You need a TV licence because that’s the funding model for the BBC (and wider broadcasting infrastructure), not because the government want to keep tabs on who has a TV.
Given how you translated the cost into $, am I correct in assuming that you’re not British?
Because I am, and honestly, £14.50 a month for what the BBC actually offers is, if anything, not enough. Because it’s not just TV.
The income from the licence fee covers TV, radio, broadcasting infrastructure, and R&D into said infrastructure. It also covers a broad range of community initiatives (several orchestras receive much of their funding from the BBC). And let’s not forget the iPlayer. It may have since been surpassed in utility by some of the other streaming companies, but it was one of the first to offer that kind of service, and for a long time, pretty much the gold standard.
On top of that is the intangible benefits of having a state broadcaster that is, according to the rules by which it is bound, absolutely not allowed to run advertising for commercial products. Other broadcasters in the UK are held up in comparison to the BBC, which means that they have yet to fall to the diabolical levels that commercial broadcasters in places like the US have. If they did, people would switch off.
BBC News can piss up a rope though. Sometimes stories don’t need balance.
The part that is most offensive is the lack of choice if you don’t want to fund things that really don’t need to be funded by the public at large anymore. The price also really isn’t justifiable when a year of amazon prime and monthly Netflix is still cheaper. Even if paying for the infra was the most important thing, it isn’t needed anymore with broadband internet access available everywhere now. It’s like saying we need the pony express to deliver mail in the age of planes trains and automobiles.
Besides here in the US I don’t want the government running a public broadcast/propaganda machine. It isn’t getting better over there either. The same government that will arrest you for a social media post for being deemed offensive by an unelected beaurocrat is the same government I don’t want running any kind of propaganda arm. Which gets back to choice. If I wanted to watch any alternative, I’d still have to fund the BBC.
people would switch off.
They are. Subs to traditional pay TV here in the states have been dwindling for years. With how broadcast television is dying anyway I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK would soon require a license to watch any live streams on the internet even without owning a TV just to make up the lost revenue. Governments are diabolical when it comes to protecting their revenue especially when they have a monopoly on violence.
djdarren@piefed.social 1 week ago
You need a TV licence because that’s the funding model for the BBC (and wider broadcasting infrastructure), not because the government want to keep tabs on who has a TV.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
You don’t think they are using that data to see who doesn’t have a licence to go sniffing around for violators?
Besides £174.50/year is ridiculous ($241.06). I’ve watched the BBC, it ain’t worth that much.
djdarren@piefed.social 1 week ago
Given how you translated the cost into $, am I correct in assuming that you’re not British?
Because I am, and honestly, £14.50 a month for what the BBC actually offers is, if anything, not enough. Because it’s not just TV.
The income from the licence fee covers TV, radio, broadcasting infrastructure, and R&D into said infrastructure. It also covers a broad range of community initiatives (several orchestras receive much of their funding from the BBC). And let’s not forget the iPlayer. It may have since been surpassed in utility by some of the other streaming companies, but it was one of the first to offer that kind of service, and for a long time, pretty much the gold standard.
On top of that is the intangible benefits of having a state broadcaster that is, according to the rules by which it is bound, absolutely not allowed to run advertising for commercial products. Other broadcasters in the UK are held up in comparison to the BBC, which means that they have yet to fall to the diabolical levels that commercial broadcasters in places like the US have. If they did, people would switch off.
BBC News can piss up a rope though. Sometimes stories don’t need balance.
sorghum@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
The part that is most offensive is the lack of choice if you don’t want to fund things that really don’t need to be funded by the public at large anymore. The price also really isn’t justifiable when a year of amazon prime and monthly Netflix is still cheaper. Even if paying for the infra was the most important thing, it isn’t needed anymore with broadband internet access available everywhere now. It’s like saying we need the pony express to deliver mail in the age of planes trains and automobiles.
Besides here in the US I don’t want the government running a public broadcast/propaganda machine. It isn’t getting better over there either. The same government that will arrest you for a social media post for being deemed offensive by an unelected beaurocrat is the same government I don’t want running any kind of propaganda arm. Which gets back to choice. If I wanted to watch any alternative, I’d still have to fund the BBC.
They are. Subs to traditional pay TV here in the states have been dwindling for years. With how broadcast television is dying anyway I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK would soon require a license to watch any live streams on the internet even without owning a TV just to make up the lost revenue. Governments are diabolical when it comes to protecting their revenue especially when they have a monopoly on violence.