Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I think you can't have read my previous posts. The licence fee doesn't exist simply because it always has. The BBC's charter, and therefore the licence fee, is subject to renewal by Parliament every 10 years or so. Each renewal follows a detailed analysis of whether the British TV industry still has a place for public service broadcasting finded by compulsory levy. So far, the answer has always been 'it still does', not 'it always has'.
You are also ignoring the point that the licence fee is not a subscription. If you genuinely want to argue a case for its abolition, you are going to have to make a case against what it actually is, and what it actually stands for, and not simply rail against a straw man of your own invention. It's easy to knock down your own parody of something but ultimately it's not going to get you anywhere, and in this case it's not going to save you your £2.50.
|
I agree, it's obviously not a subscription, because by definition a subscription is "a payment for a service or product for a given period of time". This is clearly not the case with the BBC licence fee, as it is mandatory by law and cannot be cancelled at any time (unless you give up your TV).
Back when the BBC was the only broadcasting corporation, and TV advertising money was an alien concept, then I could see how a compulsory licence fee was justified (people obviously have to pay for entertainment). This is not the case in a modern media society, where the consumer has many choices as to what he or she watches. Why should they be bound by law to fund a corporation which they may never use?
Your argument about the BBC setting a benchmark and how that in itself justifies the licence fee is ridiculous. The level of competition should drive the various media outlets to step up their quality of product, so that we 'choose' to spend our money to watch them. But the BBC is lazy and doesn't want to have to compete, they just want their guaranteed regular pot of money.