2007-07-19 12:08:02 · 29 answers · asked by LongJohns 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television ➔ Other - Television
Wouldn't know.Never had one.
2007-07-19 12:13:06 · answer #1 · answered by Butt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its well worth it for Doctor Who alone. But then we've got things like "Jekyll", "Life on Mars", "Torchwood", David Attenborough's natural history programmes, "The Sky at Night", great comedies like "Still game" and too many other top quality BBC programmes to list.
I would certainly rather pay an annual licence fee to see some of the best TV programmes ever made, than pay an extortionate monthly subscription to see the sub-standard tabloid television you get on Sky.
2007-07-19 19:47:21 · answer #2 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's not worth the money and it's high time it was scrapped. If, like me, you are among those who do not care to watch 10hrs of golf per day or snooker, at another time, that's one entire BBC channel lost! This seems to go on a 3-weekly rota and I ask, why should one have to pay for this?
Get rid of the Licence Fee! It's not a fee but an enforced tax. Unfortunately, though, they'll never scrap it.
2007-07-19 19:28:13 · answer #3 · answered by Mozey 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Definitely ...NOT!
It's all: sport, soaps & repetes.
Other countries manage ok without imposing this annual tax.
They just charge slightly more for the tv in the first place but this still works out allot cheeper 'cos tv's can last for years.
I spend most of the day on my computer & only watch on average about 2 hours a day.
Hay, but what do you expect england is probably the tax capital of the world. :-(
2007-07-25 14:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Theres nuttin really interestin on tv but i if u own 1 n havent payed 4 ur tv liscence then the start buggin u n eventually give u a massive fine
2007-07-19 19:24:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
not really, and you have to have one even if you receive no signal or digital channels and you only use you TV for watching DVDs or video.
And have you read the rules on the back of what your license doesnt cover
"use of a TV in a caravan (other than one use for touring) at the same time as at the licensed premises." so if you go away to your static caravan and leave someone at home they are not supposed to watch the TV.
2007-07-20 05:58:36 · answer #6 · answered by *♥* donna *♥* 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes its good value. I've seen TV in other countries and satellite packages. ITV1 is a sham and its paid for by a surcharge on all the goods and services they advertise.
Up to 30% of a car's cost can be advertising. Commercial TV is generally very poor quality nowadays. It was better 20-40 years ago.
2007-07-19 19:15:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No it is not ,it is only the BBC that we pay the licence for, if other channels dont have to charge a licence fee why should they it is outmoded now, we should have the choice, we dont watch BBC and yet we still have to pay the licence its silly
2007-07-19 19:14:08 · answer #8 · answered by TINYTI 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I think it is.
Research has indicated the every houshold in Britiain pays in excess of £100 a year to fund commercial television through prices in shops & of services.
As for sky subscribers... pay a subscription for advertising supported television, boy they really saw you coming didn't they?
2007-07-19 19:21:04 · answer #9 · answered by 203 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
just over 120 quid for a year of terrestrial TV plus 47 quid a month for Sky. I must love my TV!
2007-07-19 19:17:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes you get loads for your money! It's up to you to use it or not, you are paying for the tv reciever. The money is used to fund the BBC.
2007-07-26 10:23:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