www.thesun.co.uk
So those who watch it wouldn't mind a subscription model if they think it's value for money, even if it means the price goes up. The BBC is not value for money at all if you don't watch it.
Most of us pay many taxes supporting services that don't benefit us directly because we don't use them. Society innit?
As I said in an earlier post, housing and food (and other things) are essential, BBC TV isn't.
I haven't found housing and food to be free either. In today's money it's probably cost about £1M to feed and house me over the course of my lifetime.
They are free for an ever increasing number of people these days.
Kind of the previous posters point though isn’t it. None of them are free but housing and food are essential and the bbc is not!
I would see a membership at Wentworth or Queenwood as invaluable too. Doesn't mean that others should pay for it on my behalf.
Well the two I've crossed out are free, so forget them. You can watch anything on any other channel on catch-up, so that hugely negates the value of your first point as well. Ok you lose access to iPlayer, but they hardly have any good programs anyway - and the best ones will turn up on Netflix in a couple of years. I'm not seeing this great value at all.
It is subscription tv though, you need to pay a license fee to watch it. They just haven't bothered to scramble the signal yet.
Why? I don't play at Wentworth and I don't watch the BBC. Neither are essential for anybody, I should pay for neither.
That's not relevant. You were talking about whether it's good value for the consumer. It's never good value to try and justify paying for something that you already get for free.
Especially when they've basically given up on live sport in any capacity.
