4 ms·

> BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media It should be pointed out that the BBC is funded by a tax (the BBC license fee) that is levied

> BBC produce a lot of high-quality, professionally-produced media It should be pointed out that the BBC is funded by a tax (the BBC license fee) that is levied whether you watch the BBC or not. Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course).

rahimnathwani 12y ago
Agreed. It's a 'TV licence', though, not a 'BBC license fee'.
Broken_Hippo 12y ago
Everyone pays for content they don't watch - in the States, section of tax helps NPR and PBS (this miniscule support is dwindling). More often it is paid for by advertising and shows often have product placement (again, income). Advertising is a distributed non-government enforced tax on goods and services you buy and use.
pjc50 12y ago
It can be argued both ways, like "why should I pay for roads that I don't drive on?" After all, content isn't "consumed" when watched, it's there forever (unless the BBC tape over the master). I used to be a strong supporter of the BBC, but their news has been badly crippled by the Hutton report, BBC3 is a mess (not as bad as Channel 4), I'm not really interested in their drama, and their light entertainment is often cringeworthy. However, the documentaries on BBC4 and especially the archive material are excellent. BBC radio is usually high quality too, when it's not suffering from random acts of management ( http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-baker-bbc-rant http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-bake... )
wpietri 12y ago
> Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course). Or Comcast. Just listen to the endless complaints about the zillion channels paid for versus the few that get watched. But the "not a good model" thing is ideological, not practical. It undeniably works in the sense of sustainably producing high-quality content, which is the point at issue here.

rahimnathwani 12y ago

Agreed. It's a 'TV licence', though, not a 'BBC license fee'.

Broken_Hippo 12y ago

Everyone pays for content they don't watch - in the States, section of tax helps NPR and PBS (this miniscule support is dwindling). More often it is paid for by advertising and shows often have product placement (again, income). Advertising is a distributed non-government enforced tax on goods and services you buy and use.

pjc50 12y ago

It can be argued both ways, like "why should I pay for roads that I don't drive on?" After all, content isn't "consumed" when watched, it's there forever (unless the BBC tape over the master). I used to be a strong supporter of the BBC, but their news has been badly crippled by the Hutton report, BBC3 is a mess (not as bad as Channel 4), I'm not really interested in their drama, and their light entertainment is often cringeworthy. However, the documentaries on BBC4 and especially the archive material are excellent. BBC radio is usually high quality too, when it's not suffering from random acts of management ( http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-baker-bbc-rant http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/nov/01/axed-danny-bake... )

wpietri 12y ago

> Forcing people to pay for content they don't watch, whether it is high quality or not, isn't a good model (unless you are the BBC of course). Or Comcast. Just listen to the endless complaints about the zillion channels paid for versus the few that get watched. But the "not a good model" thing is ideological, not practical. It undeniably works in the sense of sustainably producing high-quality content, which is the point at issue here.