Laywoman's view of analogue switch off
 

Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay =A350 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

Bill

wrote in message
ups.com...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

Lol, so *that's* what they mean by the "with no subscription fee" bit. There
be method in their madness.

It bet that one never crossed the minds of the BBC marketing bods.

In article . com,=20
says...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay =A350 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."
=20


I wish that was true.

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article . com,
says...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."


Didn't Tessa Jowell recently allow the BBC to retain the license fee until
2016. It would appear that by that time with digital TV the norm, the BBC
won't be able to justify charging a license fee.............

Found it.........
"THE BBC will keep its licence fee for another 11 years but only if it
ditches the glut of lifestyle shows which dominate its main channels, the
government announced yesterday.

In one of the biggest overhauls in the Corporation's 77 year history, Tessa
Jowell, the Culture Secretary, said the Board of Governors would be
scrapped, to be replaced by two new bodies.

In return for a continuation of the licence fee until 2016, she demanded an
end to "copycat" programming in which the BBC tried to compete with its
commercial rivals for ratings. Instead, there should be a re-commitment to
quality public- service broadcasting.

In Scotland, the changes should mean more prime-time regional documentaries,
drama, arts and current affairs programmes.

But critics last night slammed the government's plans, saying they did not
go far enough to reform the BBC.

Lifestyle, light entertainment and makeover shows such as Fame Academy, Cash
in the Attic and Flog It are believed to be in the firing line under the new
proposals. Hit comedy Little Britain, political drama State of Play and
undercover documentary The Secret Policeman are considered to be examples of
the BBC getting it right.

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

The programme restrictions will be part of the BBC's new mission statement,
which will be key to retaining its £2.8 billion annual licence fee.

Launching the green paper, A Strong BBC, Independent of Government, Ms
Jowell said: "Like the NHS, it faces the need to change so that it can be as
effective in the future as it has been in the past."

Through surveys and focus groups, she concluded that although the BBC was
"liked and trusted by millions", people often felt "the BBC is too remote,
too metropolitan, its accountability unclear, its programmes too dull, or
too copycat".

She added later: "The BBC must not be tempted to use the unique clout the
licence fee gives it to step on the toes of other broadcasters. It should
not play copycat. Or chase ratings for ratings sake. Or put legitimate
businesses at peril."

As well as more regional programming for Scotland, the green paper hinted at
a separate Gaelic channel. But ministers have ruled out appointing a
separate trust for BBC Scotland.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's director-general, conceded that the BBC had been
guilty of copycat programming and vowed that the corporation would raise its
game. He announced plans for a "creative review" of the BBC's programming,
insisting the idea had been in the pipeline before publication of the green
paper.

"Very few people set out to make derivative programmes, but there are
fashions in TV," he said.

"We have to go for ambitious programmes and content, and try to pay less
attention to other people's fashions."

Ms Jowell said she believes a ten-year charter - from 1 January, 2007, until
31 December, 2016 - will give the BBC and viewers "stability" during the
switchover to digital TV. But she said the government would conduct a review
of alternative methods of funding the BBC and investigate the possibility of
a subscription-based system before the end of the next charter. Despite its
weaknesses, she said there was not yet a "viable alternative" to the licence
fee.

Ms Jowell wants to scrap the BBC Board of Governors, replacing it with a new
BBC Trust and an Executive Board.

The BBC Trust, which will be chaired by BBC chairman Michael Grade, will
have responsibility for the licence fee and will ensure that the corporation
fulfils its public- service obligations.

The Executive Board will be responsible for day-to-day operations. Ms Jowell
said the Board of Governors' dual role as "cheerleader and regulator" for
the BBC lacked clarity, transparency and accountability, and the Trust and
Executive Board will create "much-needed daylight" between the functions.

Mr Grade, who watched from the public gallery of the House of Commons as Ms
Jowell outlined her plans, expressed disappointment that the governors'
Building Public Value manifesto, published last year, had not been given
more time to take effect.

