Why Pay for TV

[ao101]

Why should we have to pay for TV anyway ? Should TV not be free for all at the point of remote control access. We pay a licence fee already, should that not be enough ??

Please discuss !!

[Phil3819]

Originally Posted by ao101

Why should we have to pay for TV anyway ? Should TV not be free for all at the point of remote control access. We pay a licence fee already, should that not be enough ??

Please discuss !!

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear.

[cable man]

so if you go 2 your local swimming baths should that be free, because you pay water rates ???

[ao101]

Of course the swimming baths should be free, the are council funded facilities which you fund through a taxation system. How may times over are you really paying for that swim ?

The health benefits of swimming are wildly known , so if the government is commited to reducing the fat culture Britian , then yes swimming should be free.

The list is endless , but the discussion is not about swimming , its about why whe have to pay for TV in the 1st instance.

[TheCoder]

As i'm sure you know, the licence fee only funds the BBC whilst most of the other free channels are funded by adverts.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your viewpoint), adverts can really only support so many channels before the concept is so diluted that the advertisers simply wont pay the extortionate rates for airtime (why should they when the audience on any particular channel is much lower than it has historically been). At that point TV channels have to look around for alternative revenue streams. One of the alternatives, and the one most commonly used, is the PayTV concept.

The unfortunate thing about PayTV is bundling !

Most channels would probably only charge a very small amount per month - probably less than 50p, so PayTV could actually be very cheap to the consumer but the various platforms dont generally allow their customers to pick and choose in that manner, preferring instead to force high prices by selling packages usually containing many channels that nobody actually wants. They then, of course, charge extortionate prices for those packages.

If we were to perhaps get some real competition in the UK to Sky then maybe this "bundling" con could be broken and consumers actually get the choice to only buy what they require at reasonable prices. A nice side effect of this might be that all the least popular and unneeded +1 channels would probably dissapear leaving oodles of bandwidth free for other services to have a go !

[pj_casanis]

I think the poster has got a valid point in principle, but, not about Free TV, instead, you shouldn't HAVE to pay the license fee if you own a TV. You should be able to reject BBC as a channel option and continue paying your subs for the remaining channels, no license fee full stop.

The BBC is funded by an outdated system that was introduced since the dawn of TV. It needs to be modernised. I think the relevant standards organisation should come in and remove the mandatory license fee charge and BBC put their own channel fees in the mix with the other PPTV channels.

BBC are essentially taking credit for you owning a TV and arrogantly putting your TV purchase down to wanting to view their outdated channels.

[razzmondo]

i think that if you advertise like itv / sky you should not charge to view . that was the rule years ago ,hence the bbc charging a licence fee.sky got away with charging a subscription fee and still advertising.mr murdock seems to be the big hitter in the pay tv market with little or no competion.