Read more.Quote:
Digital now accounts for nearly 13 per cent of revenue.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Digital now accounts for nearly 13 per cent of revenue.
good on them :)
Agreed, fantastic that they can provide quality broadcasting and essentially stop people from needing to watch live television any more and still manage to turn a pretty hefty profit. Although they've dropped about 500 hours of sport last year, that's got to save some cash in licensing?
I'm sorry I think the other posters are confusing this BBC with a different one. Here's my take on it. I'm not trolling, just offering my view.
BBC charges each UK household £145.50 per year. Other countries in Europe can get it free of charge.
Even if you don't watch TV and just own a capable device - you still owe them. No TV, but your landlord has an aerial on the roof? Tough guff - pay up. If I sell you an electrical item (think graphics card or DVD player), I'm required by law to notify licensing so they can chase you up for the money.
BBC claim they don't advertise, hence the license fee. Yet all of their programs get sold to subsidiary companies like UKTV on freeview. These companies then take the shows (UK license payers bought) and fill them with a ton of adverts on Dave and Yesterday.
BBC news is bias. They are the voice of the state and tell us lies. They've told us hurricanes weren't coming and lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 TWICE before it happened. There's a million reasons not to believe their news. I believe the political viewpoint is just to corrupt and biased.
BBC had the funding and manpower to chase up and successfully prosecute 400,000 poor people/license evaders in 2010. Elsewhere we saw massive cuts in public spending, higher tuition fees and the global economic downturn. ....and the best thing they could offer that Christmas was a 5 year old Disney Pixar movie everyone had already seen?
I'm sorry, but BBC tastes like pure nationalistic propaganda to me.
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g1...c4zw_9XQ4A.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
Hear HearQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
Thats why i dont watch the new. Propaganda.
Have you noticed that whenever something major is happening that proves the government are wrong/scum/filthy rotten soundrels, the bbc reports on something to 'Divert you attention'
Not quiteQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/Quote:
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.
Doesn't stop them sending you threatening letters and implying that they have a legal right to search your home though :s
£145.50 a year .Thats about £12 a month
Alot of people pay like up to £60 on top for Sky,upto £30 a moth for a mobile and around £20 a month for landline and internet !!!
Ok £12 a month those channels the websites and radio ! Thats good value i think :)
Someone will say that channels are crap !! Well so are most of the repeated sky channels with adverts every 10 minutes !!
I have freeveiw and freesat and im happy :)
BBC news tells liesand are bias ?? Well thats all the news channels that lie then dont they !!!
Yes they do, but its usually 1 or 2 channels at most, and the shows are of poor quality/repeats. All my European friends say they have to have their cable/satellite equivalents. Almost no movies are ever shown and certainly no sport.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
You do not have to have a licence if you own a capable device, it is if you watch/record broadcast television, it doesnt matter if you are capable of receiving it or not. You should update your knowledge below:Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-i...atch-tv-top12/
BBC Worldwide part owns UKTV not the BBCQuote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
I'll agree their offerings are dwindling of late and I think they have become too big. Too many channels, too many radio stations and a lack of focus. A mistake any large company can make.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBozack
Well aside from these technical niggles; it's hard to praise the BBC. They've been caught being unscrupulous on a number of occasions. The comedy isn't funny. The soap opera is tedious. Even their drama has to be "Squeaky-BBC-Clean". There's little sport either. Come to think of it, there's not much on BBC that really reflects how people in the UK are living in the 21st century, is there? Perhaps Glastonbury... The BBC CEO must be an old draconian Victorian school mistress or something.
I didn't even touch on the fact they advertise their own books and DVD's. There's some more profit right there to add with their [Partly owned] subsidiary channels. Then there's the subscription other channels have to pay to use the transmitting equipment. I believe the BBC own that too.
I firmly believe the TV license is a modern day window-tax. I'm really not surprised they are 8% richer. They're getting paid by everyone and they make all the rules regarding licensing and broadcasting.
Oh and I'm not claiming Sky or ITV are any better either, but come on... they've always put out better shows, especially when we were kids.
The 8% has nothing to do with the UK License Fee (which the BBC does not collect, it is collected by the government and then given to the BBC as funding. The government is allowed to do other things with this revenue), it is purey from commercial operations as discussed in the article.
Yup, the BBC own and maintain some of the UKs broadcasting infrastructure, there are others that own the rest. It makes total sense that they do, they have the obligation to maintain and provide that service to the other broadcasters, regardless of the economics of doing that. Do they make money from this? I have no idea, but I suspect it just helps them with the cost of maintaining and developing this national resource.
Wouldnt say the BBC is good or bad value really, the problem with catering for everyone is that some will get good use out of it and others will get bugger all. For me I get the value of watching things like Doctor Who, Merlin and lots of news (Christ, i wouldnt wish Sky news on anyone... its ****e) and the motorsport which unfortunately has pissed me off after getting such good F1 coverage we finally got reduced to having a handful of live races and the rest on flipping sky which costs £20 extra + £7 for hd at virgin :(, same with motogp iirc which is a massive shame!.
If bbc kept all the motorsport id be extremely happy, i dont watch soaps so it doesnt affect me and can get annoying seeing eastenders on all the time but i get that alot of people love it so its swings and roundabouts. The online side of it, its good but you dont need a license to watch it so I wouldnt really class it as part of the value in the license as anyone can use it apart from the live bit which doesnt work very well ime.
BBC news is solid, they arent getting money for making the most bull**** ridden articles or "stories" as they arent getting advertising sales or money per viewer, they get a set fee done and done so no faff. Every other news site presents it terribly and incorrectly, things like daily mail pee me off as i could make better stories :P.
So its good BBC is making more profit from the international side, its nice to see profits in an area not effected by our license as if they were making a profit nationally id expect a % reduction in the fee :D.