5 ms·

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 fo

by 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.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    > No. Do not want. Ok fair point. But it's worth considering; if I were a US citizen I really dont think I would sit much longer and endure the POS channels they have there (sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far). > I can agree that some good programming ... Oh it's more important than that. The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far. It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :)) Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick. Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D There is a broader benefit as well. People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments and finishes at 9:50pm. In the US that fills a whole hour timeslot - they get 100% more advertising (20m) more than us. So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website). Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(
    - anamax 17y ago
      > So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get Of course you like it - someone else is paying for what you want.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        Huh? I pay for it too?
        anamax 17y ago
        > Huh? I pay for it too? I didn't say that you didn't pay. I implied that you didn't pay what it costs.

by 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.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > No. Do not want. Ok fair point. But it's worth considering; if I were a US citizen I really dont think I would sit much longer and endure the POS channels they have there (sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far). > I can agree that some good programming ... Oh it's more important than that. The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far. It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :)) Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick. Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D There is a broader benefit as well. People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments and finishes at 9:50pm. In the US that fills a whole hour timeslot - they get 100% more advertising (20m) more than us. So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website). Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(
  - anamax 17y ago
    > So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get Of course you like it - someone else is paying for what you want.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Huh? I pay for it too?
      - anamax 17y ago
        > Huh? I pay for it too? I didn't say that you didn't pay. I implied that you didn't pay what it costs.