in the BBC the many fund the many - but apart from that I agree entirely ________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 02 May 2008 12:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen Whilst TV matters to a lot of people (including me :-) it is however *just* TV. Yes, a 3% level on subscription TV to support those people who can't afford it. Seems just and just TV to me. In most economic systems the few fund the many - the BBC is an exception to this due to historical reasons, you have the many funding the few. However, being British, we've somehow managed to come through all of the wrangling with quite a respectable end product, whatever the naysayers say (cf. a typically British result from decades of uncertainty can be seen in the British political system: only ever partially codified but still one of the most successful political and legal frameworks in the world imho!) <rant time... look away now if you're not thusly inclined> However, consumer acceptance of another broadcaster gaining funds via the "many funding the few" scheme would, I fear, meet with large amounts of disquiet and "I've never had to pay this before, why should I now?" The people will roll out their usual arguments, "that's what it's like with the BBC already" etc etc, but the BBC is a class apart - it's a trusted broadcaster, a trusted brand and a torchcarrier for the UK all over the world. You just cannot compare the Beeb with A. N. Other semi-publically funded PSB. Compare ITV's or C4's output to the BBC's - different leagues, even with Channel 4's comprehensive web site and digital offerings there's still leagues of difference between them. Even if they do benefit from their incumbency, they've not just sat on their laurels - innovation has always been high and they seem to be willing to push the curve a little more than others. Because of that cash injection? Yes, maybe, but as the British Broadcasting Company they are in a different class from other PSBs - my expectations for my country's national broadcaster are similarly far higher. I go elsewhere for news fixes, entertainment etc alongside the BBC, but I always come back to the BBC at the end of the day. I trust it almost implicitly (although these days my bullshit-and-spin filter is permanently turned to 'on', thanks for that Internet) I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that the BBC, due to the sheer breadth and volume of content it creates, commissions and outputs, plus all of the requisite infrastructure and platform support, deserves the bulk of the money from the licence fee. I'm happy to pay for quality by way of a licence if I make use of the resulting productions (be they TV, radio, online etc) - but I fear it's something I just wouldn't get from any other PSB. Plus, if any other broadcaster was funded by their own licence fee, I would expect them to cease advertising. Would they do that? Nah.