He said: "It is regrettable that our own reforms have not had time to prove
themselves. But it is important that the issue has now been settled ahead of
the new charter, providing the BBC with certainty and stability, adding that
the new model "heralds the biggest change in governance in 77 years".

But critics, who believe the licence fee should be abolished or shared out
between broadcasters in order to create "a more level playing field" in the
competition for audiences, were disappointed.

Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun newspaper and chief executive of
the Wireless Group, which broadcasts talkSPORT on national radio, attacked
the decision to "shoot" the governors and replace them with another set of
"establishment dimwits". He said the BBC's time had "come and gone" and the
licence fee should be axed. He predicted BBC audiences will collapse as
executives scrap popular shows in an effort to live up to Ms Jowell's demand
for more public-interest programming.

Luke Johnson, the chairman of Channel 4, said nothing about the green paper
surprised him. "The BBC is essentially the establishment and I'm sure all
the senior figures would rather fall on their swords than have someone
top-slice their licence fee," he said. "Channel 4 will have to carry on
living on its wits and remain in the marketplace."

In article . com,
wrote:
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

The broadcasters have a serious communication problem if they've allowed
their customers to think that.

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet. If they want to continue funding the
BBC from a licence fee payable only by those who watch television, they'll
find themselves with a situation that is impossible to administer.

Rod.

"Aztech" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50
for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that
over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

Lol, so *that's* what they mean by the "with no subscription fee"
bit. There
be method in their madness.

It bet that one never crossed the minds of the BBC marketing bods.


Probably not, seeing that they obviously know the difference between
the legal need to have a licence to own (use) a TV and that of
needing a subscription to view certain channels....

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article . com,
says...
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for
a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over
and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."


you said
I wish that was true.
/...


I don't, but then if you want wall-to-wall adverts, were the
programmes are tailored to what advertisers want their audience to be
then so be....

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article . com,
wrote:
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

The broadcasters have a serious communication problem if they've allowed
their customers to think that.

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet. If they want to continue funding the
BBC from a licence fee payable only by those who watch television, they'll
find themselves with a situation that is impossible to administer.

But in a democracy shouldn't it be about choice? i.e. if I don't like
British Gas prices then I'm free to shop around to find a company that suits
'my' particular needs.

Yet IRC of all people it was the last Conservative government who actually
rushed through legislation to plug a loophole which allowed to people to opt
out of paying the licence fee.

After terrestrial digitisation it would-be the easiest thing in the world to
incorporate encryption, so perhaps it's something we should at least be
thinking about.


Rod.

In article s.net,
LID says...
you said
I wish that was true.
/...


I don't, but then if you want wall-to-wall adverts, were the
programmes are tailored to what advertisers want their audience to be
then so be....



There was a time when I thought it was worth paying for the license, but
the BBC have now lost the plot and are as bad as ITV.

I think once analogue is switched off, then the BBc should be
subscription. People with Sky may not even watch the BBc and yet they
have to pay to support it.

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

After terrestrial digitisation it would-be the easiest thing in the world
to
incorporate encryption, so perhaps it's something we should at least be
thinking about.

It's not the "easiest thing in the world" at all now that so many people
have Freeview boxes and PVRs without slots for the cards. (Reputedly this is
why the BBC has been so keen to promote Freeview - so as to ensure the
continuation of the licence fee.)

--
Max Demian

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article
s.net,
LID says...
you said
I wish that was true.
/...


I don't, but then if you want wall-to-wall adverts, were the
programmes are tailored to what advertisers want their audience
to be
then so be....



There was a time when I thought it was worth paying for the
license, but
the BBC have now lost the plot and are as bad as ITV.

Yes, I agree, but as long as they are funded from (an indirect tax)
that situation is reversible - it was only some idiot [1] within the
Corporation and his 'internal market' and the unneeded ratings war
with ITV / Ch4 that caused the problem.

