4 ms·

> That's a bit of a stretch, I know there is a lot of criticism. And you should never believe any media agency outright. But generally the BBC are pretty good.

by ErrantX 17y ago

> That's a bit of a stretch, I know there is a lot of criticism. And you should never believe any media agency outright. But generally the BBC are pretty good. A lot better than Fox / Sky etc :P They do a lot of good special interest programming like Horizon which plays at difficult questions/subjects really well. > Secondly, this is EXACTLY the process by which a little bit of government interference can sometimes completely distort a market. The BBC is NOT a government body. It IS state funded, yes, but it is a separate entity with a board a charter and lots of non-governmental oversight. > Yeah, speaking of that: "BBC blocks open source video players" True, a bit of a hiccup there. I cant believe their timing on such a fuck up too :( really screwed my argument > We have the FCC; how is that different? It's very different. Ofcomm is actually heavily consumer oriented and they seem to find a good balance between restricting content and being sensible. Certainly they are very unlike the FCC in my (reasonably limited) experience. > Firstly, CSI is an American franchise. Advertisements over here are likely making up the difference for those smaller commercial breaks over there. Im not sure it is. Channel 5 will pay a fixed rate to show the CSI franchise over here. They can make that money back in whatever way they want/need. Also I dont think it equates like that (I have no figures but I watched a documentary on CSI a few months ago that said most of the franchise's revenue comes from overseas licencing). > But you can't say one way or the other what kind of television you might have if the BBC didn't exist, because it's been with you since 1932. Perhaps true. But the BBC is reasonably unique. And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world. A mix of all things > There are solutions to our many television problems, and all of them involve LESS government, NOT more. As I mentioned - there is a difference between tax funded and government owned. Italy has govt. owned TV (also their PM owns a shed load of the network) and I would never recommend anything like that! But tax funded is pretty good because it's answerable to us, the viewers. Which is nice. > that could otherwise be utilized by broadcasters who are actually accountable to their viewers (and their viewers' wallets)? I guess ultimately it's not clear outside the UK what the BBC actually is. Hopefully I've explained it better. I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen. (Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels (olympics, world cup etc.) which I think is a huge bonus. For me it's worth it just for that :))

anamax 17y ago
> But tax funded is pretty good because it's answerable to us, the viewers. Actually, the BBS is not answerable at all to viewers. It's somewhat answerable to voters. Suppose that 30% of UK voters wanted and were willing to pay for a porn channel and 70% didn't. If the BBC was perfectly aligned with voters, it wouldn't have a porn channel. Note that the BBC still gets the TV tax from folks who pay their own money for a porn channel.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling. The govt has control over the tax money so theoretically voters have some control. However, the BBC free to completely ignore viewers. You were arguing that viewers mattered to the BBC. They matter only when convenient, which is very different.
koanarc 17y ago
>> The BBC is NOT a government body. It IS state funded, yes, but it is a separate entity with a board a charter and lots of non-governmental oversight. >> there is a difference between tax funded and government owned. Okay, yes, that was poor wording on my part. Whether truly State-run or some sort of tax-funded NGO, though, the premise is more or less the same. He who has the gold makes the rules, and in this case, the BBC's funding is a result of legislation, not the direct choices of voluntary customers. You're right, there is a difference, and I was conflating the two for the sake of my argument. I still would not say that they're answerable to the viewers, however, even if it is more responsive to public opinion than outright State-owned TV would be. >> And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world. This could be; won't argue with you there. This is still not an acceptable premise for spending other peoples' money to promote subjective matters of taste, though. Government and culture don't mix, on the same basis that government and religion don't mix. >> I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen. You may very well be right; I wouldn't necessarily doubt that. But you have to ask, is the BBC seemingly more accountable than US stations because it is tax-funded? Or are there some other reasons why US stations seem comparatively less accountable/responsive? I tend to think it's the latter. There are plenty of explanations for why the television market is the way it is. Artificially high barriers to entry. Unnecessarily-limited broadcast spectrum. Regulatory capture. Practically all of our media being owned by the same handful of people/corporations. Situations ALL facilitated in one way or another -- you guessed it -- by government. >> Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels And here, we've come full circle: people are paying for this "free" content. edit:"bandwidth"->"spectrum"

by ErrantX 17y ago

anamax 17y ago

> But tax funded is pretty good because it's answerable to us, the viewers. Actually, the BBS is not answerable at all to viewers. It's somewhat answerable to voters. Suppose that 30% of UK voters wanted and were willing to pay for a porn channel and 70% didn't. If the BBC was perfectly aligned with voters, it wouldn't have a porn channel. Note that the BBC still gets the TV tax from folks who pay their own money for a porn channel.

ErrantX 17y ago
Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Not really true. The BBC trust is chartered to represent the license payers. The political votng has little to do with it. Hey mostly get viewer opinion from direct feedback and polling. The govt has control over the tax money so theoretically voters have some control. However, the BBC free to completely ignore viewers. You were arguing that viewers mattered to the BBC. They matter only when convenient, which is very different.

koanarc 17y ago

>> The BBC is NOT a government body. It IS state funded, yes, but it is a separate entity with a board a charter and lots of non-governmental oversight. >> there is a difference between tax funded and government owned. Okay, yes, that was poor wording on my part. Whether truly State-run or some sort of tax-funded NGO, though, the premise is more or less the same. He who has the gold makes the rules, and in this case, the BBC's funding is a result of legislation, not the direct choices of voluntary customers. You're right, there is a difference, and I was conflating the two for the sake of my argument. I still would not say that they're answerable to the viewers, however, even if it is more responsive to public opinion than outright State-owned TV would be. >> And in my opinion (and it really is my opinion, but I know others share it) we have the best TV programing in the world. This could be; won't argue with you there. This is still not an acceptable premise for spending other peoples' money to promote subjective matters of taste, though. Government and culture don't mix, on the same basis that government and religion don't mix. >> I think the BBC is MUCH more accountable to us viewers than pretty much any other network I've seen. You may very well be right; I wouldn't necessarily doubt that. But you have to ask, is the BBC seemingly more accountable than US stations because it is tax-funded? Or are there some other reasons why US stations seem comparatively less accountable/responsive? I tend to think it's the latter. There are plenty of explanations for why the television market is the way it is. Artificially high barriers to entry. Unnecessarily-limited broadcast spectrum. Regulatory capture. Practically all of our media being owned by the same handful of people/corporations. Situations ALL facilitated in one way or another -- you guessed it -- by government. >> Also we get major sports and other stuff on the free channels And here, we've come full circle: people are paying for this "free" content. edit:"bandwidth"->"spectrum"