TV Licensing

[Socrates]

Would you subscribe to the BBC? After hearing a very interesting debate on the radio the other day, I was wondering how many people would, if the license fee was abolished and the BBC had to rely on subscription fees, actually subscibe to the BBC? The price would remain the same ( �120 or �10 a month ) but would you pay for it if you had the choice?

[lucylastic]

Certainly would. I'd pay even more if they were to take ITV and ITV2 off the air. To call them TV stations is a travesty of the English language. The programme planners have as much imagination as a stuffed duck-billed platypus. Cilla's been there since the dawn of time and if I see one more contrived video of someone having an "accident" I'll scream.

[Lucas]

No I would not pay it. The only thing I ever watch on BBC is Eastenders and that's rubbish these days too. I also pay �10 a month for my share of Sky TV at home, to pay an additional �10 just for the privilege of the BBC channels when there hundreds of other channels to choose from is a bit of a no-brainer. I wish they would change it to subscription only though.......

[boognish76]

I certainly would subscribe so long as it remained ad free. The number and length of ad breaks on the commercial channels has noticably increased and will soon be at the level they are in the US, with an hour long programme having 6-8 ad breaks, including one right after the opening credits and right before the closing credits! I think the license fee is worth every penny and would gladly pay for ad-free programming to continue.

[andy hughes]

I would, but it will be interesting if the idea comes to fruition. TV has evolved into a particulalry difficult set of circumstances - the BBC is bound by its public service remit, and its responsibility to its licnese payers, ITV is bound by its obligations to its advetisers. Thus, both skate an increasingly think line between obligation and entertainment - compounded by increasing choice, and the inevitable take of the market share by 'lowest common denominator' TV outlets. The BBC would be obliged to provide what people really do want to watch, but beware of what you wish for - we may see a sharp downward turn in the quality of output, and a reduction in more cultural output which could not be sustained by a majority subscription approach. The answer? I'm really happy I just get to observe and coment, and not have to put my career on the line by getting it wrong.

[sft42]

If you gave me the choice I would opt for BBC2 alone....BBC one and ITV have become the cesspool of modern TV with all sorts of hastily thought up rubbish to try and get viewers rather than making good TV....other than C4 and Beeb2 I rarely watch the box these days.

[FTVS]

I would too - I pay �50 for a load of garbage on cable so why not a tenner to teh beeb? Well I say garbage, It is also interesting to note that I watch a lot of old BBC shows on cable...does this mean if we do not pay a license fee now, we will have nothing to watch on cable in 10 years time?

[robber1]

I unsubbed from Sky. Waste of money. People complain about repeats on BBC and ITV but that is what Sky show all of the time. I only watched the 5 std channels anyway. The BBC is good value, but we should be given the option of paying to watch it or not.

[BadBob]

I would pay �10 - �15 a month for the BBC no problem (I do). I don't watch much on BBC1 these days and tend to watch a fair amount on BBC2 or BBC3. One of the great things about the BBC is its able to give things time to develop without a constant need to constantly satisfy viewing figures.

[lisa74656]

Not a hope in hell!!! i pay 40quid a month for sky and hardly watch terrestrial tv. If i do it's channel 4!

[Bedsit-Bob]

I don't pay now, and I still wouldn't pay then.