4 ms·

From the comments thread: > "I used to do the NYT but after the subscription thing I discovered the BBC News is much more focused on the US than you would expe

From the comments thread: > "I used to do the NYT but after the subscription thing I discovered the BBC News is much more focused on the US than you would expect." The BBC, of course, has always been funded by the readers, and not the advertisers. Just not US readers.

untog 14y ago
Actually not true, as of a few years ago. International visitors to bbc.co.uk/news see adverts.
- heyitsnick 14y ago
  Sorry, I should have said supported predominantly by the readers. The advertising accounts for a minimal amount of its revenue, and certainly does not subsidise the international traffic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue
dmcintosh 14y ago
The majority of the BBC's revenue comes from the British government, which mandates a nearly £146 "licensing fee" to every person in Britain who receives access to broadcast television. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue This in stark contrast to the NYT, where readers voluntarily opt to fund the paper by purchasing subscriptions.
- evoxed 14y ago
  However much like NHK here in Japan, it wouldn't be at all surprising if many people simply snubbed the collections guy because they don't own a TV, don't watch BBC, or just don't want to pay.
  - heyitsnick 14y ago
    Not true in the UK. Evasion is very low. "The latest official evasion rate for the United Kingdom is 5.2% of all licensable places (for the 2009/10 financial year). The official evasion rate estimates the percentage (not the number) of all premises (not individuals or households) evading the licence fee in the UK. It is calculated for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport using a model that compares the number of licences in force to external statistics on the number of households and other licensable places in the UK." This is based on data that suggests "Under 3% of UK households don’t have a television set (this figure does not include other premises like businesses)." Approximately 25 million TV licenses are in force. Possibly there is more evasion in things like holiday homes and caravans, which should be licensed. But generally data suggests, as does my anecotal evidence, that most UK home-owners just see the TV license as a standard bill that is paid annually. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-figures-AB18/ http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-fi...
    - evoxed 14y ago
      Interesting, thanks for the info. This article (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20060801zg.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20060801zg.html) is a couple years old but give a decent summary in English of what the situation is here. An official billing with all the necessary legal documentation would probably go a lot further than some of the goons going around as collection agents.
- heyitsnick 14y ago
  I'm not sure if you are disagreeing? The stark contrast is exactly what I'm trying to highlight.

untog 14y ago

Actually not true, as of a few years ago. International visitors to bbc.co.uk/news see adverts.

heyitsnick 14y ago
Sorry, I should have said supported predominantly by the readers. The advertising accounts for a minimal amount of its revenue, and certainly does not subsidise the international traffic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue

dmcintosh 14y ago

The majority of the BBC's revenue comes from the British government, which mandates a nearly £146 "licensing fee" to every person in Britain who receives access to broadcast television. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Revenue This in stark contrast to the NYT, where readers voluntarily opt to fund the paper by purchasing subscriptions.

evoxed 14y ago
However much like NHK here in Japan, it wouldn't be at all surprising if many people simply snubbed the collections guy because they don't own a TV, don't watch BBC, or just don't want to pay.
- heyitsnick 14y ago
  Not true in the UK. Evasion is very low. "The latest official evasion rate for the United Kingdom is 5.2% of all licensable places (for the 2009/10 financial year). The official evasion rate estimates the percentage (not the number) of all premises (not individuals or households) evading the licence fee in the UK. It is calculated for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport using a model that compares the number of licences in force to external statistics on the number of households and other licensable places in the UK." This is based on data that suggests "Under 3% of UK households don’t have a television set (this figure does not include other premises like businesses)." Approximately 25 million TV licenses are in force. Possibly there is more evasion in things like holiday homes and caravans, which should be licensed. But generally data suggests, as does my anecotal evidence, that most UK home-owners just see the TV license as a standard bill that is paid annually. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-figures-AB18/ http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-licences-facts-and-fi...
  - evoxed 14y ago
    Interesting, thanks for the info. This article (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20060801zg.html http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20060801zg.html) is a couple years old but give a decent summary in English of what the situation is here. An official billing with all the necessary legal documentation would probably go a lot further than some of the goons going around as collection agents.
heyitsnick 14y ago
I'm not sure if you are disagreeing? The stark contrast is exactly what I'm trying to highlight.