Alex1975
Tour Winner
Would you pay double that? Three times that? Just curious how important it is to you?
-
PGA Pro Q+A: Ask Our Expert For Advice On Improving Your Golf Game ⛳
End of the Red Button....
- Thread starter Fish
- Start date
Would you pay double that? Three times that? Just curious how important it is to you?
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Interesting point.
I do the odd stint in the local community charity shop and when there is an item that is difficult to value [ie a half roll of new carpet] I usually say 'pay what you think it is worth'.
Nine times out of ten you get a lot more than the figure you had in mind.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
I would pay double the fee :thup:
The BBC produce wonderful programmes and do the big sporting events ( that they cover ) brilliantly - the 2010 Olympic Coverage was the best sports coverage I have seen.
ger147
Tour Winner
The BBC have lost control over TV rights for the Olympics from 2022 onwards. Discovery (owner of Eurosport) have snapped up a pan European deal. The BBC may still be able to sub-licence for the UK but not sure if that means they will have to use the Eurosport feeds much like Sky do for their US golf coverage.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I would pay whatever is deemed appropriate for the licence fee payer to pay to fund the BBC. The decision on whether £24/month or £36/month is acceptable would not be mine to make. I can certainly afford £36month and would happily do away with most of my Sky subscription to pay that - but affordability for me is not what would determine the level the fee is set.
D
Deleted member 15344
Guest
They will sub licence it and will use a lot of their own cameras and production for certain events ( Atheltics , Cycling , Rowing and Swimming ) and using host cameras and feed for other events
ger147
Tour Winner
If your a fan of the Olympics and enjoy watching it on the BBC I can only assume you hope that's the case.
But as there is no deal in place yet no-one knows, could end up on ITV.
Alex1975
Tour Winner
My question was not about affordability it was about me trying to asertane it's worth to you.
It's an interesting topic. While it's the law I will buy a licence. Once it's not I'll take a view but as I sit here I don't think I would pay extra over Sky. They do nothing specific that I would want to subscribe to.
Hacker Khan
Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
I doubt it as every time the BBC goes up against the commercial channels for sporting events the BBC always gets more viewers. So you'd hope the custodians and guardians of the sport would realise that and take the opportunity to get as many people watching it as possible thus ensuring the future viability of the sport, over any short term financial gain. Most of which ends up in the pockets of already stupidly paid players/competitors and/or their agents/hangers on.
Hold on, I take that back, what am I saying, it's custodians of sport. Of course they will chose short term financial gain as that is all they seem to care about nowadays.
Last edited:
Compared with Sky, the BBC is amazingly good value for money!
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Is it really tho?
I pay £56 pm for Sky,that includes God knows how many channels,Lots of Sport & Phone line & Broadband.
And at least I get the choice of paying for Sky.
The BBC is pretty much forced upon me.
How do you know this. I have grave fears by 2022 BBC will have lost most if not all of their sports
Alex1975
Tour Winner
Delc I'm a little surprised at you?! Bit of a silly thing to say. It's like saying "your music is crap" ... It's a matter of opinion!
That a side, my point is choice.... I would like the choice not to have to pay for the bbc services. I do not want be forced to subsidise others.
ColchesterFC
Journeyman Pro
How many of those channels do you watch on a regular basis? I have now reduced my Sky package to the most basic level available and that is mainly so the kids can watch the Disney channels. I no longer have sports or movies but still have access to 100's of channels. There are probably less than half a dozen of those channels that I watch regularly that I couldn't get on freeview.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
My point is that it doesn't really matter what it is worth to me - the value of something is sometimes more than it's cost.
But since you asked I could say that as I pay about £100/month for my Sky subscription then I'd be happy to cancel all of Sky to pay for the BBC. So maybe my starter would by £100 a month. But of course at that level the BBC I'd be getting would be more than current BBC and so I don't know what my £100/month would be providing me and so I don't know whether I'd be happy or not to pay my £100/month. But if it was a mandatory licence fee then I would.
I hardly watch any Sky these days - it is truly not worth what I pay. My principle viewing is BBC1, BBC2 and BBC4, and the majority of my radio listening (90%?) is to Radio4, Radio5Live, RadioScotland and Radio6Music. And I use the BBC website a lot.
Last edited:
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
I admit that I don't watch most of the channels,but I'd also add the BBC channels to that list.
I'd just like the choice of paying to view the BBC Channels,or not.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I'm going to scrap Sky. I don't watch any English Premiership football (we got it for my son who lives away from home now); we don't watch much in the way of Sky movies; and most of the stuff my Mrs likes is UKTV - so on Freeview. I will miss Sky Arts and do occasionally watch something on Sky Atlantic. But for that £100/month - nope. Good old BBC for me - unbeatable and stupendous value for money.
Not too worried about the loss of the Red Button as didn't use it much
Alex1975
Tour Winner
True, but not very often. But for you in this case it would seem so from your answer. You as an intelligent guy would concede that the very opposite might be the same for others though?!
If there is the same passion from others in the UK as you have for the BBC then there is no need to make it mandatory. They could charge the likes of you more and the likes of me nothing and be in the same position. I have a feeling though that your some what polar and actually if the BBC licence fee was not mandatory then the BBC would be closed for business in a matter of months... If I am correct, and I may not be, that would be the true worth of the BBC.
I think you have the same hunch as me and that is why you are happy for it to be mandatory, cos you know we are contributing to your entertainment that would otherwise be taken away or repurposed.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
My contribution is for my entertainment - yes, but I recognise a wider value my contribution makes to the greater whole that provides quality programming for others who might not be able to justify subscription services (particularly for channels that they might not imagine they would be interested in) - and in any case some Tories seem to think that if you are on benefits you shouldn't have subscription TV
Alex1975
Tour Winner
My contribution is for my entertainment - yes, but I recognise a wider value my contribution makes to the greater whole that provides quality programming for others who might not be able to justify subscription services (particularly for channels that they might not imagine they would be interested in) - and in any case some Tories seem to think that if you are on benefits you shouldn't have subscription TV
I don't see this as a political issue but.... they probably shouldn't.
