just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War
Isn't that counter to your argument? That someone loses their job for keeping their integrity is usually touted as a major gripe with Fox News.
I happen to believe that the BBC is a good example of what news can be but I don't buy the bullshit that just because it is a good example we can't do a whole lot better.
I concur that is what the GP sounds like. I would argue that it is still a valid opinion and in no way lessons the argument against the way the BBC is funded.
Isn't that kind of nitpicking irrelevant to the point he was making as well as slightly inaccurate? The main reason any consumer might want to possess a TV and not need a TV licence is to use the set to watch recordings. Under that scenario what you say would be invalid as you would be using a TV without having to pay a licence fee.
Government grants are funded through taxes. The licence fee is technically a tax. I don't see how calling it a licence fee makes it any less government funds.
The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.
Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.
It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.
, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government
Or even just our government...
This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.
The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.
Thank you, this is the first post I have seen which is favourable to the BBC but doesn't resort to misinformation. What worries me is that so many of the people who talk complete nonsense about the BBC claim to be from the UK.
Rotfl. Such incongruity should be noted for posterity. Let me try and get this straight.
It is classified as a tax
This is true.
since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one.
Firstly, if it is classified as a tax then that is evidence that it is technically a tax. Secondly, what do you mean by 'for the government'? It is given to the government, if you mean it is then given to the BBC that does not mean it isn't a tax it just means it is a certain kind of tax.
The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding.
This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.
For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit.
The reasons aren't complicated at all, it is paid to the government because they set the fee.
It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.
That has nothing to do with whether it is a tax or not.
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded.
Let me quote from very article you linked to: "The licence fee is classified as a tax, and evasion is a criminal offence.", perhaps the technicality is that you are blind. I just wish they would treat it as a real tax in actually getting a warrant before they threaten to search peoples houses. While it is technically a tax I don't think it should be afforded that status as long as the enforcers can't even be trusted to show the same level of conduct expected of private bailiffs.
but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding
Sorry but the license fee set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, collected by a subcontractor of the BBC and paid into the consolidated fund (government bank account), before being portioned to the BBC by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in the annual Appropriation Act.
In fact, quoting AGAIN from the very article you linked to: "Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation".
That you, who can't even read your own sources properly gets modded informative just causes me to despair.
Most Brits like beer, that doesn't mean I should pay for their beer when I don't drink.
Get off your high horse, just because it's a moron talking about the issue doesn't mean the issue is automatically decided. The hilariously ironic thing about what you are saying is if the majority were capable enough for the majority's will to mean squat then it would be a non issue because they wouldn't need the government setting up the BBC for them, they would be capable of choosing the best service for themselves.
I'd rather fight an evil lying bastard like Murdoch on his own turf than be restrained by someone who thinks the BBC is the best service possible.
The BBC do not collect the license fee. That is done by the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA), who are an independent group distinct from the BBC and the Government.
What prattle. The BBC subcontract collection to the TVLA but it is still the BBC's responsibility. I won't bother providing a link because at least two of the ones in my previous post already explain it. Damn troll.
Certainly, there are a few key choices in fitting something like that into the free market.
Firstly I'd offer Citizens Advice as an example, they actually receive government funding (tax money) but are entirely independent and compete on the free market with everyone else by offering a competitive service. One way they do this is by being volunteer friendly, as a charity they have clear principles which appeal to volunteers and they train volunteers to be able to offer a high quality of service to complement the paid workers. While a commercial company can certainly compete with that in the short term by injecting money from investors, they can never provide the same value for money in the long term.
To go back to the BBC, the first thing they could do to compete in the free market is split the service up. This is an important step whether government stay involved or not, like with Citizens Advice, potentially the government can still offer funding for things like news. What they should not offer funding for is people like Jonathon Ross and Jeremy Clarkson. If the government do not provide any money for news then this is still an important step as the same people who are willing to pay for quality news to compete with Murdoch are unlikely to be the same people who want to pour money into the already saturated entertainment industry.
Lastly, probably closer to the answer you were expecting is the suggestion of regulation. If there is no government funded news service then there would probably want to be government regulations for news services. If there is government funding for the news then the competition for that funding should be sufficient to provide self regulation.
The freer the market the more the success relies on individuals being capable of making decisions. Unfortunately that is something sorely lacking and as such the most effective options are heavy regulation or tax funded services. What we have at the moment is something else entirely, because the BBC get our money without competing for it there is no room for any better services.
