BBc to launch FREESAT service .. its own non-subscription satellite

[Duchess]

I do have one more question, the commercials on the BBC that you pay for, are they offering non-related services and goods from other companies or are they for BBC related programming only?

The only adverts on the BBC in the UK is for their own services and programmes and they do not advertise for anything else. However, there was a bit of bother a couple of years back when it was asked if the adverts shown within programmes as back drops etc. were paid for by companies. It has also been suggested that such incidental advertising could earn income for the Beeb.

[DereX888]

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Bullocks :P

You fail to notice very significant difference:
I HAVE A CHOICE of paying it or not (your 130 pounds for BBC vs my 'cable' if i opt to pay instead of watchung OTA channels)
YOU DON'T
(if your UK location is correct you simply must pay for BBC regardless of watching it or not )

And as for the extra costs of tv advertising hidden "in the price of groceries" :
the last time Ive been to UK the price of groceries (and basically of everything, including local onion and stuff like that) was way way way higher than same in USA...

I do have one more question, the commercials on the BBC that you pay for, are they offering non-related services and goods from other companies or are they for BBC related programming only?

The only adverts on the BBC in the UK is for their own services and programmes and they do not advertise for anything else. However, there was a bit of bother a couple of years back when it was asked if the adverts shown within programmes as back drops etc. were paid for by companies. It has also been suggested that such incidental advertising could earn income for the Beeb.

Product placement... the old Brit trick that hollywood tries to implement, eh.
I think it started with first James Bond movie and Aston Martin, didn't it?

[ntscuser]

How do you disable the receiver part of the television? I've never heard of such a thing. On my television the only way to 'disable' it is to just not have anything connected to the coaxial input, which would facilitate an OTA antenna or analog cable service.

You appear to have answered your own question? Convincing the licensing office that is all that's required may be another matter? They could argue you are able to reconnect an antenna as soon they left the building. Buying an industrial monitor which does not contain a receiver of any kind (such as a Hantarex) may be the only way of convincing them. You would also have to ensure any video recording devices didn't contain a receiver section.

[ntscuser]

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Bullocks :P

You fail to notice very significant difference:
I HAVE A CHOICE of paying it or not (your 130 pounds for BBC vs my 'cable' if i opt to pay instead of watchung OTA channels)
YOU DON'T
(if your UK location is correct you simply must pay for BBC regardless of watching it or not )

Correct, if I own a TV receiver. You have to pay for OTA programmes through advertising whether you watch them or not unless you boycott every product which is advertised on TV which is not very practical.

And as for the extra costs of tv advertising hidden "in the price of groceries" : the last time Ive been to UK the price of groceries (and basically of everything, including local onion and stuff like that) was way way way higher than same in USA...

...aren't they just and for every seven pounds spent on advertising them on TV, just one pound of that is used to make TV programmes. In the last year for which I have figures, seven billion pounds was spent on TV advertising while ITV's programme-making budget was just one billion pounds.

[lumis]

Thanks for all the answers from you guys. This whole TV licence fee is very interesting to me.

I do have another question, if you subscribe to satellite or cable service, is the TV licence fee included with your subscription?

What if you use FTA satellite, are you required to pay a TV licence fee?

Thanks again

[ntscuser]

Thanks for all the answers from you guys. This whole TV licence fee is very interesting to me.

I do have another question, if you subscribe to satellite or cable service, is the TV licence fee included with your subscription?

No

What if you use FTA satellite, are you required to pay a TV licence fee?

Yes

[lumis]

What if you put people inside a large box across the street, have them act out a play and use mirrors to reflect the image on to a screen in your home.. Would you be required to pay the licence fee?

[Conquest10]

The only adverts on the BBC in the UK is for their own services and programmes and they do not advertise for anything else.

So it is exactly like premium channels are here that we pay $240 per channel a year for.

[ntscuser]

The only adverts on the BBC in the UK is for their own services and programmes and they do not advertise for anything else.

So it is exactly like premium channels are here that we pay $240 per channel a year for.

Except that the BBC network consists of far more than one TV channel.

[DereX888]

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Bullocks :P

You fail to notice very significant difference:
I HAVE A CHOICE of paying it or not (your 130 pounds for BBC vs my 'cable' if i opt to pay instead of watchung OTA channels)
YOU DON'T
(if your UK location is correct you simply must pay for BBC regardless of watching it or not )

Correct, if I own a TV receiver. You have to pay for OTA programmes through advertising whether you watch them or not unless you boycott every product which is advertised on TV which is not very practical.

