h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am a supporter of the license fee and Public Service broadcasting. Here's why:

First off, quality TV is cheaper under the present system.

"Ah, but get rid of the license fee and terrestrial commercial channels like ITV and Channel 4 still exist for "nothing"."

True, but they will soon be gone. Why have "free" terrestrial TV when you can make people pay for it? Once commercial TV has the monopoly on a service, it will want money for it. More to the point, terrestrial TV will soon be gone, leaving only Digital TV.

"So, I have to pay for commercial TV, I expect that."

OK, here's a wee history lesson.

When satellite TV was launched, people payed a subscription fee (same system as a TV licence) and got lots of channels (they also got adverts, but that's another matter).

Later, "special" channels were launched, similar to current channels, but they got all the best films, sports etc, these "new" channels cost an *additional* fee per channel. Subscribers that wanted half-decent satellite now had to pay *extra* for additional channels.

Later, certain sports events and films were deemed so "special", you had to pay *per view* - even more money from the consumer.

Or - you could pay a lump sum called a TV licence to a public-service corporation and save yourself a lot of money.

I've simplified things here, but the crux of my argument (and from what I've seen happen, it's correct) is that under an exclusively commercial system, the TV companies will find more and more ways of squeezing money from you by any method possible. A public-service company is unable to do this, so you know how much you are going to pay - there are no additional charges.

To put it more simply:

Commercial media: responsible to shareholders and thus have to make as much profit as possible.

Public media: responsible to public and don't need to make a profit, saving lots of money.

The BBC is very fond of funding advertisements for itself. Who funds this?

If it happens to be us via the TV licence, then who wins?

I turn on the television to see an advert for a station I have already paid for. If I had not paid, then I would not see the advert proclaiming said station to be a forerunner in acrobatic rooftop displays. Who's zooming who here?

I also receive adverts for stations I am unable to receive as I do not subscribe to digital or satelite television. I am also paying for those stations themselves.

How about a run-down on what our licence fee covers? Perhaps then we can enter a realistic and useful debate on funding.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2001/report/pdf/annual_report_62_79.pdf

Page 68 gives the breakdown of what the BBC spend their/our money on.

Sorry to butt in on your conversation, but if researcher "diggerd"
would go back to there own page and click on the "EDIT PAGE"button and write a little something about yourself , then an "ACE"can come and welcome you there properly. Sorry for the interuption.

manda

*waves to manda*

I see we've set you to work now. Carry on

*wiping sweat from brow*


no problemes

as long as I have a now and again

* lines up on the bar *

Thank Greydesk,I needed that ,

my view onthe TV licence,I can pay for the cable TV, or I can pay for the Films, or I can pay for special events If I want to and if I have got the money.I have to pay the BBC weather I want to or not,and weather I have got the money or not, I have got no choice,

M&A