Of course, anything you do to the BBC will have the potential knock on effect of strengthening the Murdoch empire and that is possibly the most important thing to consider. I think possibly the most effective way to deal with Murdoch at this point is regulation but no one action is going to give us a way forward, there needs to be a full plan of action and I don't imagine anyone in politics at the moment coming up with one let alone managing to sell it to the country.
Of course, the reality is that the BBC is providing a valuable public service that the competitive market refuses to fill: objective, mature reporting. And News Corporation fails the worst.
I disagree with this (except the part about News Corporation).
Firstly, I do not believe Jonathon Ross or Jeremy Clarkson to be a valuable public services.
Secondly, while everyone here loves to sing the praises of the BBC, it was Channel 4 News who broke the story about the Iraq war dossier being suspect and Channel 4 generally has a reputation as the more serious news service.
Thirdly, there is not actually anything stopping the BBC continuing without the license fee. In fact, you could continue it as a non-profit organisation and cut all of the non news services that shouldn't be considered essential thus reducing the burden on low income families who just want a reliable source of news. As long as the license fee exists then a lot of the money that could be going into real essential services is being drained by entertainment.
Sorry but you don't seem to have any idea how the process works.
From the Communications Act 2003: "Subject to subsection (8), sums received by the BBC by virtue of any regulations under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
Even wikipedia recognises that fact. As well you might want to look at the BBC Charter from which I quote: "The Agreement was made between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and approved after a debate in Parliament in July 2006."
You are correct in saying that the collection is done by the BBC, which I would say is one of the biggest issues I have with the whole thing. When a real tax is collected you don't get someone trying to convince you to let them into your home who isn't a bailiff and doesn't even have a warrant.
But it isn't any steps away from that obvious source of influence. You could have the BBC charter or whatever keeps them supposedly on the straight and narrow even if it was funded directly from taxes. You could have the same charter for a private commercial company or a non profit organisation. The difference is then people aren't forced to pay for it.
I'm not in favour of paying for media out of our taxes but I am in favour of calling a tax a tax rather than a license. At least then the government would be accountable for how the tax is collected rather than leaving it to a bunch of thugs who would be better suited working for a loan shark.
It receives no government funds. It is no more answerable to the government than any other media organisation. It pays it's taxes. It also has a unique lack of pressure from external commercial interests.
The government sets the level of the license fee. The license fee is paid into the government and then the BBC receive a share which is also set by the government (as far as I can tell, at least it is done through the Department of Culture Media and Sport). Saying that it is not funded by the government is kinda like arguing over whether someone was killed by a knife, a person or blood loss. It has arguably more ties to central government than Council Tax.
I'm also from the UK. I have no problem whatsoever how the BBC spends your money either. I have a problem with how they spend the money of those who don't think they are the Queen's gift to our island.
The BBC are certainly one of the most balanced and fair news reporting organisations but quite frankly how does that justify the license fee? It isn't about whether the license model is providing a better service (although that can be argued either way) but about whether being balanced and fair are sufficient reason to make it exempt from the free market. If the free market is incapable of producing fair and balanced news then fix the free market.
If the arguments for the BBC license fee were remotely reasonable then it would be a tax not a license fee. While I am no fan of how most things in our capitalist society work I am less of a fan of glaring hypocrisies propped up by those who are too short sighted to realise that the merits of the status quo are insignificant compared to how hypocrisy stifles progress in any system.
While I dislike anything Murdoch tainted as much as the next geek, for once they are talking (some) sense even if driven by nefarious motive. The license fee doesn't just go against certain ideals, it is inconsistent with all that surrounds it and should be scrapped as a matter of course. The alternative would be to extend the funding model or adapt it to encompass more non-essential services, something that would surely test just how (in)effective the model is.
I think it obvious that the BBC's finer points are due to its funding, salespeople are all about sales and the bbc is all about politics. It is only going to get funding as long as it proves itself to be acting in the interests of the people. The problem is when you consider not just its success but its cost and failure. The cost being taxing the whole country for a non essential service and the failure being every person who pays for the service who is denied a choice. If you are in the (seeming) majority who willingly pay for the BBC then I cannot fault your method of promoting self interest. However in the interest of basic reasoning and to put it bluntly.. fairness, if the BBC is so important then surely the people who like it so much can pay more to support it without our help.