There are PVRs, DVRs, TiVos, even old VCRs did the job well...
I grew up with VCR for short time (then my PC was my new VCR) and I hardly remember viewing any commercials

And as for the extra costs of tv advertising hidden "in the price of groceries" : the last time Ive been to UK the price of groceries (and basically of everything, including local onion and stuff like that) was way way way higher than same in USA...

...aren't they just and for every seven pounds spent on advertising them on TV, just one pound of that is used to make TV programmes. In the last year for which I have figures, seven billion pounds was spent on TV advertising while ITV's programme-making budget was just one billion pounds.

You contradict yourself.
If in UK you people save so much money (1/7th as you say) on tv advertising, why is it that in USA everything is much cheaper than in UK?

[ntscuser]

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Bullocks :P

You fail to notice very significant difference:
I HAVE A CHOICE of paying it or not (your 130 pounds for BBC vs my 'cable' if i opt to pay instead of watchung OTA channels)
YOU DON'T
(if your UK location is correct you simply must pay for BBC regardless of watching it or not )

Correct, if I own a TV receiver. You have to pay for OTA programmes through advertising whether you watch them or not unless you boycott every product which is advertised on TV which is not very practical.

There are PVRs, DVRs, TiVos, even old VCRs did the job well...
I grew up with VCR for short time (then my PC was my new VCR) and I hardly remember viewing any commercials

Whether you watch commercials or not you still have to pay for them in the form in the form of increased product prices.

And as for the extra costs of tv advertising hidden "in the price of groceries" : the last time Ive been to UK the price of groceries (and basically of everything, including local onion and stuff like that) was way way way higher than same in USA...

...aren't they just and for every seven pounds spent on advertising them on TV, just one pound of that is used to make TV programmes. In the last year for which I have figures, seven billion pounds was spent on TV advertising while ITV's programme-making budget was just one billion pounds.

You contradict yourself.
If in UK you people save so much money (1/7th as you say) on tv advertising, why is it that in USA everything is much cheaper than in UK?

We have two terrestrial TV networks in the UK. Only one is paid for through the license fee, the other is paid for through advertising so there is no overall saving. Goods and services were much cheaper in the UK before the start of commercial TV in 1955. The advertising industry itself boasts that a certain brand of toilet roll ("Andrex") costs four times as much it would do otherwise due to effective TV advertising. Since there are no longer any programmes worth watching on ITV, there is no reason for it to continue.

[Cole]

There are PVRs, DVRs, TiVos, even old VCRs did the job well...
I grew up with VCR for short time (then my PC was my new VCR) and I hardly remember viewing any commercials

Isn't this a major problem for the commercial networks? Advertising revenue in the UK has nose-dived in the last few years and many other channels have sprung up and are taking slices of an ever decreasing pie; I wonder how long commercial television in the UK can last in its current form. I imagine that TV advertisers in the US are far more powerful and have an awful lot more money to spend; having a programme pulled mid-way through a run is a fairly new phenomenon in the UK but AFAIK it is an oft occurance in the US (please correct me if I'm wrong) as many a show has met a premature death through lack of ratings.

Add to this technology to remove advertising from broadcasts removes the point of advertisers using the television medium. What is the point if everyone is going to skip their commercials?

The commerical stations (the biggest being ITV) don't want the licence fee scrapped apparently. BBC1 now gets the over-all biggest audience share and if they went commercial ITV would loose a lot of money as, obviously, the advetisers would flock to where it was more likely that their wares will be on show. Now that ITV is a PLC, its main aim is profit and making money for the share holders; the viewer comes in third behind them and the advetisers. Because of this situation ITV has been, in the last few years, very reliant on its big hitting Soap operas (Emmadale and Coronation Street) which are on five or six times a week now and have aimed a lot of output towards women not to mention the meteoric rise of the reality show; but it didn't have much else. This is because these programmes have an established viewer base. The casualty has been creativity; to risk new programming was to risk low ratings; although this now appears to be changing as ITV have made a few series that would be unheard of only two years ago: Eleventh Hour (with Patrick Stewart), Afterlife and the newer (Doctor Who influenced but rather fun) Primeval.

