A tax on internet service providers is one of the proposals put forward by the telecoms watchdog Ofcom in a review of the funding of "public service" broadcasting.

 

Other proposals include direct Government funding, splitting the licence fee between the BBC and other broadcasters, such as ITV and Channel 4, and relaxing the rules regulating some commercial broadcasters in return for a commitment to produce public service programmes.

 

How should we fund public service broadcasting? Would you support an internet licence fee? Is it time that the Government funded quality, public service programming directly?

 

Should the BBC be the only recipient of subsidies or would competition for funding improve the quality of its and others' programmes?

 

Why subsidise public service broadcasting at all?

 

 

Source: Sunday Telegraph

Every channel should have adverts imo. Forcing you to pay a £130 yearly fee is a complete joke. :arrr:

"Internet License fee"

 

what a farking joke. Just because people have Internet connections doesn't mean they all sit and watch BBC, ITV, and C4's on demand services online. Quite a high proportion in fact will use it for simple things like going on forums (like us), downloading music, emails, and gaming.

I'm against the television license. £130 a year for a tv station that plays genuine $h!t.

I'm against the television license. £130 a year for a tv station that plays genuine $h!t.

Erm, the BBC is more than just 'a tv station'. It has eight tv channels the majority of which are much better than similar channels, as well as about 10 national radio stations and more than double that local, as well as various worldwide initiatives. On the whole, the BBC is quality broardcasting, and in my eyes, well worth £130 a year for no adverts.

As their flagship channel, the BBC should put more of the license fee money into BBC1 imo. They are ALWAYS showing repeats of that 'New Tricks' lark in 9.00pm primetime slots... totally lazy scheduling if you ask me. I often wonder though how they manage to split just the license fee money around all those radio stations and stuff though! :lol:

I would easily pay however much they asked for if NO channels had adverts, they always seem to f*** up the movie when there is one on. -_-

I would easily pay however much they asked for if NO channels had adverts, they always seem to f*** up the movie when there is one on. -_-

 

Sky Movies :magic:

 

okay there's adverts before and after but not in the middle :heehee:

 

Some adverts are handy sometimes when nature calls :lol:

I'm against the television license. £130 a year for a tv station that plays genuine $h!t.

 

And, erm, how much do you pay per year for Sky or Virgin then...? What do they give you in terms of 'value for money' then...? A load of American shows, adverts every 10 sodding minutes minutes.... And they continually repeat shows.....

 

BBC makes its own programming in the main of all types, it also has all the radio stations, is involved in financing films, provides six or seven inclusive DIGITAL services as well.... They also have BBCi Player with which you can download a whole WEEK's progs for nowt.....

 

...Not bad for £130 quid a year...... The likes of Sky and Virgin just don't even come close to providing the sort of service the Beeb does. At all....

 

I think the BBC should accept sponsorship for main programs, thus helping to cut the budget, I am utterly opposed to ads but I would like to see private companies sponsor tv programs so the announcer would say "and coming up next Eastenders bought to you in association with Horlicks" or whatever and then that way there are no ads but a private company has helped towards the funding, that frees up more money and hopefully mean cuts in licence fee

 

But the BBC is brilliant, I Player, leading the way in HD and so on