[1] trouble is, he know seems to have access of Blair, talk about a
double whammy.... :~(


I think once analogue is switched off, then the BBc should be
subscription. People with Sky may not even watch the BBc and yet
they
have to pay to support it.


You mean they CHOOSE not to watch. If subscription was on a par with
the current licence fee it would be a neutral change (cost wise), and
what would that subscription cover - how would the BBC's radio (and
other non television services be funded?

"Ivan" wrote in message
...

snip

After terrestrial digitisation it would-be the easiest thing in the
world to
incorporate encryption, so perhaps it's something we should at
least be
thinking about.


Only if you want nueted content, out goes anything other than
'populist' programming, the current ITV1 channel is an example of
this (IMO)....

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article . com,
wrote:
Said to me today:
"Some of them on here they grumble about it, having to pay £50 for a
box. But what they don't seem to realise is, they'll save that over and
over again because they won't have to buy the license any more."

The broadcasters have a serious communication problem if they've allowed
their customers to think that.

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet. If they want to continue funding the
BBC from a licence fee payable only by those who watch television, they'll
find themselves with a situation that is impossible to administer.

Rod.

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

Scott

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:43:45 +0000, Scott wrote:

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

Scott

PCWorld have been taking name & address for a number of years now if you
buy a TV card. etc.

Lordy

"Scott" wrote in message
...

[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The tv licence will remain for the foreeable future, ie, at least the
next 10 years.

The original OnDIgtial system was entirely subscription, which would
have made it possible to abolish the tv licence (if desired!), but
incompetent "engineers" ensured it didn't work (nearly finishing off
ITV, along the way!).

Roderick Stewart wrote:
But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the
internet, arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of
watching those with or without a licence, or even *owning a
computer*? The current licence is apparently required if you have
equipment installed for the use of receiving broadcasts, which would
by that definition include any computer connected to the internet. If
they want to continue funding the BBC from a licence fee payable only
by those who watch television, they'll find themselves with a
situation that is impossible to administer.

Don't think it will be anything as complicated as detector vans ,
computer databases etc. "They" will just charge ISPs who in turn will
put a charge on your (TINY) internet fees to cover the cost of a
"license" to watch BBC on your computer (even if you don't and have no
intention of doing so).
--
This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

yours S
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione

"-GB-Carpy" wrote in message
.uk...

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article . com,
says...
Said to me today:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

ISTM that it would be better if they did do this
That way you wouldn't get the annoying problem of having
two programs that you want to watch clashing.
If "1" showed wall to wall soaps and dross comedy, it would
be impossible for there to be a clash

tim

In message . com,
spiney wrote

, but
incompetent "engineers" ensured it didn't work

And the accountants paying too much for program content (second rate
football) that no-one wanted to watch.

--
Alan

Ohh err! All I did was tell you about this daft woman and you've all
started on about the BBC and that!

Bill

"-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:01:33 GMT:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

--
David Taylor

"Ad C" wrote in message
k...
In article s.net,
LID says...
you said
I wish that was true.
/...


I don't, but then if you want wall-to-wall adverts, were the
programmes are tailored to what advertisers want their audience to be
then so be....



There was a time when I thought it was worth paying for the license, but
the BBC have now lost the plot and are as bad as ITV.

I think once analogue is switched off, then the BBc should be
subscription. People with Sky may not even watch the BBc and yet they
have to pay to support it.

The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has nothing
to do with the right to watch programmes. The BBC was originally a branch of
the Marconi Radio Company and the government inherited all its patent rights
when it was incorporated in 1922. Regardless of where a programme originates
you pay a license fee for the equipment to receive it. Added to that many if
not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were trained by the BBC at the
license payer's expense.

(kim)

"Scott" wrote in message
...

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?

They already do if the PC incorporates any kind of TV card.

(kim)

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
"-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep 2005
08:01:33 GMT:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts programming
to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

--
David Taylor

So they can show programmes in 4 places before they come repeats.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:25 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .

[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The duty is on the seller of the reception equipment. AIUI it is the
TV shop not the aerial installer that has to notify at present.

Scott

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet.

By "that definition" according to certain dictionary definitions of
'receive' and 'broadcast', yes. In practical terms according to the
intention of the TV license, no.

Otherwise I'd need a license for "broadcasting" via paper invitations
about a party, and those "receiving" them would need a license too.

It's about the ability to receive & utilise radio frequency transmissions.
If they want to later on talk about viewing material made by a corporation
(ie. downloading a BBC video or buying a BBC CD with video files on it)
then that's another matter entirely and is unrelated to computer licensing.

B.
--
Your mouse has moved.
Windows needs to be restarted for the changes to take effect.

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:25 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .

[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The duty is on the seller of the reception equipment. AIUI it is
the
TV shop not the aerial installer that has to notify at present.


The point is, a computer can be (and mainly is) used for many things
other than watching TV over IPTV, if were the computer does not have
a IP connection (or certain content is blocked) to the outside world
then it's impossible to be used for such a service.

The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast
services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states that
TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no such
requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if connected
to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast
services...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Ohh err! All I did was tell you about this daft woman and you've
all
started on about the BBC and that!


Welcome to Usenet!... :~)

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
"-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep
2005 08:01:33 GMT:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts
programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will
have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?


What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for
example), after all, a film is a film!....

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net...

"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
"-GB-Carpy" wrote on Sat, 17 Sep
2005 08:01:33 GMT:

The BBC will also be forbidden from consigning all its arts
programming to
BBC4 or its documentaries to BBC2. Instead, every channel will
have to
fulfil the corporation's public service remit.

What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel (for
example), after all, a film is a film!....

Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for two days
a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum...

Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter?

--
Max Demian

"Brian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:20:09 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

But then... the BBC are planning to put their broacasts on the internet,
arent't they? What are we to assume about the legality of watching those
with or without a licence, or even *owning a computer*? The current
licence is apparently required if you have equipment installed for the
use
of receiving broadcasts, which would by that definition include any
computer connected to the internet.

By "that definition" according to certain dictionary definitions of
'receive' and 'broadcast', yes. In practical terms according to the
intention of the TV license, no.

Otherwise I'd need a license for "broadcasting" via paper invitations
about a party, and those "receiving" them would need a license too.

It's about the ability to receive & utilise radio frequency transmissions.
If they want to later on talk about viewing material made by a corporation
(ie. downloading a BBC video or buying a BBC CD with video files on it)
then that's another matter entirely and is unrelated to computer
licensing.

Except that you still need a TV licence if all your equipment is for cable
reception.

--
Max Demian

In article s.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes

"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 12:18:25 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .

[ re IPTV ]

Will computer retailers now have to notify TV Licensing?


Why would they? Broadband ISP's, now that is a different matter...

The duty is on the seller of the reception equipment. AIUI it is
the
TV shop not the aerial installer that has to notify at present.


The point is, a computer can be (and mainly is) used for many things
other than watching TV over IPTV, if were the computer does not have
a IP connection (or certain content is blocked) to the outside world
then it's impossible to be used for such a service.

The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast
services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states that
TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no such
requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if connected
to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast
services...

The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive
television programmes.

--
Ian G8ILZ

kim wrote:
The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has
nothing to do with the right to watch programmes.

Correct.

The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the
government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated
in 1922.

Almost completely incorrect.

Regardless of where a programme originates you pay a license fee for
the equipment to receive it.

Some of us prefer 'licence', but, yes, that's true.

Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV were
trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense.

Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt
whether they're knowable.

André Coutanche

"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
enews.net...
"David Taylor" wrote in message
...
snip
What's the point of having 4 identical BBC channels?

What's the point in there being more than one Sky Movie channel
(for
example), after all, a film is a film!....

Doesn't explain why each film is shown twice a day and usually for
two days
a week and then the same for every week ad infinitum...

