Originally Posted by Chris

Who said anything about what’s good? As per, you’re adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

On the contrary, I’m simply observing facts. The BBC has a public service remit that effectively mandates a great deal of its budget allocation process away from the kind of drama output that characterises almost all of Amazon and Netflix original content. If you’re a fan of drama that makes A&N look more cost effective. I have Netflix because I do like drama, especially the fantasy/adventure kind they produce a lot of (I also have Amazon, but that’s incidental to our Prime membership... I wouldn’t pay extra for their TV, the selection’s not a patch on Netflix). On the other hand, I’ve spent the last 2 hours watching Strictly Come Dancing, which is one of the biggest shows on British TV and is also broadcast live, with viewer interaction, so regardless of whether it’s delivered via satellite, terrestrial, cable or IP stream, its very nature means it is and will always be linear.

The real problem here, as usual, is an inability to see the TV licence fee for what it is - a compulsory charge for a broad range of services regardless of whether the payee uses them or not. It’s a form of tax, similar in aim to council tax. The TV licence is not a subscription and trying to liken it to your Netflix sub is comparing apples and oranges. This is why value comparisons fail and why those who argue for the TVL to be replaced by a BBC subscription don’t even understand why the idea’s a non-starter (the U.K. already has a successful commercial model for public service broadcasters - it’s called free-to-air with advertising, and it’s what ITV, Four and Five already do).