Support NeoGAF

[MayauMiao]

If you're pretty far to the right, I get that you won't like the BBC much because it might tell you things you don't want to hear. If it wasn't around, though, and all you had was GB News and whatever Murdoch wants to serve you, that would be a sad state of affairs.

Interesting thing from the Wikipedia:
Licence fee evasion makes up around one-tenth of all cases prosecuted in magistrates' courts and 0.3% of court time.

If it isn't a political decision and you're just too cheap to get a licence, apparently they still sell black and white licences for a third of the cost. And you get half off again if you claim you're blind.

You don't need to be far right to notice BBC insanity.

 

[IDKFA]

yeah I mean, sure... but basically every western country has publicly funded channels.

in some countries it's a separate charge you have to pay, in others like the US it's just passively payed for with tax money.

seems like there might be a reason basically every western country thinks it's a good idea to have these

I largely agree, but the point of the BBC is that it provides material that otherwise might not be made and to uphold British values. Not to mention the lack of brainrot that is advertising.

Now, they absolutely have lost their way by trying to appeal and serve everyone. It's a gross misconception by them.

Tbe BBC isn't directly funded by the state because it gives it impartiality. Or at least used to give that impression. It's probably something to give up on. Actions speak louder than words after all.

One reason the current funding model has stayed around, other than inertia, is that the EU kept on threatenjng to take legal action if we ever directly funded the BBC. Tbey even went after a plan to help Channel 4 with the digital switchover.

Lads, I'm pretty sure there are Western nations that don't criminalise their citizens for not funding state television.

Spain is one example. AFAIK, The spannish government fund RTVE via state subsidies and taxes on private broadcasters, not a direct TV tax on it's citizens. Other countries have also abolished the TV licence, including the Netherlands, Norway, France and Iceland.

Maybe the UK government could opt for the route. Maybe a combination of taxes on private broadcasters and general tax?

It's not so much paying for it in general. I agree that the BBC still produces some.grear content and is still globally respected.Having adverts may not be the best way to fund such a service. However, what I don't agree with is the forced upon TV licence criminalising people who don't pay, or constantly harassing people who don't pay.

The TV licence is an outdated model and other countries have shown there is another way.

 

[Nintendo's Witch]

the UK is such a joke. LMAO

 

[Mithos]

Italy simply incorporated the TV licence into electricity bills so it’s impossible not to pay it.

Sweden added it onto the tax** you pay, it used to be "voluntary" if you payed or not before.

** Currently a maximum of 1249 SEK/year or 1% of you income if its below 124903 SEK/year

 

[calistan]

I'm not sure what the Royal Family have to do with this? It's not comparable. The monarchy isn’t funded by a legally enforced charge that restricts people’s choices. The BBC is, and that’s the problem.

You say it’s "not about the individual," but that’s precisely why it should be a choice. Society is made up of individuals, and in a modern democracy, people should be free to decide whether they want to pay for a service. If the BBC is truly valuable, it will thrive in a model where people like yourself voluntarily support it—through subscriptions, donations, or advertising. Other broadcasters manage this without forcing payment.

The people should have the freedom to decide what media they support. If the BBC is as indispensable as you suggest, it should have no trouble surviving without forcing people to fund it.

The problem is that I don't think people would support it as it is now. They'd rather have an extra £14 per month in their pockets. If they had to compete to persuade people to pay, much of their current content would be replaced by things that are more commercially appealing, and if they were to move from a licence fee for TV-owning households to a general tax on everybody, that sounds even less fair.

I think the monarchy is a reasonable comparison, as that's 'for the greater good' and is also funded by the taxpayer. We don't get a say in whether we want to support it, because given the choice people would make a selfish decision.

There are plenty of things that are of value to society despite not being used by certain individuals. The NHS, for instance - the only thing I've used it for in the last 20 years is covid vaccinations, and I have private cover if anything was to happen to me, but I can't opt out.

 

[kevboard]

I can only go by Canada’s CBC and it’s trash. Hardly anyone watches it and needs $1B tax funds to keep afloat.

No point keeping it alive unless they show programs people watch like sports.

Whatever content they are making the general public doesn’t care about. They get all this money and their shows are consistently the cheesiest low production value shows ever.

in germany the ARD, ZDF and the regional channels have a pretty big market share.

 

[Dr. Suchong]

"Right vyv, eat the telly!"

 

[Jinzo Prime]

americans also pay for PBS btw... it's just less direct.

PBS is financed in part by donations, but also through tax money by the US government.

in germany it's now basically also just a tax, and it doesn't matter anymore if you own a TV or not like it was a few decades ago.

the thing is, a public TV service is usually a very good thing. the fact that they do not have to compete against other channels means there's less motivation to be overly sensationalist.

and while everything has its flaws, if run well, a public tax funded broadcaster is a good thing imo.

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

 

[kevboard]

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

I dunno, PBS has decent youtube channels.
I often watch PBS Space Time for example.

 

[Dithadder]

The only publicly funded channel that is of any use in the US is C-SPAN. PBS and NPR suck.

If im not mistaken, C-SPAN is a joint project of the cable companies and is not publically funded.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

I dunno, PBS has decent youtube channels.
I often watch PBS Space Time for example.

PBS used to be extremely watchable. I grew up with it and have positive memories.
NPR, same thing. I don't know when they got hijacked, but as it stands, right now... both are dead to me and the ashes were sent away from our orbit. IMO.