Quote:
Originally Posted by passingbat
You seem to be only using one part of what the BBC is designed to do:
No wonder you don't see it's full value if you're only considering the entertainment part.
Are you serious? The BBC could never provide the breadth of content it does now on a £12.50 p/m subscription model.
Given that the licence fee was retained because of the overwhelming support for it in surveys prior to the white paper, that makes the above statement nonsense.
I think your determination to privatise the BBC, which is perfectly in line with what this government would like to do (fortunately held back by a sensible public, who put reason before political dogma), makes your views and mine so far apart, that it's pointless clogging up this thread with more discussion.
|
There was indeed support for the licence fee but this isn't why it was retained for the time being. Your comment that the BBC could not provide the same service on a subscription that is equivalent to the licence fee doesn't make sense, unless of course you believe that hordes of people would not subscribe. Which rather goes against the idea that the BBC has overwhelming support, doesn't it?
For the record, I do believe that the BBC commands a lot of support from the public and that most would, in fact subscribe. But that doesn't take away from the argument that those who do not watch or listen should not be compelled to pay.
A subscription service would give people choice, ensure that time, cost and energy in checking that people not paying were not watching TV would no longer be expended and viewers who did not pay ceased to get away with it.