ITV to create Pay Per View Channels

[-:Undertaker:-]

And these broadcasters are?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

You are telling me their is no selection?

Lower price? if you are referring to Virgin and Sky, if you subscribe for a year for all their 'main' services, then you would be paying over £1000 per year... how is that cheaper?

It does not cost that much so do not over do it. Here are some examples of the cheap packages you can get with a lot of choice from Virgin Media; http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=1 - more choice and what from I can see, it comes under the price of the License fee to the BBC which only has a few channels compared to Virgin and Sky who offer over 50+ channels sometimes going into the hundreds.

£60 a month for Sky+HD - yeh real cheap.

It'll cost more if you use Sky HD as an example. :rolleyes:

[Catzsy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

You are telling me their is no selection?



It does not cost that much so do not over do it. Here are some examples of the cheap packages you can get with a lot of choice from Virgin Media; http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=1 - more choice and what from I can see, it comes under the price of the License fee to the BBC which only has a few channels compared to Virgin and Sky who offer over 50+ channels sometimes going into the hundreds.



It'll cost more if you use Sky HD as an example. :rolleyes:

Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option and you still have to pay the license fee to any live televison view it so in effect it's dearer.
If the license fee was lifted then it would make way for huge rises in these fees - It's only the license fee that keeps them pegged down. Also you have not answered how you are going to get the quality of uninterrupted broadcasting that the BBC is renound for.

[AgnesIO]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_Kingdom

You are telling me their is no selection?



It does not cost that much so do not over do it. Here are some examples of the cheap packages you can get with a lot of choice from Virgin Media; http://allyours.virginmedia.com/webs...ervice.do?id=1 - more choice and what from I can see, it comes under the price of the License fee to the BBC which only has a few channels compared to Virgin and Sky who offer over 50+ channels sometimes going into the hundreds.



It'll cost more if you use Sky HD as an example. :rolleyes:

Even normal sky costs over £100 a year..

[alexxxxx]

sky get far more money in terms of revenue and still can't produce quality shows.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option and you still have to pay the license fee to any live televison view it so in effect it's dearer. If the license fee was lifted then it would make way for huge rises in these fees - It's only the license fee that keeps them pegged down. Also you have not answered how you are going to get the quality of uninterrupted broadcasting that the BBC is renound for.

£5.50 x 12 = £66 per year. Now your argument is that if people paid this ontop of the £140 odd sum the BBC compulsory charges (which they do anyway) then this would end up as more which means a family ends up paying around £200. That is at the moment and that is the whole reason why I want to scrap the license fee. Think of it realisically because it would mean it would cost a family less and not more dear as you have twisted it. At the moment say, my family wants to purchase the Sky package as we feel that suits us best. That would cost us a mere £66 a year and not £200. As for the point on the license fee keeping them pegged down;- sorry but thats just totally and utterly wrong. The license fee is not optional and thus they could raise it to £900 tommorow and it wouldnt effect the commerical sector in the slightest. If anything the BBC going private would force the BBC's prices down and make it more efficent, meaning families who wanted to continue paying for both the BBC and other broadcasters would make a saving as well as those who wanted to drop the BBC.

On your point on the BBC; that is opinion. You have answered your own question really, you state the BBC is very popular and renound for its programming - well if thats the case and you are telling the truth then the BBC would have no problem in keeping its shows at top quality. If its not the case as I am arguing and that a lot of people dont even like the BBC then whats wrong with people deciding themselves which television they want to watch?

Even normal sky costs over £100 a year..

The basic package as Rosie states adds up to £66, nearly half the price of the BBC license fee.

sky get far more money in terms of revenue and still can't produce quality shows.

That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?

[AgnesIO]

But again if ee scrap the fee for bbc then we won't save any cash.. they will just charge £100 for something else - probably more...

[Catzsy]

£5.50 x 12 = £66 per year. Now your argument is that if people paid this ontop of the £140 odd sum the BBC compulsory charges (which they do anyway) then this would end up as more which means a family ends up paying around £200. That is at the moment and that is the whole reason why I want to scrap the license fee. Think of it realisically because it would mean it would cost a family less and not more dear as you have twisted it. At the moment say, my family wants to purchase the Sky package as we feel that suits us best. That would cost us a mere £66 a year and not £200. As for the point on the license fee keeping them pegged down;- sorry but thats just totally and utterly wrong. The license fee is not optional and thus they could raise it to £900 tommorow and it wouldnt effect the commerical sector in the slightest. If anything the BBC going private would force the BBC's prices down and make it more efficent, meaning families who wanted to continue paying for both the BBC and other broadcasters would make a saving as well as those who wanted to drop the BBC.

On your point on the BBC; that is opinion. You have answered your own question really, you state the BBC is very popular and renound for its programming - well if thats the case and you are telling the truth then the BBC would have no problem in keeping its shows at top quality. If its not the case as I am arguing and that a lot of people dont even like the BBC then whats wrong with people deciding themselves which television they want to watch?



The basic package as Rosie states adds up to £66, nearly half the price of the BBC license fee.



That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?

Dan, the cheapest sky package is £16 per month for which you get a very basic service which not many people are satisfied with so that's a lot more expensive than £66. Hmm I don't choose for anybody. Please read my posts before. There are results of a survey there that says 77% support the BBC and 69% think they are worth the money. End of matter, really.

[alexxxxx]

That is opinion, why not let people make that choice rather than people such as yourself making it for them?

They make very few shows apart from Sky Sports (of which most is imported, not produced) & Sky News plus very limited shows on Sky One. Everything else is imported, mostly from FOX/News Corp which I doubt they pay for much of anyway.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But again if ee scrap the fee for bbc then we won't save any cash.. they will just charge £100 for something else - probably more...

You will save money as you wouldn't be forced into paying the £140 still. That means people who do not use the BBC or have any desire to use it would not have to pay the £140. Its a pretty simple concept.

Dan, the cheapest sky package is £16 per month for which you get a very basic service which not many people are satisfied with so that's a lot more expensive than £66. Hmm I don't choose for anybody. Please read my posts before. There are results of a survey there that says 77% support the BBC and 69% think they are worth the money. End of matter, really.

Why did you just say £5.50 then? - and I quote; "Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option"

As for you choosing peoples television service yes you are. If you are forcing people to pay for a service they do not watch or have any desire to use then you are forcing them to pay for a broafcaster that is not their choice. On the survey; wow well this is the first time you've actually listened to surveys because normally you just rubbish them. I'll comment though; commercial television is such a small matter is should be upto the individual, it has no need to be part of the law or enforced by the law. If 70% of people want to pay the TV license and enjoy the BBC then they could do so, while the other 30% odd could pay for another broadcaster.

Tell me why I should pay for BBC services that I do not watch ontop of a cheaper service that I do watch (Sky or Virgin)? - would it not just make more sense to let people make their own choice which broadcaster they prefer to pay towards and thus benefit from their service?

They make very few shows apart from Sky Sports (of which most is imported, not produced) & Sky News plus very limited shows on Sky One. Everything else is imported, mostly from FOX/News Corp which I doubt they pay for much of anyway.

Then just let people decide, if the BBC is as popular as you all claim then it would do perfectly fine as a private company and would not at all be withered away by rival broadcasters, if what I think is really true that the BBC is not all that popular then thats market forces working on what at the end of the day is essentially a business.

[Catzsy]

Why did you just say £5.50 then? - and I quote; [FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2][I]"Well it's £5.50 a month even for it's cheapest option"

Because in your post you were quoting Virgin Media @ £5,50 pm not Sky - that could be the reason? Sky is a minimum of £16.00 per month?