4 ms·
I'm a Brit, vehemently anti-ad, but am not a fan of the BBC, and don't support it (financially or otherwise). It may have made some sense back when it was the
by mrec 8y ago
I'm a Brit, vehemently anti-ad, but am not a fan of the BBC, and don't support it (financially or otherwise).
It may have made some sense back when it was the only broadcaster, but now that it's one of many, and there are proven alternatives for ad-free (e.g. the HBO subscription model), I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use.
- SuperGent 8y agoWhereas I agree with the sentiment, I find that nearly all subscription TV (Sky, etc) has 15 minutes of adverts an hour. These include the premium channels, such as Sky films and Sports. I don't see why anyone would pay £60 a month for these channels to play 8 hours of adverts each a day, and then complain about the TV licence cost of £150 a year.
- mrec 8y agoThe only subscription service I use is Netflix, which doesn't have ads and is cheaper than the TV license. I wouldn't pay for anything that did have ads, and I don't see why "some people spend a lot on ad-infested channels" in inconsistent with "some people complain about being forced to pay for something they don't use".
- Angostura 8y ago> I can't see any justification for continuing to force people to pay for a channel they don't like and don't use. When you say "channel" you're talking about 7 Tv Channels and numerous radio stations
- mrec 8y agoSo? I don't use any of them.