7 ms·

This has been a soapbox subject for me for a while. I actually like the Olympics. I'd love to have it on in the background while working, I'd love to see most

This has been a soapbox subject for me for a while. I actually like the Olympics. I'd love to have it on in the background while working, I'd love to see most of the events, and I enjoy watching a bunch of people get together in one place, from around the world, and compete at the highest levels. It's great. But I'm not about to subscribe to cable tv for it. I can't stand most of what passes for entertainment on television, I don't want to pay for it, I don't want it in my home. Nor do I want to limit myself only to NBC's coverage of the event, with their moronic and vapid commentators and waste-of-time interviews. Unfortunately, the various countries are limiting viewership only to their own country, which I think runs pretty starkly against the spirit of the Olympics.

ErrantX 17y ago
A lot of people here in the UK seem to bemoan the BBC for being overfunded and, basically, crap.(Which I always find amusing having had to suffer US telly at various intervals :P) Anyway: point is the BBC have run consistent coverage of the whole of the winter Olympics every night over here. Solid stuff. Everyone should try the model, I think, of tax funded TV.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Everyone should try the model, I think, of tax funded TV. I'm not interested in paying for your Olympic coverage. If you're not willing to pay what it costs....
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    That's the interesting thing; it's such a good deal you only have to be interested in one or 2 programs and it's worth it :) I can believe people actually pay for US cable... it's insane :(
    - koanarc 17y ago
      I'll let you in on a little secret about tax-funded television: you're paying for it. The difference? If you don't like what's on cable, you can stop paying for cable! Neat.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        I realise that. The thing is the model gerally works good here in the uk (note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv). It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot. I've travelled quite a bit and Imo the uk easily has the best tv set up. :-)
        koanarc 17y ago
        >>The thing is the model gerally works good here in the uk I can agree that some good programming has come out of British public television, but I've been given no reason to think this is necessarily a result of (or in spite of) it being tax-funded. >>note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv I'll grant that being forced to pay for public television only when watching TV is less bad than being forced to pay for public television regardless of whether or not you can even watch TV would be. On the other hand, even half a spoonful of poop ruins a whole pan of brownies. (Less-bad != Good). Why should I have to pay a tax to watch a private broadcast? Why not tax the internet and create a State-run intranet, on that basis? >>It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot. No. Do not want. This is how problems start. Someone gets (or is given, and runs with) the easy idea: "Let taxes pay for it! If it doesn't work out the way we want, they'll just stop doing it!" But governments don't just stop doing things simply on account of them not working. You're already paying them to do it. Why go through the trouble of admitting mistakes and debating about repealing stuff and, in many cases, taking away peoples' (inefficiently allocated, needlessly created) jobs? Sure sounds like a hassle. Next thing you know, you've got...what we've all already got. Too much fucking government. Please stop asking for more of it on other peoples' account. Even if you think the BBC airs a few good shows, it's the principle. It's not your money, so quit asking them to spend it. No new taxes. No new programs. No new agencies. We can't get rid of or fix all the crap we _already_ have. Apologies for the zeal, but this is the appropriate reaction when people start clamoring to take your money and use it for something you will have for all practical purposes absolutely zero say in. This is not an efficient way to use our resources, nor an ethical one. Edit: typo, linebreak.
- secos 17y ago
  I'd prefer a "collective" model... pay for the shows you want to watch.
- thaumaturgy 17y ago
  I'm really not as anti-tax as most of the American folks here, but ... yeah, no thanks. Of the various things that I think should be supported by taxes -- like scientific research, exploration, health care, infrastructure -- television in any form is not on that list. As much as I love NPR and PBS, I don't think they'd be better off if they were funded by taxes. And since I can't easily or directly watch the BBC's coverage of the Olympics, then they're still acting against the spirit of the Olympics, which was one of my complaints about our not-tax-funded NBC.

ErrantX 17y ago

A lot of people here in the UK seem to bemoan the BBC for being overfunded and, basically, crap.(Which I always find amusing having had to suffer US telly at various intervals :P) Anyway: point is the BBC have run consistent coverage of the whole of the winter Olympics every night over here. Solid stuff. Everyone should try the model, I think, of tax funded TV.

anamax 17y ago
> Everyone should try the model, I think, of tax funded TV. I'm not interested in paying for your Olympic coverage. If you're not willing to pay what it costs....
- ErrantX 17y ago
  That's the interesting thing; it's such a good deal you only have to be interested in one or 2 programs and it's worth it :) I can believe people actually pay for US cable... it's insane :(
  - koanarc 17y ago
    I'll let you in on a little secret about tax-funded television: you're paying for it. The difference? If you don't like what's on cable, you can stop paying for cable! Neat.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      I realise that. The thing is the model gerally works good here in the uk (note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv). It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot. I've travelled quite a bit and Imo the uk easily has the best tv set up. :-)
      - koanarc 17y ago
        >>The thing is the model gerally works good here in the uk I can agree that some good programming has come out of British public television, but I've been given no reason to think this is necessarily a result of (or in spite of) it being tax-funded. >>note the tax is optional. Yu can choose not to watch tv I'll grant that being forced to pay for public television only when watching TV is less bad than being forced to pay for public television regardless of whether or not you can even watch TV would be. On the other hand, even half a spoonful of poop ruins a whole pan of brownies. (Less-bad != Good). Why should I have to pay a tax to watch a private broadcast? Why not tax the internet and create a State-run intranet, on that basis? >>It might not work elsewhere admittedly. But it's worth a shot. No. Do not want. This is how problems start. Someone gets (or is given, and runs with) the easy idea: "Let taxes pay for it! If it doesn't work out the way we want, they'll just stop doing it!" But governments don't just stop doing things simply on account of them not working. You're already paying them to do it. Why go through the trouble of admitting mistakes and debating about repealing stuff and, in many cases, taking away peoples' (inefficiently allocated, needlessly created) jobs? Sure sounds like a hassle. Next thing you know, you've got...what we've all already got. Too much fucking government. Please stop asking for more of it on other peoples' account. Even if you think the BBC airs a few good shows, it's the principle. It's not your money, so quit asking them to spend it. No new taxes. No new programs. No new agencies. We can't get rid of or fix all the crap we _already_ have. Apologies for the zeal, but this is the appropriate reaction when people start clamoring to take your money and use it for something you will have for all practical purposes absolutely zero say in. This is not an efficient way to use our resources, nor an ethical one. Edit: typo, linebreak.
secos 17y ago
I'd prefer a "collective" model... pay for the shows you want to watch.
thaumaturgy 17y ago
I'm really not as anti-tax as most of the American folks here, but ... yeah, no thanks. Of the various things that I think should be supported by taxes -- like scientific research, exploration, health care, infrastructure -- television in any form is not on that list. As much as I love NPR and PBS, I don't think they'd be better off if they were funded by taxes. And since I can't easily or directly watch the BBC's coverage of the Olympics, then they're still acting against the spirit of the Olympics, which was one of my complaints about our not-tax-funded NBC.