In Britain, almost every one is required to pay a TV license fee. However, it is puzzling as to how this TV licensing revenue is managed and spent. One of the disconcerting aspects is the quality of programming that is consumed on the BBC services which is quite disproportionate to the cost incurred to the TV viewer. One of the main reasons why so many people today have started taking up alternative options for more quality entertainment such as from satellite and cable. Recently, in news there has been inquiry into how the BBC decided to pay Mr Entwistle £400,000 in payments, even though his employment as Director-General was for such a short time. Furthermore, it is a clear reflection, on the fact that a huge proportion of the TV licensing cost seems to be paid towards salaries. Is it really justified for TV viewers to have to pay such high costs in TV license fees only to see it being used up to pay huge management salaries?
According to Wikipedia, BBC revenues amount to well over £5 Billion, employing about 23,000 employees, and the corporation as it is called is owned by the public. "The BBC is a semi-autonomous public service broadcaster that operates under a Royal Charter and a Licence and Agreement from the Home Secretary. Within the United Kingdom its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee, which is charged to all British households, companies and organisations using any type of equipment to receive live television broadcasts; the level of the fee is set annually by the British Government and agreed by Parliament." - Wikipedia.
If this is clearly the case, then surely the cost of licensing should come under review and should be lowered as there is no real justification charging so much to a TV viewer and then also paying such high renumeration packages to management employees. The revenues received do not even reflect the level of quality programming offered to the public.
