[Gllug] BBC Open Source

[Rev Simon Rumble]

On 14/7/2005, "Sean Burlington" <sean at uncertainty.org.uk> wrote:

>Who does the current system benefit?
>
>If the BBC was paid for out of direct taxation would anyone be worse off?

The system benefits everyone who wants to see an independent BBC, willing
and able to criticise the government of the day.

Compare and contrast with the Australian equivalent, the ABC, which used
to be funded by a UK-style license fee but is now funded out of central
government.  The government of the day tweaks and twiddles the funding,
as well as the members of the governing board, to suit their purposes.

See "Table 4: Commonwealth Funds for the ABC, 1990-91 to 2003-4 (a)   
(adjusted to 2003-04 prices)" of
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/sp/fundingabc.htm#Table_4

Note that the current conservative government came into power in 1996 and
immediately began criticising the ABC's "bias" against the
government.  The blip up at 2001-2002 is to cover the additional money
required for digital television.

So, I agree that the license fee is a regressive and silly taxation
system.  Once penetration of a government service reaches >90%, it
becomes pretty stupid to attempt to make it user-pays, especially if you
compare it to road subsidies.

Unfortunately, the license fee is possibly the best you're going to get.
 The alternative would be for the Beeb's subsidy to be dictated in the
legislation with inflation increments specified in some non-politically
manipulable way.  But given the hostility of today's government to the
Beeb, I can't see that being the outcome of any decision to scrap the
license fee.
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug