Phil Sheldon

A valid point Besoeker but if the "Product" ie a TV programme is no good then people will not watch it. I remember the BBC spending an obscene amount of money some years ago putting together a proposed seies called ' El Dorado'.
It was an unmitigated disaster, as are BBC 3 and BBC 4 which has a total audience for both channels of approximately 750,000.
No commercial broadcaster would entertain viewing figures as low as these but the BBC is not financing programmes in the hope of generating either an operating or nett profit. It just soaks up money-as in Parkinson's Law: "Expenditure increases to meet money available."

Britannist

I did not write the above remarks (Besoeker's quote of Britannist above) which look as if they might be attributed to me. The words (above) are those of another poster. I did not make the claim that the BBC income is £2.3 billion a year.

Britannist

An old, dated and discredited argument.

No one is forced to buy a particular product (the cost of which might pay for television advertising) - but we are all being forced to pay the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation in order to gain the legal right to watch ITV and Sky channels.

The television licence payment method is a ridiculous system.

g hall

Perhaps if we went back to first principles for the BBC. I think 2 national TV and 4 National radio NO local Radio and NO digital TV. Cap on ALL Salaries. Absolutely NO government interference and has to be unbiased

Fund it at 20 per annum I think that's fair

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ

tito

Only true if you are a collectivist. As an individualist I know that I do not have to pay a penny to any company found on ITV breaks. If I do choose to spend my money on them for a good or service, then I really couldn't care less about how much of it they wish to spend on advertising.

__________________
For life, Liberty and Prosperity
http://lpuk.org/

Besoeker

Verbatim point 8 from post #2:
One of the ten options you gave as alternatives wasn't it?

Besoeker

No, but people do. Tesco have plenty of customers (even if you aren't one).
Where do you think that the revenue comes from for their advertising?

Besoeker

But how much you pay for that good or service will, to some extent, be affected by advertising costs.

Taking your other point about choice, it's true that you are not obliged to pay a penny to any company that ever advertises anything on any of the multitude of commercial channels. I think most people would be hard pressed to avoid absolutely every one of such companies.

Britannist

Yes, sorry about claiming that I did not. I thought that I had made my list of alternatives (to the present television licence fee system) without quoting actual figures.

I should not have quoted the figure of £2.3 billion a year (as the BBC income) without checking on it first.

Britannist

I am a Tesco customer actually.

I am being forced to pay towards everything at the BBC.

I am only paying - indirectly - for some of ITV and other commercial broadcasters because I do not buy everything advertised on those channels (advertisements, of course, being the way those channels derive their income).

In most commercial breaks on ITV, the majority of the items advertised are things which I do not purchase.

Quite apart from this fact - there is no justification for the present television licence fee system which makes me pay towards the salaries of 27, 000 people on the BBC payroll in order for me to have the legal right to watch ITV 1 or Sky News.