Quote:
Originally Posted by Action Jackson
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.
|
Just a couple of brief thoughts .....
1. I never said that setting standards 'in itself' justified the licence fee. It is part of the equation but not all of it. Clearly it's not all of it as the Charter process is a very lengthy and detailed one.
2. The BBC (or some people within it at any rate) might well be lazy and enjoying a gravy train, but the BBC doesn't award itself its Charter and it doesn't set the level of the licence fee. Parliament does.