I think we can take it as read that the BBC make some very good programmes.
They also make some pretty dire quiz and unreality shows.
I also don’t think there are many of us who like adverts.

Saying that, I watch a lot more non-BBC programmes. With virtually everything I watch having been recorded.

Discovery and Nat Geo, are probably worth the Sky subscription alone, and having not seen it the first time around, we have just finished watching “Hornblower” on ITV4, excellent series.

You wouldn’t have seen “House” or watch “Homeland” on the BBC. Not all US programmes are rubbish.

It’s not a case of envy, but I just despise people like Paxman and Anne Robinson being on £1 million a year, of licence payers money. Money which we have no choice but to pay (if you watch any live TV at all).

Who can remember those threatening adverts the BBC used to run, about paying your licence ? Showing a detector van outside a house, with a voice over saying “we know what you are watching”.

Detector vans which probably never even existed.

If the BBC hadn’t spent so much money trying to compete with ITV and Sky over the years, maybe they wouldn’t
have been after a licence fee increase so often ?

When ITV announced they were going to introduce Breakfast and daytime TV, the BBC had to jump in first.
They introduced a 24 hour news channel channel, to compete with Sky News. Then often duplicate the same output
as is being shown on BBC1.
They brought in BBC three (soon to go) and BBC four which often shows repeats of BBC1

BBC1 and BBC two already show lots of adds between programmes, promoting their own output.
They also make a lot of money by selling their programmes abroad.

The question is: If the BBC did go subscription only (and it’s by no means certain they will), how would they do it ?
Easy enough on Sky to turn programmes on and off, but how about Freeview, and Freesat ?

How much would it cost the BBC to provide everyone with a pay to view box ?

Sounds about right to me 🙂