Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
To be honest, jfman, I don’t see how the government can seriously agree to spend scarce resources on a preferred method of broadcasting that the content providers don’t want.
If channels are abandoned in favour of streaming, and at a time that the BBC complain they are so cash strapped that they have to withdraw services, what will be left to broadcast terrestrially?
To date, I haven’t heard a reasoned argument against that view, apart from the usual appeal to the emotions that ‘people want the choice’.
I don’t think the option will be available, and there won’t be a referendum!
|
What’s the cost to Government of mandating that public service broadcasters keep using terrestrial? In the absence of a lucrative alternative use the answer is near zero.
There are 7.8 million people on “low income” benefits. Usually pensioners on low incomes (pension credit) or the state subsidising poverty wages for unscrupulous employers (universal credit). Do you propose all of them get “free broadband” just to satisfy your own narrow vision?
People want the choice is the very rallying cry of capitalism. People paying to watch, or paying to advertise to viewers, is the very definition of a successful market. There’s no need for state or regulatory intervention that immediately the state has to mitigate the harm from in the manner you propose.
It’s completely absurd.
There may indeed be no referendum but it’s easy pickings for an opposition to campaign on a near zero cost popular policy. Starmer’s not going to do something as unpopular as indicated above for no tangible benefit to anyone.