My own view on the licence fee is a lesser of two evils situation; no-one really likes paying it and I don't really like the way that the BBC sometimes operates: huge administration costs and staffing, too many local radio stations, sometimes frustrating PC programme making and the pointless BBC3, but it does make the best of the UK programmes: e.g. Doctor Who (ahem), Spooks (or MI5) and the brilliant Life On Mars (you US folk are getting your own version of this soon apparently).

Many don't like the BBC in its current form and indeed there is a lot very wrong with it, but if the licence fee was scrapped, and maybe in the 21st Century it is an out of date concept, then the BBC would end in its current form. I suspect that, in the UK, we won't appreciate what we have until it has gone.

[Conquest10]

Yes, shows are constantly canceled mid-season here if the ratings are OK and not number 1 (especially if it costs a lot to produce). Some of the times its the fault of the network by constantly switching time slots or not showing the show every week. Family Guy immediately comes to mind. They kept switching days and time slots then even had a huge hiatus in between seasons before it was cancelled. It started regularly airing on Adult Swim and all of a sudden ratings for it went up and it was brought back. Futurama is another. There were episodes of it that didn't even air until it was in syndication. And the ultimate has to be Arrested Development where they would just randomly show episodes throughout the year until it was cancelled.

What some advertisers have started doing due to people just fast forwarding through the commercials is put ads for the products in the actual show.

[DereX888]

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Bullocks :P

You fail to notice very significant difference:
I HAVE A CHOICE of paying it or not (your 130 pounds for BBC vs my 'cable' if i opt to pay instead of watchung OTA channels)
YOU DON'T
(if your UK location is correct you simply must pay for BBC regardless of watching it or not )

Correct, if I own a TV receiver. You have to pay for OTA programmes through advertising whether you watch them or not unless you boycott every product which is advertised on TV which is not very practical.

There are PVRs, DVRs, TiVos, even old VCRs did the job well...
I grew up with VCR for short time (then my PC was my new VCR) and I hardly remember viewing any commercials

Whether you watch commercials or not you still have to pay for them in the form in the form of increased product prices.

The discussion with you seems pointless, you keep repeating and repeating same mantra about "me" (US) paying more for products due to advertising costs, yet it is "you" (UK) who pay much more for the same products (with very very few exceptions).

What some advertisers have started doing due to people just fast forwarding through the commercials is put ads for the products in the actual show.

It was inevitable.
The day I saw first TiVo in my friend's home, I knew the advertising ways have to, and will change.
Im surprisewd product placement still haven't caught on on much wider scale.

[ntscuser]

The discussion with you seems pointless, you keep repeating and repeating same mantra about "me" (US) paying more for products due to advertising costs, yet it is "you" (UK) who pay much more for the same products (with very very few exceptions).

At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care. This thread is about the BBC and the method by which it is financed in the UK.

[DereX888]

The discussion with you seems pointless, you keep repeating and repeating same mantra about "me" (US) paying more for products due to advertising costs, yet it is "you" (UK) who pay much more for the same products (with very very few exceptions).

At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care. This thread is about the BBC and the method by which it is financed in the UK.

So which part of the discussion you don't understand?
The analogy between US commercially-funded tv, where you suggest (in USA) it raise the cost of products advertised on tv by as much as 1/7th, or the part of "obligatory publicly-funded BBC" without advertising, where (in UK) same products are NOT 1/7th cheaper than in USa, but even much more expensive than in USA?

The "tv licence" is a scam in my opinion, and you haven't give me any logical explanation or reason to prove it is not...

[ntscuser]

The discussion with you seems pointless, you keep repeating and repeating same mantra about "me" (US) paying more for products due to advertising costs, yet it is "you" (UK) who pay much more for the same products (with very very few exceptions).

At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care. This thread is about the BBC and the method by which it is financed in the UK.

So which part of the discussion you don't understand?
The analogy between US commercially-funded tv, where you suggest (in USA) it raise the cost of products advertised on tv by as much as 1/7th, or the part of "obligatory publicly-funded BBC" without advertising, where (in UK) same products are NOT 1/7th cheaper than in USa, but even much more expensive than in USA?

Which part of "At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care" do you not understand?

The "tv licence" is a scam in my opinion, and you haven't give me any logical explanation or reason to prove it is not...

