ITV could get a cut of the license fee

[Steve]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6499474.ece

because regional news is becoming increasingly uneconomic, the document is expected to indicate that about £50 million a year of the licence fee could be “top sliced” and set aside for other news producers.

ITV is a crock of ****. BBC is passable. If my money gets given to ITV, a channel I almost actively avoid, I think I'd rather risk the fine.

And there's more from the same white paper:

Digital Britain will also try to tighten up rampant internet piracy of music and films, by trying to encourage the creation of an industry body that will have the power to censor pirate websites so nobody can log on to them.

Sod off. We already have an unelected, unregulated group of people feverishly surfing for child porn (who themselves have no legal right to do so) so that they can "protect us" from it. And quite frankly, piracy and child pornography are many orders of magnitude apart.

[Lucio]

One question Steve, are you actively supporting internet piracy or are you simply against a non-government body from filtering the content?

If it's the latter, what's better for the UK public, something we pay for directly via taxes, or an indirect fee through your ISP?

[DeludedGuy]

ITV are awful but the BBC news coverage is rather dull and the majority of their newsreaders and TV stars are overpaid.

I don’t get my value for money from the License Fee, I find myself watching 2-3 Programs a week from the BBC, it’s not really worth it. Top Gear is brilliant, along with HIGNFY, MOTD and the few odd documentaries here and there. I do use thier weather service a lot but thats it really.

I wouldnt mind seeing the license fee reduced, why cant the majority of thier TV stars live off £70k a year? Sure some of them are worth up to £120k a year, I know some of them do a great job, but thats what they are suppose to do.

Regarding the internet censorship - IMO nothing on the internet should be censored, and I mean nothing, its taking away your freedom in a sense, and we all know what happens when they censor one thing, it leads to another, and another.

[Saracen]

I completely agree. Funding public service broadcasting on a non-commercial channel with no adverts via a mandatory licence fee is one thing, but funding commercial channels via licence fee is unacceptable to me.

Personally, I don't watch that much TV anyway, and most of what I do watch comes out on DVD a few weeks/months later, be it US shows like Stargate or Prison Break, or BBC spectaculars like Planet Earth. If they do this, I'll be very tempted to just get my news and current affairs from the web and my "TV" shows by renting or buying the DVD sets. And giving up on broadcast TV, and the licence fee, altogether.

ITV with licence fee money? Go to hell. You know what'll come next, don't you? They'll want to out the fee up because they need more for ITV. If a commercial channel can't survive commercially, maybe they don't deserve to survive.

[0iD]

Cripes! Saracen in short answer shocker

I agree that getting a share of the licence fee is utterly unacceptable for a commercial enterprise, just because advertising revenues are down.

[beanbandit]

I wouldnt mind seeing the license fee reduced, why cant the majority of thier TV stars live off £70k a year? Sure some of them are worth up to £120k a year, I know some of them do a great job, but thats what they are suppose to do.

Your name is well suited here. If you really think that the BBC "stars" would stay if they were paid that sort of salary you really are deluded. You have to pay the going rate, if your not willing to pay that then you can expect all the high profile presenters to move on. Would you really watch some program with some deadhead, no personality idiot fronting it? Imagine Top Gear with idiots (Fifth Gear? ), would people still watch it? I know i wouldn't.

As for ITV getting my license fee, thats not what i signed up for. The money is intended for the beeb, it should only go to the beeb. If ITV do get this money, does it mean that we will now get adverts on the BBC? This is such a bad idea.

[Dareos]

Scrap the license fee, put adverts on everything



i just fast forward them on Sky+ anyways....

[JPreston]

Ah but the 'going rate' for Jonathon Ross has fallen drastically, since ITV have no money as a result of plummeting advertising revenues.

I don't have a TV licence, but for a 'public service' organisation with a remit to 'educate and entertain' I would certainly say that in chasing after commercial TV's audience the BBC waste huge amounts of your money on complete dross that educates no-one and entertains only the least discerning slack-jawed neanderthals. When I run tings the BBC's schedule will consist mostly of The Today Programme, Q.E.D., and test cards but at least your TV licence will cost about £0.12 per year

[Andeh13]

Well said Steve (OP), couldnt have sumed up my feelings better!

[Steve]

One question Steve, are you actively supporting internet piracy or are you simply against a non-government body from filtering the content?

I am against internet filtering by anyone other than the person paying for the Internet connection.

If it's the latter, what's better for the UK public, something we pay for directly via taxes, or an indirect fee through your ISP?

Neither, of course. It's up to the creative industries to educate and where necessary take action against people who infringe copyright. If it costs them as much money as they say it does, then it's worth it for them to invest heavily in, rather than placing demands upon governments and ISPs alike.

P.S. That was two questions