Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
But Chris, we all rely on the police and fire authorities. We don't all watch or listen to BBC output, and so the licence fee or any kind of universal tax is manifestly unfair.
|
I'm aware of the argument against the practice of treating public service broadcast as socially necessary, however that argument is normally - fallaciously - based on personal usage, rather than availability.
If you never have children, you will never make use of the schools you pay for. However there is a wider social need for schools, which benefits you indirectly. Likewise you pay for the fire authority not because you use it, but because one day you might do. It is, howevever, far more likely that you never will.
The BBC is a guarantor of breadth of programming, quality of programming, and universal availability of programming. You may never personally tune in to any of its services, but the very fact of its existence sets parameters for the UK TV industry, which you benefit from.
If you think this is nonsense, spend some time watching TV in the USA. What we get here is, I promise you, a highly distilled and very small sample of it's output, most of which is shockingly bad.
Quote:
|
I do appreciate your doubts about my theory that linear channels are ultimately doomed. However, the industry itself is moving to VOD and streaming and there will come a tipping point where not enough people are watching the linear channels to support the existing model based on advertising.
|
The industry is not moving to VOD and streaming. It, led in the UK by the BBC, is using those technologies to broaden its reach. It is not a case of either/or.
Quote:
|
While advertising will continue to play a part without the linear channels, it will be a much smaller part of a channel's income, and so there will be less duplication with a bigger focus on subscriptions.
|
It's about time you produced some links to back up these assertions you keep making.
Back in the real world, 50% of British homes still, after all these years, do not pay anything for their home entertainment except for their TV licence.
If you have some evidence of a supposed shift in attitudes towards subscription-based TV, let's have it.
Quote:
|
You have mentioned the dreamy way in which some people watch TV now, by turning it on and just watching whatever is thrown at them. Convenient that may be, but it will not be sustainable financially to carry on broadcasting the same way if the advertisers are no longer willing to stump up. Just look at what is happening. The drift to alternative methods of watching programmes will continue, and at a faster pace, over the coming years.
|
Dreamy? You really don't have much of a concept of life beyond your own living room, do you ...