The only programmes in the UK worth watching are those produced by the BBC which is funded by the TV license fee. That makes it extremely good value in my opinion.

[Cole]

The "tv licence" is a scam in my opinion, and you haven't give me any logical explanation or reason to prove it is not...

I think scam is the wrong word for it; more like a tax. The licence is paid only if one has a televison set or an item that can receive television signals like a TV card for a PC. AS I understand it, the rate is set by the Government (after considering the BBC's request) who collect it and then (possibly after taking a cut) hand the rest to the BBC. This whole budget is then used in the BBC's operation; no profits are made from this so it isn't destined for anyone's pockets.

The BBC does have a commerical arm, BBC Worldwide (who I believe also run BBC America), and any profits made by them are put back into the corportation's operations.

[DereX888]

The discussion with you seems pointless, you keep repeating and repeating same mantra about "me" (US) paying more for products due to advertising costs, yet it is "you" (UK) who pay much more for the same products (with very very few exceptions).

At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care. This thread is about the BBC and the method by which it is financed in the UK.

So which part of the discussion you don't understand?
The analogy between US commercially-funded tv, where you suggest (in USA) it raise the cost of products advertised on tv by as much as 1/7th, or the part of "obligatory publicly-funded BBC" without advertising, where (in UK) same products are NOT 1/7th cheaper than in USa, but even much more expensive than in USA?

Which part of "At no time have I mentioned how US programmes are funded and nor do I care" do you not understand?

The part where you contradict yourself:

I fail to see "tv licence" in any other way than as example of hidden tax, government bullying the citizens and extorting the money.

As opposed to giant corporations extorting the money by inflating the price of goods and services in order to cover the cost of advertising them on TV?

Personally, I would rather pay 130 pounds to the BBC each year than 1,000 pounds extra on the price of my groceries and other essentials. That is how much commercial television charges to provide exactly the same amount of programming.

Since BBC is advertising-free, it would be logical if UK had the "groceries" at least 1/7th cheaper than USA - which we all know is not true (as you said that the tv advertising costs raise product prices by as much as 1/7th)

The "tv licence" is a scam in my opinion, and you haven't give me any logical explanation or reason to prove it is not...

The only programmes in the UK worth watching are those produced by the BBC which is funded by the TV license fee. That makes it extremely good value in my opinion.

The "programming value" is in the eye of the viewers. Im not going to discuss personal tastes here, but have it ever occur to you, that not everyone may value BBC programming as much as you do? Yet these people are still forced to chip-in in the costs of BBC programmes that they don't watch...
Let me rephrase it:
Would YOU like to be forced to pay for something you don't need nor want?

[ntscuser]

Since BBC is advertising-free, it would be logical if UK had the "groceries" at least 1/7th cheaper than USA - which we all know is not true.

But British television as a whole is not advertising-free! At least half the channels are funded by commercials. If there were no commercials then the products they advertise would be a total of seven billion pounds cheaper than they are now.

The "programming value" is in the eye of the viewers. Im not going to discuss personal tastes here, but have it ever occur to you, that not everyone may value BBC programming as much as you do? Yet these people are still forced to chip-in in the costs of BBC programmes that they don't watch...

I am forced to pay seven times as much as the BBC license for commercial programmes that I never watch in the form of higher prices.

[DereX888]

Since BBC is advertising-free, it would be logical if UK had the "groceries" at least 1/7th cheaper than USA - which we all know is not true.

But British television as a whole is not advertising-free! At least half the channels are funded by commercials. If there were no commercials then the products they advertise would be a total of seven billion pounds cheaper than they are now.

Would or would not, you don't know that.
I'd say the products would not be cheaper even by a penny, because the "savings" (from not spending money on advertising) would simply become higher profit margins.
IMHO its some kind of marxist or socialist utopia what youre saying, but of course none of us knows for sure how it would be without advertising in a modern society.

The "programming value" is in the eye of the viewers. Im not going to discuss personal tastes here, but have it ever occur to you, that not everyone may value BBC programming as much as you do? Yet these people are still forced to chip-in in the costs of BBC programmes that they don't watch...

I am forced to pay seven times as much as the BBC license for commercial programmes that I never watch in the form of higher prices.