Haven't Sky heard of Sky+? Or VCRs for that matter?


Or indeed waiting six months and buying your very own copy, assuming
that it's a 'new' release - but then all the above mean putting some
effort into doing more than sitting on your backside and pressing the
remote buttons - even if it is only the need to put a fresh tape or
DVD in the machine, if you get my drift......

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article
s.net,
":::Jerry::::" writes
snip

The fact is, a TV set is sold ready and able to receive broadcast
services (why else would someone buy a TV), thus the law states
that
TVL have to be informed of each and every *receiver* sold - no
such
requirement exists for the sale of *monitors* - although if
connected
to a STB or PVR etc. they could be used to watch broadcast
services...

The STB is notified, and is subject to licence if used to receive
television programmes.


That was my point, the equipment has to be able to *receive*, without
the need for add on cards or 'boxes', a computer (without a TV
receiver card) or 'production' monitor is no more able to receive a
television service as a washing machine or toaster can.

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message news:432bd463$0$8012

Probably not, seeing that they obviously know the difference between
the legal need to have a licence to own (use) a TV and that of
needing a subscription to view certain channels....

The law doesn't come into it, this is personal, it's about their job
security :)

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
kim wrote:
snip

Added to that many if not all of the technicians at Sky and ITV
were
trained by the BBC at the license payer's expense.

Quite possibly - though I don't know any statistics, and I doubt
whether they're knowable.


Oh, I think it's possible to know how many people were trained by BBC
training in a given period, it's quite possible that names could even
be put to those figures, it's not difficult to then work out the
numbers employed in the technical side of the television industry and
who they work for - at one time, AIUI, the BBC were the only
broadcast industry training organisation, and this didn't change
until relatively recently.

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
kim wrote:
The license fee is for the right to use receiving equipment, it has
nothing to do with the right to watch programmes.

Correct.

The BBC was originally a branch of the Marconi Radio Company and the
government inherited all its patent rights when it was incorporated
in 1922.

Almost completely incorrect.

Okay, I was simplifying matters for the purpose of this NG but if you insist
on having the full monty:-

"Another important area in the advances made in wireless telephony lay in
public broadcasting. On 15th June 1920, Britain's first advertised public
broadcast programme took place. A song recital by Dame Nellie Melba was
broadcast using a Marconi 15 kW telephone transmitter at the Marconi works
in Chelmsford, and was heard in many countries.

In 1921, the Company was permitted to broadcast the first regular public
entertainment programme from a low-power transmitter at Writtle, near
Chelmsford, and later from the first London station at Marconi House.

Unrestricted competition was checked however, when, in 1922, the question of
broadcasting was referred to the Broadcasting Sub-Committee of the Imperial
Conference. In 1922, all the competing interests were merged the British
Broadcasting Company, later to become the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC). "

From the History section of Marcon's official website:-

http://www.marconi.com/Home/about_us...coni%20History

(kim)

In article ws.net,
LID says...

Yes, I agree, but as long as they are funded from (an indirect tax)
that situation is reversible - it was only some idiot [1] within the
Corporation and his 'internal market' and the unneeded ratings war
with ITV / Ch4 that caused the problem.

[1] trouble is, he know seems to have access of Blair, talk about a
double whammy.... :~(

The BBc was so good a few years back, it was worth paying for, most time
you switch on to a BBc channel, there would be something iteresting to
watch and that was with only 2 channels, now it is boring watered down
rubbish.

You mean they CHOOSE not to watch. If subscription was on a par with
the current licence fee it would be a neutral change (cost wise), and


It is their choice, just like it is my choice not to pay Sky for Sky
movies or Sky sports. I have just downgraded my Sky by 2 mixes. My
choice.

If people do not want to watch the BBC, they should not have to pay for
it.


what would that subscription cover - how would the BBC's radio (and
other non television services be funded?



BBc radio can have adverts and any other BBC non-television services.