Plus, if you're not being as narrow minded as the GP you will realise that any success by the pirate party has is a big boost for the Lib Dems as the closest party with a full manifesto. The publicity generated by the Pirate Party is far more than the Lib Dems can hope to achieve themselves these days.
I've already read those comments, and comments on most of the other related articles and I personally think that it is more likely ALSA is doing things the better way. I just wished to contest the claims that OSS had a crap API and had been dead for 10 years which seemed an obvious indication that the poster was referring to the deprecated version in the Linux kernel rather than the current one.
I have to add though that the comments on that article by dawhead don't really debunk anything. He states a different opinion and backs it up with his credentials, hardly conclusive evidence even if what he says does make sense.
Again, I agree that ALSA is the best way forward but I have not seen any evidence to contradict the claims that OSS is not currently performing better in a lot of situations. The arguments that ALSA is the better way of doing things overall don't make up for the trashy performance people experience as a result of coders not using ALSA properly.
And consequently, the user base of LaTeX to that of MS Word is just about proportional to the ownership of super sonic jet pilots to that of bicycle users:-).
But ironically, the price correlation is closer to opposite in that analogy.
Which costs more in the real world? The bike or the jet?
OSS has been dead for over a decade. It can't cope with multi-channel sound cards properly because it tries to treat *everything* as a stereo pair. It's got a fairly awful API, too - how did they manage to make it overcomplicated *and* too simple to be useful at the same time?
I think you might be referring to the deprecated OSS version that had been included in the Linux kernel. There is a much newer version which is argued by some to be better than ALSA in both its API and performance.
Slashdot Mirror
just for starters, they lost a director general for not toeing the Blairite line about the Iraq War
Isn't that counter to your argument? That someone loses their job for keeping their integrity is usually touted as a major gripe with Fox News.
I happen to believe that the BBC is a good example of what news can be but I don't buy the bullshit that just because it is a good example we can't do a whole lot better.
I concur that is what the GP sounds like. I would argue that it is still a valid opinion and in no way lessons the argument against the way the BBC is funded.
Isn't that kind of nitpicking irrelevant to the point he was making as well as slightly inaccurate? The main reason any consumer might want to possess a TV and not need a TV licence is to use the set to watch recordings. Under that scenario what you say would be invalid as you would be using a TV without having to pay a licence fee.
Government grants are funded through taxes. The licence fee is technically a tax. I don't see how calling it a licence fee makes it any less government funds.
It's not a tax.
The TV licence was reclassified as a tax by the OFN in 2006 (read the blue book). It was even talked about in the House of Lords.
Except, it's not a tax, it's collected by the TVLA not the government, and we don't have a federal government at all.
It is indeed collected by the TVLA but the authority to do so is set out in the Communications Act 2003 which makes it a criminal offense to not pay the TV licence fee.
, and despite the fact that the money doesn't pass through the federal government
Or even just our government...
This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.
The BBC is funded by the government as far as any tax is.
Thank you, this is the first post I have seen which is favourable to the BBC but doesn't resort to misinformation. What worries me is that so many of the people who talk complete nonsense about the BBC claim to be from the UK.
Care to back up your assertion with something of substance?
Rotfl. Such incongruity should be noted for posterity. Let me try and get this straight.
It is classified as a tax
This is true.
since it isn't collected for the government it technically isn't one.
Firstly, if it is classified as a tax then that is evidence that it is technically a tax. Secondly, what do you mean by 'for the government'? It is given to the government, if you mean it is then given to the BBC that does not mean it isn't a tax it just means it is a certain kind of tax.
The government doesn't handle or distribute the funding.
This is false. The licence fee is set by the government. It is paid into the government bank account by the TVLA and then voted on by the BBC trustees before being allocated and distributed to the BBC by a government department.
For complicated reasons the money goes into the government account and the exact amount is then "voted" on as the amount to give to the BBC who then allocate as they see fit.
The reasons aren't complicated at all, it is paid to the government because they set the fee.
It is a rigmarole to keep the BBC accountable.
That has nothing to do with whether it is a tax or not.
Technically, the BBC is neither government owned nor taxpayer funded.
Let me quote from very article you linked to: "The licence fee is classified as a tax, and evasion is a criminal offence.", perhaps the technicality is that you are blind. I just wish they would treat it as a real tax in actually getting a warrant before they threaten to search peoples houses. While it is technically a tax I don't think it should be afforded that status as long as the enforcers can't even be trusted to show the same level of conduct expected of private bailiffs.
but the government doesn't handle or distribute the funding
Sorry but the license fee set by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, collected by a subcontractor of the BBC and paid into the consolidated fund (government bank account), before being portioned to the BBC by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in the annual Appropriation Act.