You avoided my question.
Since you "value" BBC programming, you don't object to forced tax in the form of "tv licence".
But what about the people who don't like BBC programming - why they have to be forced to pay for your television?
There are large communities of immigrants from all over the world in UK.
Im sure none of the say West Indian immigrants who don't speak a word in English is so eager to pay for tv that YOU enjoy.


I dont think you are also forced to pay for commercial tv subscriptions there in UK, are you?
As for the costs of advertising in thge products yo use - see above

[DereX888]

The only adverts on the BBC in the UK is for their own services and programmes and they do not advertise for anything else.

So it is exactly like premium channels are here that we pay $240 per channel a year for.

Not the same.
You DO have a CHOICE of ordering your premium channels, or getting free OTA channels infested with commercials.
In UK apparently you DON'T have this choice.

[Cole]

I don't really want to get involved in this row but there are some bits that need clearing up - I am not taking sides I hasten to add.

Since BBC is advertising-free, it would be logical if UK had the "groceries" at least 1/7th cheaper than USA - which we all know is not true (as you said that the tv advertising costs raise product prices by as much as 1/7th)

We have commericial televison as well as licence funded BBC (see my previous post). On the terrestrial, two non commerical BBC1, BBC2 and three commerical ITV1, Channel 4 and Five. On the digital platform (free to air i.e. non subscription) it is a little different: BBC1, 2, 3, 4, BBC Parliament and BBC News 24 are commerical free and about twenty to thirty commerical stations (ITV1, 2, 3, 4, Play, Channel 4, E4, More 4, Film 4, Five, Five Life, Five US, a plethora of shopping channels etc etc etc).

The analagy (whether I agree or not is beside the point) applies to both the UK and US: Any advertiser will potentially pass on the cost of advertising to the consumer. I read somewhere that coca cola is one of the most expensive colas but becuase of its advertising it has become a premium brand and people are willing to pay that much extra than, say, Tesco's much cheaper own brand. This isn't about price differentials between the US and UK but, as I said, something that (potentially - he says siting on the fence ) applies both to the US and UK.

There is a worrying trend at the moment in the UK where digital stations are becoming gaming channels which make money purely from the gullible viewers who send text messages on premium rate numbers. Is this the future if left purely to the commercial market? I hope not.

I dont think you are also forced to pay for commercial tv subscriptions there in UK, are you?
As for the costs of advertising in thge products yo use - see above

Using the analagy above also indicates that I may be contributing for a broadcasting platform that I don't even have (e.g. SKY) where an item I purchase in the high street, if advertised on that platform, gets a few of my pennies as the cost of that advertising is passed on to me.

I do agree, however, that there is an issue with people being forced into paying the fee but this is a hangover from the past; commericailising the BBC isn't the answer - there isn't enough advertising to go round.

As for cable or satellite stations like SKY; I would find it frustrating that I am paying a subscritption fee and still have to suffer advertising on top of that; which they have.

There are large communities of immigrants from all over the world in UK.
Im sure none of the say West Indian immigrants who don't speak a word in English is so eager to pay for tv that YOU enjoy.

Interesting point; I have seen arguments that because of the way that the BBC is funded that they are in a better position to serve people from these communities. It is not commerically viable to have minority programming on a profiteering channel so it is down to the Public Service broadcasting service to serve every aspect of the community. For example; the BBC has the Asian Network digital Radio station for the Asian community.

Of course, the alternative view is that people could moan that their licence money is being used on programmes aimed at a small minority.

You DO have a CHOICE of ordering your premium channels, or getting free OTA channels infested with commercials.
In UK apparently you DON'T have this choice.

Sort of true, but then I don't have to have a television! And on that flippant comment, I am gone; it is way past my bedtime!

[ntscuser]

Since BBC is advertising-free, it would be logical if UK had the "groceries" at least 1/7th cheaper than USA - which we all know is not true.

But British television as a whole is not advertising-free! At least half the channels are funded by commercials. If there were no commercials then the products they advertise would be a total of seven billion pounds cheaper than they are now.

Would or would not, you don't know that.
I'd say the products would not be cheaper even by a penny, because the "savings" (from not spending money on advertising) would simply become higher profit margins.
IMHO its some kind of marxist or socialist utopia what youre saying, but of course none of us knows for sure how it would be without advertising in a modern society.

The advertising industry itself claims that products would sell for much less if there was no advertsing on TV. In some cases up to 75% less. They even grant an award each year to the agency which suceeds in inflating the price for a commodity by the highest amount.

