The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
That would be nice I think. The licence just seems a very antiquated way of raising revenue, and I think that advertisers would be clamouring to get their prime time slots.
The thing is, apart from the saving to us, would we notice any difference? There are already loads of 'ads' for BBC programmes in between each programme anyway, so who would really notice if these were replaced by advertisements instead?
I think the only downside is that we'd be removing or altering a 'British Institution', it's akin to doing away with the Royal Family, it's just not cricket.
But if you can sweep those objections aside and look at the stark reality of the situation, who cares? I'm all for scrapping the licence, it's one less crime we can commit accidentally by not renewing our licences, and one less thing to worry about long-term.
Any other opinions?
The thing is, apart from the saving to us, would we notice any difference? There are already loads of 'ads' for BBC programmes in between each programme anyway, so who would really notice if these were replaced by advertisements instead?
I think the only downside is that we'd be removing or altering a 'British Institution', it's akin to doing away with the Royal Family, it's just not cricket.
But if you can sweep those objections aside and look at the stark reality of the situation, who cares? I'm all for scrapping the licence, it's one less crime we can commit accidentally by not renewing our licences, and one less thing to worry about long-term.
Any other opinions?
Why?
Whenever I purchase a product from a shop, I pay the overheads from Theft...
Whevr I pay for Internet subscription fees... I'm actually paying to help subsidise for the costs for people who use
the internet more than I...
I watch about a third of the Sky Channels I'm paying to get access to...
And, dont get me started on Taxes! :)
Whenever you pay for anything, it always ends up including the costs for stuff you dont want, cant get, or are of no use to you...
The BBC is too valuable a British commodity to lose...
Do we really want every channel to be like Channel 5?
Whenever I purchase a product from a shop, I pay the overheads from Theft...
Whevr I pay for Internet subscription fees... I'm actually paying to help subsidise for the costs for people who use
the internet more than I...
I watch about a third of the Sky Channels I'm paying to get access to...
And, dont get me started on Taxes! :)
Whenever you pay for anything, it always ends up including the costs for stuff you dont want, cant get, or are of no use to you...
The BBC is too valuable a British commodity to lose...
Do we really want every channel to be like Channel 5?
I find it rather incredible that part of my license fee goes to funding television channels that i cannot watch.
There is no way that BBC Choice, BBC Knowledge or BBC News 24 should be a free channel whilst the licence fee continues to rise in price.
It's just not fair that i pay my £100+ when part of this funds some junk that only those that can afford digital television can see.
There is no way that BBC Choice, BBC Knowledge or BBC News 24 should be a free channel whilst the licence fee continues to rise in price.
It's just not fair that i pay my £100+ when part of this funds some junk that only those that can afford digital television can see.
The thing is, the license fee supports sercies that make no money, such as the web-site and the radio, that would have to be axed, or made commercial.
Also it means that they can show programs without being obsessed by audience figures, but can produce good quality programs and try out new talent which would be difficult if they had to have advertising.
I say that two channels without advertising and with the freedom to make good programs rather than just commercial ones is a good thing, and would be worth keeping.
Also it means that they can show programs without being obsessed by audience figures, but can produce good quality programs and try out new talent which would be difficult if they had to have advertising.
I say that two channels without advertising and with the freedom to make good programs rather than just commercial ones is a good thing, and would be worth keeping.
Most of the programmes on tv are a load of rubbish anyway so why should we pay to watch them?
That would be nice I think. The licence just seems a very antiquated way of raising revenue, and I think that advertisers would be clamouring to get their prime time slots.
The thing is, apart from the saving to us, would we notice any difference? There are already loads of 'ads' for BBC programmes in between each programme anyway, so who would really notice if these were replaced by advertisements instead?
I think the only downside is that we'd be removing or altering a 'British Institution', it's akin to doing away with the Royal Family, it's just not cricket.
But if you can sweep those objections aside and look at the stark reality of the situation, who cares? I'm all for scrapping the licence, it's one less crime we can commit accidentally by not renewing our licences, and one less thing to worry about long-term.
Any other opinions?
The thing is, apart from the saving to us, would we notice any difference? There are already loads of 'ads' for BBC programmes in between each programme anyway, so who would really notice if these were replaced by advertisements instead?
I think the only downside is that we'd be removing or altering a 'British Institution', it's akin to doing away with the Royal Family, it's just not cricket.
But if you can sweep those objections aside and look at the stark reality of the situation, who cares? I'm all for scrapping the licence, it's one less crime we can commit accidentally by not renewing our licences, and one less thing to worry about long-term.
Any other opinions?