I mean the BBC gets loads of cash from DVDs and other products, and they have ads for them already.
how far are they from sponsorship already.
get rid of the license fee ,
2007-02-02 09:57:37 · 27 answers · asked by steven m 7 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
yep,yep,yep, look at xmas what a load of old tosh on the t.v, they have now put adverts for bbc stuff on between programmes and on the radio so where does the no adverts come in then...if it was a case of no licence or watching the bloody cillit bang ads, i would watch barry whatever his name is everytime!
2007-02-02 10:05:10 · answer #1 · answered by 1 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do agree however the two main channels I watch BBC1 & Channel 4 would be affected if it was to go. So I say not yet. The money is paid firstly to the Appropriation Act(s) where MPs vote the amounts paid to the UK's public services this costs the system £152m for 2005-2006 & will go up each year. So I say send the money direct to the BBC!
The licence fee represents approximately 75% of the BBC's income. However, the UK's second public broadcaster, Channel 4, has claimed that it may need licence fee income if it is to continue with public broadcasting after the digital switch-over. To this end, on April 25, 2006, it was announced that Channel 4's digital switch-over bill would be paid for from the licence fee
2007-02-03 23:09:13 · answer #2 · answered by dazzler161281 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree. i've lived in both the US and Canada. And the number of commercial breaks is frightening! Having the BBC ensures that private broadcasters don't become nothing more than a commercial broadcaster! infomercials are not exactly quality broadcasting. Secondly, BBC are able to "take chances" and be creative, whereas ITV cannot do this as sponsors are not prepared to support programmes which have not been tried and tested. Hence why they are peddling re-vamped programmes that were broadcasted 30 years ago (Ant & Dec are nothing more than Noels house Party) and programmes which have proved successfull on BBC - so they re-work them (ie: BBCs Strictly Come Dancing becomes ITVs Dancing On Ice). Public broadcasting keeps private broadcasting in check - to some extent.
2007-02-02 18:16:41 · answer #3 · answered by PJW 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hardly ever watch BBC as I pay for Sky and because the only good things on BBC are Waterloo Road and Life on Mars. I still have to pay for a full license which makes me angry because I'm not even using watching BBC most days.
There should be a charge for how much you use like with gas and electricity.
2007-02-03 07:27:38 · answer #4 · answered by Lady Claire - Hates Bigotry 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Firstly the word is licence. Secondly if the BBC didn't get "loads of cash" from DVD and other products, the licence fee would be a lot higher than it already is.
2007-02-02 18:04:26 · answer #5 · answered by Raymo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ditto!
Abolish the TV Licence!
2007-02-02 18:03:54 · answer #6 · answered by Karennerak 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are quite right there. The money is squandered on "stars" like J Ross. I dont personally watch TV because of people like that. Full of hot air and talking rubbish for hours. I cant stand that at all. The Vast sums these people are paid make me ill. For a public body to spend public funds on a sort of "friends and family" network of people is completely astonishing. In the old days these people would have been taken outside and.....................
2007-02-02 18:09:30 · answer #7 · answered by K. Marx iii 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to say that my Telewest subscription costs way more than my licence fee but I watch way way more BBC tv - its good value and I dont begrudge paying it at all.
2007-02-02 18:49:14 · answer #8 · answered by Girugamesh 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yessireeee
2007-02-02 18:09:58 · answer #9 · answered by madfairy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree totally. Stop paying the likes of Terry Wogan and Anne Robinson their millions and give the rest of us a break.
2007-02-02 18:06:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