In fact, quoting AGAIN from the very article you linked to: "Funds are then allocated by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and the Treasury and approved by Parliament via legislation".
That you, who can't even read your own sources properly gets modded informative just causes me to despair.
Most Brits like beer, that doesn't mean I should pay for their beer when I don't drink.
Get off your high horse, just because it's a moron talking about the issue doesn't mean the issue is automatically decided. The hilariously ironic thing about what you are saying is if the majority were capable enough for the majority's will to mean squat then it would be a non issue because they wouldn't need the government setting up the BBC for them, they would be capable of choosing the best service for themselves.
I'd rather fight an evil lying bastard like Murdoch on his own turf than be restrained by someone who thinks the BBC is the best service possible.
The BBC do not collect the license fee. That is done by the TV Licensing Authority (TVLA), who are an independent group distinct from the BBC and the Government.
What prattle. The BBC subcontract collection to the TVLA but it is still the BBC's responsibility. I won't bother providing a link because at least two of the ones in my previous post already explain it. Damn troll.
Certainly, there are a few key choices in fitting something like that into the free market.
Firstly I'd offer Citizens Advice as an example, they actually receive government funding (tax money) but are entirely independent and compete on the free market with everyone else by offering a competitive service. One way they do this is by being volunteer friendly, as a charity they have clear principles which appeal to volunteers and they train volunteers to be able to offer a high quality of service to complement the paid workers. While a commercial company can certainly compete with that in the short term by injecting money from investors, they can never provide the same value for money in the long term.
To go back to the BBC, the first thing they could do to compete in the free market is split the service up. This is an important step whether government stay involved or not, like with Citizens Advice, potentially the government can still offer funding for things like news. What they should not offer funding for is people like Jonathon Ross and Jeremy Clarkson. If the government do not provide any money for news then this is still an important step as the same people who are willing to pay for quality news to compete with Murdoch are unlikely to be the same people who want to pour money into the already saturated entertainment industry.
Lastly, probably closer to the answer you were expecting is the suggestion of regulation. If there is no government funded news service then there would probably want to be government regulations for news services. If there is government funding for the news then the competition for that funding should be sufficient to provide self regulation.
The freer the market the more the success relies on individuals being capable of making decisions. Unfortunately that is something sorely lacking and as such the most effective options are heavy regulation or tax funded services. What we have at the moment is something else entirely, because the BBC get our money without competing for it there is no room for any better services.
Of course, anything you do to the BBC will have the potential knock on effect of strengthening the Murdoch empire and that is possibly the most important thing to consider. I think possibly the most effective way to deal with Murdoch at this point is regulation but no one action is going to give us a way forward, there needs to be a full plan of action and I don't imagine anyone in politics at the moment coming up with one let alone managing to sell it to the country.
Of course, the reality is that the BBC is providing a valuable public service that the competitive market refuses to fill: objective, mature reporting. And News Corporation fails the worst.
I disagree with this (except the part about News Corporation).
Firstly, I do not believe Jonathon Ross or Jeremy Clarkson to be a valuable public services.
Secondly, while everyone here loves to sing the praises of the BBC, it was Channel 4 News who broke the story about the Iraq war dossier being suspect and Channel 4 generally has a reputation as the more serious news service.
Thirdly, there is not actually anything stopping the BBC continuing without the license fee. In fact, you could continue it as a non-profit organisation and cut all of the non news services that shouldn't be considered essential thus reducing the burden on low income families who just want a reliable source of news. As long as the license fee exists then a lot of the money that could be going into real essential services is being drained by entertainment.
Hear hear!
and is not connected to the government at all.
Sorry but you don't seem to have any idea how the process works.
From the Communications Act 2003: "Subject to subsection (8), sums received by the BBC by virtue of any regulations under this section must be paid into the Consolidated Fund."
Even wikipedia recognises that fact. As well you might want to look at the BBC Charter from which I quote: "The Agreement was made between the BBC and the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport, and approved after a debate in Parliament in July 2006."
You are correct in saying that the collection is done by the BBC, which I would say is one of the biggest issues I have with the whole thing. When a real tax is collected you don't get someone trying to convince you to let them into your home who isn't a bailiff and doesn't even have a warrant.
