4 ms·
You're comparing apples and oranges. The TV licenses are funding for the public broadcasters to provide programming. They do not go towards laying cables into p
by haugstrup 14y ago
You're comparing apples and oranges. The TV licenses are funding for the public broadcasters to provide programming. They do not go towards laying cables into people's home for cable tv reception and do not fund cell phone towers. It is quite irrelevant to bring into this issue.
In American terms: The TV license pays for PBS programming, it's not a subsidy for Comcast to lay cables.
- zwieback 14y agoThanks - did not know that.
- jcampbell1 14y agoHow is that different, from the US system? We pay cable companies $80/month, and they pay $60 to content producers. Does it really matter that Downton Abbey is publicly (ITV) funded, and Breaking Bad is privately (FX) funded? The £145.50/year UK color TV licensing fee must be included when comparing costs.
- malsme 14y agoNot quite right. For the UK, £300 million of the licence fee budget (over the next couple of years) will pay for the roll out of high speed internet to rural communities. I doubt the BBC wanted to do it, but it looks like they'll be subsidising ISPs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/19181454 http://www.bbc.co.uk/ariel/19181454