Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
That is not an appropriate comparison. We all benefit from education of the population. We are talking about entertainment, Chris, for heaven's sake!
|
Of course, because there’s nothing else on the BBC apart from entertainment, its research and development departments have never contributed anything to the industry in general, and the market it has created for innovative, independent production companies to produce their - quelle horreur - entertainment output in no way benefits the British economy, nor does it help the U.K. to punch far above its weight in international TV and film production expertise.
It appears you are some considerable distance from actually understanding the issues here.
As I already said: the TV licence is not a mandatory subscription. It is a tax, which ensures that quality services are available to all. You own a house, you pay council tax. You use broadcast tv services, you pay for a tv licence. As Hugh so eloquently put it the other day, comparing the TV licence to a Netflix subscription is like comparing apples and hedgehogs. They don’t serve the same purpose, and you can’t simply transpose one business funding model onto another corporation with radically different aims and objectives.
---------- Post added at 11:31 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnoopZ
Its way over the top and just ridiculous, i mean the BBC doesn't do anything for me, and if you had to pay £12 for my house bills i am sure you would feel the same way.
|
If you consume British-made TV content in any form, from any vendor in the U.K., then the BBC has done something for you, whether you actually tune your TV to the BBC or not. It really is as simple as that.