Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

I don't know. I've never lived in a world where this stuff wasn't paid for by advertising.

I think "means to pay" is relative - Cambodian tuk-tuk drivers get cheaper, better internet access than Berliners. And they watch YouTube on it. If they didn't have access to YouTube for free there would be a huge market in producing Cambodian content for them to watch, priced appropriately for that market.

View on HN

Before Youtube, many people in that part of the world listened to the radio. How will radio stations survive without ads?

Good question. That's a broadcast medium, though. In the UK, Australia and Germany (amongst others - these are only the countries I've lived in that do this) there is a public broadcaster supported by a tax. It's not popular - irrelevant and annoying in the internet age. But it clearly solved the "how do you get broadcast media without adverts" problem.

> It's not popular

relatively speaking, no

>irrelevant and annoying in the internet age

disagree strongly

I meant the business model, not the content. German collection of the tax is incredibly unpopular, especially for those of us who don't even have a television.

true, would be more sensible to make it a "real" federal tax instead of collection via a obnoxious semi-private entity.

while i have not owned a tv for the last two decades i still sometimes consume their content via internet or car-radio and would probably miss it if it wasnt available.

In Australia, the ABC is just funded out of general taxation, with no specific tax for it. That works a lot better.

Triple-J (their "youth" music radio station) is an Australian cultural mainstay (or was; its relevance is fading), and I don't think anyone actually minds that some of their tax goes to support it. Except the usual right-wing conspiracy dicks who are mad that the ABC doesn't publish their shite.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com