The licence fee in the UK actually only pays for the BBC, which is two channels. These channels have NO COMMERCIALS. They are also free of pressure from advertisers and political groups. They're even free from pressure from ratings. (The other three channels are free-to-air, but aren't involved in the licence fee and make money through advertising.)
The BBC, therefore, can concentrate on one thing: QUALITY. Not only is it the best news source in the world, but it provides the most eclectic mix of prgrammes on TV. BBC1 is also the most watched TV channel in the country - so clearly whatever it is they're doing is working.
Given the option of the rubbish we get on our pay-extra-for sattelite channels (which is invariably American), or quality BBC progamming, I'm happy to pay the few quid a year to maintain an independent TV company.
I love the quaint response to the TV detector vans too. We've had them here since the 70's, but they're more of a PR excercise than anything else. Think about it: if it means spending half a million pounds on a detector van, or hiring an intern to take a look through the licence register address list, which do you think is easier? They've blown and blustered about the vans for at least 25 years, but you ask most people and they've never encountered one.
Of course, this will all seem very odd to Americans, because you're not used to the idea of TV that has no political or advertising association. I was appalled at how bad things like FOX news really is when I went to NY a couple of years ago. It's not so much news as a Republican campaign instrument. Most people in the UK (according to the polls they do every few years) like the fact we can have quality and independent news.
Slashdot Mirror
Where would we be without our regular Linux "is ready" article? It feels like it's been reported as being "ready" every month for the last 10 years...
The licence fee in the UK actually only pays for the BBC, which is two channels. These channels have NO COMMERCIALS. They are also free of pressure from advertisers and political groups. They're even free from pressure from ratings. (The other three channels are free-to-air, but aren't involved in the licence fee and make money through advertising.)
The BBC, therefore, can concentrate on one thing: QUALITY. Not only is it the best news source in the world, but it provides the most eclectic mix of prgrammes on TV. BBC1 is also the most watched TV channel in the country - so clearly whatever it is they're doing is working.
Given the option of the rubbish we get on our pay-extra-for sattelite channels (which is invariably American), or quality BBC progamming, I'm happy to pay the few quid a year to maintain an independent TV company.
I love the quaint response to the TV detector vans too. We've had them here since the 70's, but they're more of a PR excercise than anything else. Think about it: if it means spending half a million pounds on a detector van, or hiring an intern to take a look through the licence register address list, which do you think is easier? They've blown and blustered about the vans for at least 25 years, but you ask most people and they've never encountered one.
Of course, this will all seem very odd to Americans, because you're not used to the idea of TV that has no political or advertising association. I was appalled at how bad things like FOX news really is when I went to NY a couple of years ago. It's not so much news as a Republican campaign instrument. Most people in the UK (according to the polls they do every few years) like the fact we can have quality and independent news.