Re: TV licensing legality of a SlingBox ??

["Andy Davies" <dajdavies@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 17/06/06, Neil Fuller <neil.fuller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> When I worked for LWT, I saw a document comparing the cost of the BBC
> against the cost of ITV.
>
> At the time (mid 80's),  it was estimated that the "average"
family
> (Mum, Dad, 2 kids and 1.5 dogs!?) paid over =A3300 in additional
product
> costs to fund TV advertising.
>
> It made the BBC seem very good value for money and, TBH, I think they
> still are.
>
> I very rarely watch the cr@p on ITV, both to avoid the adverts and to
> avoid the endless repetition of fly on the wall dirge!!
>
> Just my 2p's worth!!
>
> Cheers
>
> Neil
>
> Mal Lansell wrote:


Yeh, but if that money wasn't spent of TV advertising it would get spent on
other forms of marketing, so I'm not sure it's a like for like comparison.

To be honest I don't see much quality difference between BBC & ITV -
tend t=
o
watch more C4 myself at the moment.

To my mind the BBC should be using the switch to digital TV to make the
mov=
e
to subscription based funding rather than the license fee - they keep
sayin=
g
how everyone's happy to fund them but seem unwilling to put it to the test.
My personal bug bear is I can't get the digital channels but still have to
pay for them.

I've also got great doubts about how the license fee is spent - look at the
$18 million they're going to pay Jonathan Ross over the next three years as
an example.

Cheers

Andy


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]