I want to say the BBC is a great British institution - don't mess with it! ;-)
Sadly don't feel that in the same way any more.
To pursue the line of debate I think my last email mentioned parking
charges. Basic parking meter charges aren't generally set by central
government, nor do I believe that they apply if you don't park. The
licence fee applies even if you don't ever watch or listen to BBC.
As you say, paying out of taxation may be better - and involve lower
collection costs. The idea that the licence protects its
independence seems an illusion. The BBC is independent in, but only
in, the same sense as the GMC or the judiciary. Does the fact that
doctors fund the GMC remove it from government control? Equally does
the fact that the government funds the judiciary entirely remove its
independence? Don't really (apologies) understand the reference to
Bread and Circuses as that feels like what we've got.
As to pay per view it's one model and I agree not likely to be one
that can or should be universal - though netflix, lovefilm, and some
sports broadcasting seem to do OK out of it. I suspect most of us
buy packages in which we have some, but limited, choice and then use
those parts which we want. Programmes these days often seem to be
packaged along with eg. broadband, telephone services etc. People
may buy packages from several different providers. Except for the
news / public service broadcasting / infotainment that seems like a
preferable system in a multi-channel age, though if we could solve
just one problem I'd focus on General Practice and put up with any
form of broadcasting lol.
Julian
At 18:13 13/03/2016, you wrote:
>But parking fees are 'optional' - rent community charge etc aren't
>
>But then food clothes shoes heating aren't optional either
>
>Roger
>
>
>On 13 Mar 2016, at 13:52, Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>That definition would define parking meter charges as regressive.
>I recall when they were introduced, and a general lack of
>enthusiasm, but I think regressive taxation is usually defined more closely.
>
>It may be that it would be cheaper and better to pay the state
>broadcaster out if general taxation - the Romans had a little
>trouble with bread and circuses though, so perhaps we got it right.
>
>The implicit arguments that a payment system per programming watched
>should be run, or that no programming should be broadcast unless it
>is desired by every licence holder don't seem economic or workable to me.
|