Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
This is of course counteracted by, say, Sky 1 where there are ad breaks every 30 seconds.
|
Yeah, Sky 1 is shit. But people pay for it. Aside from the Simpsons I find it impossible to watch anything on it anyway (the ad breaks make it unwatchable). No-one is forcing you to subscribe though.
The BBC's relative cheapness (or quality for that matter) is completley irrelevent. It's the voluntary aspect which is what's bothering me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Please tell me you wouldnt be more sympathetic towards the BBC if the rich had to pay more than the poor in order to own a television.
|
I'd still oppose the licence fee obviously, but it'd mildly better in an abstract sense.
It'd be like a burgular who stole proportionally more from the rich than he did from the poor (but still robbed everyone). He'd be mildly "better" than a thief who stole from everyone equally. Of course, they're both criminals so it's kinda moot.
My point was that even if we can ignore the loss-of-freedom aspects of the licence fee (which I can't, but some can seemingly) it's bad in other ways too.