Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsavimbi | Hacker News Reader

Applications like those provided by Google, Twitter and Facebook only achieve their popularity based on their widespread use, thus the need to keep them free and supported by advertising. Just like television, radio, the heavily-subsidized news industry and many, many more programs that rely on sponsorships in lieu of publicly-funded grants. These programs create jobs and in many cases promote education and health awareness through outreach, not to mention life-saving services and charities who without the use of advertising would not be able to sustain themselves. Advertising is a fact of life and has been socially pervasive since times immemorial. Advertising is communication and vice versa. Without it we would not be able to function as a society.

* that tv license they have in the UK is whack.

View on HN

that tv license they have in the UK is whack

From over here in the United States, it looks like it's not such a terrible thing. The BBC manages to produce great programming and content, and the license is much less than what the typical US consumer pays for cable.

They also have to pay the license, which imo amounts to nothing more than a poll tax for mindless entertainment, every year. I've never paid one and I currently do not own a TV; I was just taking a swipe at what I view as an indirect tax that further imposes the will of a few in government over the people.

But the fact remains that whomever takes a stand one way or another on advertising is just deluding themselves. It's always been with us, it's how we communicate with each other.

If I actually had a cable subscription, I would totally agree with you, too. I have a TV hooked up to my computer that I use for Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime Instant rather than deal with Comcast. Unfortunately, if I were setup like this in the UK I'd still have to pay the BBC licence.

Actually, I say "unfortunately", but I would actually be okay with it. The Beeb has some amazing content. But there are definitely more than a couple people with TVs who have no interest in cable (or BBC) subscriptions.

You wouldn't have to pay the BBC license with your setup if you detuned your TV from the usual channels and used it in the way you're describing.

You only have to pay the license if you're watching live TV. If you don't own a TV or if your TV isn't tuned to terrestrial channels, you don't have to pay. Even if you're not paying, you still get access to loads of great radio stations and a fantastic website AND on-demand catchup of all BBC programmes on iPlayer. The license is only for live TV.

IIRC, you only have to pay for a TV license if you watch BBC stuff as it's being broadcast.

You have the option of saying you don't need a license, in which case they send someone around to make sure you aren't lying. This is how it is currently at my place (althought they never got around to sending their van over..)

> they send someone around to make sure you aren't lying

That's the whack part I was alluding to.

The "detector vans" are FUD, what they actually do is just assume that everyone has a TV and send them a letter. The TV licencing company (and it is a company, not a government organisation) is quite misleading in the way it practices, their inspectors cannot for example enter your property unless you let them in. And they can't force you to answer any questions. So there's no way for them to prove you're watching TV without a licence. All that said, personally I think the TV licence is awesome value for money, BBC TV and Radio programmes are generally of very high quality, and of course there are no adverts and there are very strict guidelines on impartiality etc

The issue is choice. The same people who'd scream if Murdoch had the power to force everyone to subscribe to the Wall Street Journal don't think it's a big deal that everyone is forced to subscribe to the BBC.

Assuming the government is still going to fund a TV station, not having a license for BBC would just mean it was funded out of general taxation revenue. Having a license system or not is irrelevant, it's still being funded by taxation either ay.

Why should there necessarily be state-run media?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com