But it isn't any steps away from that obvious source of influence. You could have the BBC charter or whatever keeps them supposedly on the straight and narrow even if it was funded directly from taxes. You could have the same charter for a private commercial company or a non profit organisation. The difference is then people aren't forced to pay for it.
I'm not in favour of paying for media out of our taxes but I am in favour of calling a tax a tax rather than a license. At least then the government would be accountable for how the tax is collected rather than leaving it to a bunch of thugs who would be better suited working for a loan shark.
Mod parent up, some idiot with points is on a power trip.
It receives no government funds. It is no more answerable to the government than any other media organisation. It pays it's taxes. It also has a unique lack of pressure from external commercial interests.
The government sets the level of the license fee. The license fee is paid into the government and then the BBC receive a share which is also set by the government (as far as I can tell, at least it is done through the Department of Culture Media and Sport). Saying that it is not funded by the government is kinda like arguing over whether someone was killed by a knife, a person or blood loss. It has arguably more ties to central government than Council Tax.
I'm also from the UK. I have no problem whatsoever how the BBC spends your money either. I have a problem with how they spend the money of those who don't think they are the Queen's gift to our island.
The BBC are certainly one of the most balanced and fair news reporting organisations but quite frankly how does that justify the license fee? It isn't about whether the license model is providing a better service (although that can be argued either way) but about whether being balanced and fair are sufficient reason to make it exempt from the free market. If the free market is incapable of producing fair and balanced news then fix the free market.
If the arguments for the BBC license fee were remotely reasonable then it would be a tax not a license fee. While I am no fan of how most things in our capitalist society work I am less of a fan of glaring hypocrisies propped up by those who are too short sighted to realise that the merits of the status quo are insignificant compared to how hypocrisy stifles progress in any system.
While I dislike anything Murdoch tainted as much as the next geek, for once they are talking (some) sense even if driven by nefarious motive. The license fee doesn't just go against certain ideals, it is inconsistent with all that surrounds it and should be scrapped as a matter of course. The alternative would be to extend the funding model or adapt it to encompass more non-essential services, something that would surely test just how (in)effective the model is.
I think it obvious that the BBC's finer points are due to its funding, salespeople are all about sales and the bbc is all about politics. It is only going to get funding as long as it proves itself to be acting in the interests of the people. The problem is when you consider not just its success but its cost and failure. The cost being taxing the whole country for a non essential service and the failure being every person who pays for the service who is denied a choice. If you are in the (seeming) majority who willingly pay for the BBC then I cannot fault your method of promoting self interest. However in the interest of basic reasoning and to put it bluntly.. fairness, if the BBC is so important then surely the people who like it so much can pay more to support it without our help.
Plus, if you're not being as narrow minded as the GP you will realise that any success by the pirate party has is a big boost for the Lib Dems as the closest party with a full manifesto. The publicity generated by the Pirate Party is far more than the Lib Dems can hope to achieve themselves these days.
The pirate party is for kids who have yet to have a real job and learn the value of work.
Ah yes, real job. Like making computer games for a living. Ha Ha Ha my side just split.
I've already read those comments, and comments on most of the other related articles and I personally think that it is more likely ALSA is doing things the better way. I just wished to contest the claims that OSS had a crap API and had been dead for 10 years which seemed an obvious indication that the poster was referring to the deprecated version in the Linux kernel rather than the current one.
I have to add though that the comments on that article by dawhead don't really debunk anything. He states a different opinion and backs it up with his credentials, hardly conclusive evidence even if what he says does make sense.
Again, I agree that ALSA is the best way forward but I have not seen any evidence to contradict the claims that OSS is not currently performing better in a lot of situations. The arguments that ALSA is the better way of doing things overall don't make up for the trashy performance people experience as a result of coders not using ALSA properly.
And consequently, the user base of LaTeX to that of MS Word is just about proportional to the ownership of super sonic jet pilots to that of bicycle users :-).
But ironically, the price correlation is closer to opposite in that analogy.
Which costs more in the real world? The bike or the jet?
OSS has been dead for over a decade. It can't cope with multi-channel sound cards properly because it tries to treat *everything* as a stereo pair. It's got a fairly awful API, too - how did they manage to make it overcomplicated *and* too simple to be useful at the same time?
I think you might be referring to the deprecated OSS version that had been included in the Linux kernel. There is a much newer version which is argued by some to be better than ALSA in both its API and performance.