[Ian] > "The reason is simple, Davy, and is EXACTLY the same reason why those of use who don't USE (for example) the State School system are NOT allowed to opt-out of PAYING for those who DO use it! That's becasue it's a FAIRER system to pay for things which are GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY! "
A slight correction here Ian... swap the last four words in your point here with NEEDED BY THE COMMUNITY and I agree with you completely. But that's not what we have with the BBC.
A state school system is a necessity. The BBC is not. The state school system is not paid for by taxes on school users but by general taxation. The BBC is paid for by taxes on the owners of TV receivers.
As I said above, the BBC is arguably the best broadcaster in the world - I've lived in the US for a number of years so I know what they have there - but funding model is unacceptable. It would be unacceptable have one organization in any other comparable commercial domain funded in the way the BBC is e.g. newspapers, magazines, book publishers, music publishers, cinema/movie-production, theatres/productions etc...
In any event, the argument's superfluous because revenue from licencing broadcast TV receivers will evaporate when we're consuming our entertainment in a different way and via different distribution topolgies. Instead of slowly reorganizing and restructuring in preparation for this, the BBC is constructing edifices around the country and sprawling in an incoherent and pervasive fashion across all forms of content production and distribution because its answerable to a small bunch of trustees who operate without brief or checks/balances. Its a throwback to another era and it will come crashing down when the funding rug's pulled from under it.
|
|
