Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
There are many public amenities that I don't use, but are funded out of national/local tax. Should they be made subscription services?
Of course not; we all pay for many public services that we don't personally use, but their net benefit to the country as a whole is positive.
|
I don't think it is right to compare entertainment in the home with essential public services such as social care, public health, waste services, etc.
These services benefit everyone either directly or indirectly. Even if you don't have children, you still benefit from education services because this ensures that society can continue to develop and function properly when we get old.
Personal entertainment is not in the same category, and given the resentment that some feel because they don't watch or listen to the BBC and so they are effectively paying for others to be entertained, the licence fee is not the best way to fund the BBC.
I don't know where the objection to a subscription funded BBC comes from. If the cost is about the same as a licence fee, what is there to complain about?
Judging by the reports on the popularity of the corporation, most people would choose to subscribe anyway. So what is the big deal?