The "programming value" is in the eye of the viewers. Im not going to discuss personal tastes here, but have it ever occur to you, that not everyone may value BBC programming as much as you do? Yet these people are still forced to chip-in in the costs of BBC programmes that they don't watch...

I am forced to pay seven times as much as the BBC license for commercial programmes that I never watch in the form of higher prices.

You avoided my question.
Since you "value" BBC programming, you don't object to forced tax in the form of "tv licence".
But what about the people who don't like BBC programming - why they have to be forced to pay for your television?

They aren't. If they don't buy a TV set they don't have to pay for a TV license. they do however still have to pay for TV commercials in the form of higher prices.

There are large communities of immigrants from all over the world in UK.
Im sure none of the say West Indian immigrants who don't speak a word in English is so eager to pay for tv that YOU enjoy.I dont think you are also forced to pay for commercial tv subscriptions there in UK, are you?As for the costs of advertising in thge products yo use - see above

Leaving aside the fact that most West Indians seem to understand English much better than you do, what does that have to do with anything? There are no foreign language broadcasts in the UK by commercial television companies or anyone else. You're just trolling.

[DereX888]

Leaving aside the fact that most West Indians seem to understand English much better than you do, what does that have to do with anything? There are no foreign language broadcasts in the UK by commercial television companies or anyone else. You're just trolling.

Right
I said earlier there is no point in discussing it with you, because I suspected - and now Im sure - youre just a BBC fanboi (an equivalent of MAC fanbois) with typical leftist Brit attitude.
God save The Queen and g'day to you, sire
(with australian accent)

[DereX888]

There are large communities of immigrants from all over the world in UK.
Im sure none of the say West Indian immigrants who don't speak a word in English is so eager to pay for tv that YOU enjoy.

Interesting point; I have seen arguments that because of the way that the BBC is funded that they are in a better position to serve people from these communities. It is not commerically viable to have minority programming on a profiteering channel so it is down to the Public Service broadcasting service to serve every aspect of the community. For example; the BBC has the Asian Network digital Radio station for the Asian community.

Of course, the alternative view is that people could moan that their licence money is being used on programmes aimed at a small minority.

There are no "tv licences" in USA or Canada, yet there are plenty of tv and radio channels in foreign languages.
I think my local provider's 'basic cable package' include quite few tv channels in various languages.
Free OTA local channels have foreign language programmes as well - although not 24/7 - and without any 'tv licence' fees.
Of course all of it is infested with commercials, but nevertheless: its free and people have a choice to watch it or not, and without being forced to pay any compulsory fees (versus your UK model where everyone has to pay regardless of watching it or not).
Thats all what I'm trying to point out.

And I do like plenty of BBC programmes too

You DO have a CHOICE of ordering your premium channels, or getting free OTA channels infested with commercials.
In UK apparently you DON'T have this choice.

Sort of true, but then I don't have to have a television! And on that flippant comment, I am gone; it is way past my bedtime!

Hahaha, thats true.
However to watch only your own 'content' (DVDs etc) you'd still buy a TV set, and I don't think you can 'disable tv tuner part' to avoid paying extra for something you'd never use (tv licence aka BBC Tax).
Have a good night

[ntscuser]

And I do like plenty of BBC programmes too

How hypocritical can you get? You don't think anyone should have to pay a license fee but are quite happy to watch programmes paid for by people who do!

[DereX888]

And I do like plenty of BBC programmes too

How hypocritical can you get? You don't think anyone should have to pay a license fee but are quite happy to watch programmes paid for by people who do!

I could say it is as 'fair' as you not objecting to forced 'BBC tax' for other Brits who don't watch it, yet they have to pay for it...
but I tell you this: I pay for the DVDs released by BBC.
See?
I still have a choice. You don't

[RabidDog]

harrum BTW its licence fee not license fee not even licencefree.
too much licentiousness is good/bad for your health.

[paulw]

The "tv licence" is a scam in my opinion, and you haven't give me any logical explanation or reason to prove it is not...

Then why in the UK don't you do some civil disobedience like we did in New Zealand some years ago over the TV Tax?? People simply refused to pay it and when the GOV tried to take them to court the courts got clogged up. Finaly the Gov gave in and scrapped the TV tax..