
Edit: I know you cannot choose I was just trying to make a point if there was a choice re: license fees.
2006-11-13 05:36:50 · answer #1 · answered by D.F 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
BBC licence fees are Mandatory
SKY is optional
You cannot choose between the two, because if you buy SKY then you still must buy licence for BBC.
If you don't like SKY then don't buy it
I am one of thousands upon thousands of people who think that the TV licence should be scrapped.
I would rather pay for channels I do watch rather than ones I don't, but are still forced to pay for it regardless.
I don't mind the repeats on SKY as it is my CHOICE to buy these stations, I DO however object to BBC showing so many repeats when we the people are FORCED to pay for the TV licence, and 9.999999999 times out of 10 I do not end up watching BBC at all, ITV on the other hand IS a free channel, so again I can't comment on the repeats as it is FREE
2006-11-13 06:02:52 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Doom 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sky is expensive, there are a lot of repeats and far too many adverts but in honesty, i couldnt cancel my subscription as there are so many channels to choose from, im not a major telly addict but right down to documentaries, crime shows even the music channels, i always find something to watch. There are programmes you couldnt watch unless you have sky ie: The Sopranos, Lost Season 3 etc.
2006-11-14 12:36:03 · answer #3 · answered by jaggyjones 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i use sky, i dont really watch bbc other than for crimewatch. and thats only on once a month (thankgod its only needed for that). sky may repeat more but there is always something that you can watch, i personally like national geographic, the programmes on there are great, they also have all the new movie realeases before normal telly, they have music channels and all the radio channel and for kids its great to.
at least if they are repeating something then youve got plenty of other channels to go through, bbc repeat aswell and there isnt really any other bbc channels that show anything decent. and may i just point out that the bbc are one of the worst for repeating only fools and horses (not that i dont like it)!
2006-11-13 05:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by button moon 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With the BBC, you've got to shell out for the license fee. With Sky, you've got to get the licence fee plus sky subscription. Sky is therefore more expensive.
Your best bet would be to get a freeview box (and possibly an aerial upgrade) for a one off payment (about £50-100?). Although you would still need to pay for the licence fee, the digital channels would cost you nothing thereafter.
2006-11-13 05:26:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I am with you mate, and don't forget all the radio stations the BBC puts out. I have all ways felt that Sky should be funded by either Subscription or Advertising having both is just plane bloody greedy.
2006-11-13 05:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by ♣ My Brainhurts ♣ 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No sky is trash and expensive,too many ad breaks and repeats
2006-11-13 05:19:15 · answer #7 · answered by Alfred E. Newman 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no
2006-11-13 05:19:26 · answer #8 · answered by Sir Sidney Snot 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