The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
If the BBC decided to scrap the License and use advertising to pay for the running of programs etc. Would you be happy watching Eastenders with a break halfway through if it meant you didn't have to pay license fees?
Out of interest I would mind, and would rather pay that little extra for the quality of uninterupted TV. But it's your opinions which count so let your opinions be herd.
Out of interest I would mind, and would rather pay that little extra for the quality of uninterupted TV. But it's your opinions which count so let your opinions be herd.
Page:
I onder what would happen if you had a telly but with no ariel and if the TV man came out, would you get prosecuted or would he let you off because you can't recieve a reception for BBC.
Yeah, what if you only want a TV to play video games/watch DVDs?
You shouldn't have to pay the BBC for that priviledge - the TV cost you enough!
You shouldn't have to pay the BBC for that priviledge - the TV cost you enough!
Seeing your point I have to say that I agree with you regarding choice, and the fact that you have to pay for a license even if you don't watch the BBC. But I do feel that if the BBC were to use advertising then it will no doubt loose it's quality such as documentrys which the BBC is respected for. But I do also agree with your point about some sort of subscription fee which proberbly seems the fairest option. One thing is for sure about the licensing is that it's due a reshape in the next couple of years.
The TV License pays for the BBC channels + BBC radio + BBC website etc. The BBC is not funded through advertising like every other media.
You cannot own tv without owning a license or you are breaking the law. Regardless of wether you use the BBC or not.
They don't say 'You can't own a radio without a radio license'. Or 'You can't browse the web without a web license'. What's the difference? The BBC has a presence on all 3.
Doesn't sound right!
You cannot own tv without owning a license or you are breaking the law. Regardless of wether you use the BBC or not.
They don't say 'You can't own a radio without a radio license'. Or 'You can't browse the web without a web license'. What's the difference? The BBC has a presence on all 3.
Doesn't sound right!
Sometimes the fact we pay TV licence is beyond me at times.
Having more adverts then there is anything else gets annoying, and the amount of times they show repeats is stupid.
Take Sky for instance they show repeats like theres a shortage of what to show. Ok some of the repeats are appreciated especially if you miss it but the amount of times they play things a day for months is just boring.
Having more adverts then there is anything else gets annoying, and the amount of times they show repeats is stupid.
Take Sky for instance they show repeats like theres a shortage of what to show. Ok some of the repeats are appreciated especially if you miss it but the amount of times they play things a day for months is just boring.
I don't watch TV, it's crap.
But what you've raised an issue that I have real trouble with: what do we pay for a TV license for - the TV itself, or the 'public' channels? That was a rhetoric qustion, I know the answer already. A mate of mine bought a TV recently, and filled in a load of forms under the impression it was to do with the TV license. It wasn't, it was underhanded customer surveying by Curries. I've heard of cases where people have been refused television sets because they didn't want to fill in forms. But we get TV licenses from the Post Office - not Curries. It's ridiculous, and it makes me quite irate that someone would try this on at a shop, when I may just want the TV for playing games.
But what you've raised an issue that I have real trouble with: what do we pay for a TV license for - the TV itself, or the 'public' channels? That was a rhetoric qustion, I know the answer already. A mate of mine bought a TV recently, and filled in a load of forms under the impression it was to do with the TV license. It wasn't, it was underhanded customer surveying by Curries. I've heard of cases where people have been refused television sets because they didn't want to fill in forms. But we get TV licenses from the Post Office - not Curries. It's ridiculous, and it makes me quite irate that someone would try this on at a shop, when I may just want the TV for playing games.
I don't mind adverts. I don't think many people do. The viewing figures for Coronation Street on ITV often match and beat Eastenders, so people aren't turning off because of them.
What really annoys me is that we have no choice in the matter.
If we want to watch telly AT ALL, we need the license.
Surely the fairest way is for the customer to decide wether they want to watch / listen to BBC or not?
How about if you pay, then you get a descrambler to recieve the stations? If you don't, then you're not breaking the law by owning a tv set (how stupid does that sound!).
Personally, seeing as BBC has no premiership coverage and cruddy films, I'd rather spend that 10-15 quid (soon to be more) on Sky Sports 1,2,3 or Movies 1-8 etc.
There's no doubting the BBC's quality. It has worldwide respect. But it should be our right to own a telly without paying a monthly fee. I wonder how many people would subscribe to the BBC if it were a subscription channel... I would go for extra sky channels.
What really annoys me is that we have no choice in the matter.
If we want to watch telly AT ALL, we need the license.
Surely the fairest way is for the customer to decide wether they want to watch / listen to BBC or not?
How about if you pay, then you get a descrambler to recieve the stations? If you don't, then you're not breaking the law by owning a tv set (how stupid does that sound!).
Personally, seeing as BBC has no premiership coverage and cruddy films, I'd rather spend that 10-15 quid (soon to be more) on Sky Sports 1,2,3 or Movies 1-8 etc.
There's no doubting the BBC's quality. It has worldwide respect. But it should be our right to own a telly without paying a monthly fee. I wonder how many people would subscribe to the BBC if it were a subscription channel... I would go for extra sky channels.
If the BBC decided to scrap the License and use advertising to pay for the running of programs etc. Would you be happy watching Eastenders with a break halfway through if it meant you didn't have to pay license fees?
Out of interest I would mind, and would rather pay that little extra for the quality of uninterupted TV. But it's your opinions which count so let your opinions be herd.
Out of interest I would mind, and would rather pay that little extra for the quality of uninterupted TV. But it's your opinions which count so let your opinions be herd.
Page: