>> But it's worth considering

Actually, my entire point was that people considering these things need to stop considering them...

>> sorry to keep picking on the US - but they are the worst offenders by far

Fair enough. I'm by no means a fan of US television on the whole; there is some real garbage (in my personal opinion), and watching advertisements on television you're already paying for (cable, satellite) is ridiculous. But that's not enough to justify what you're calling for.

>> The BBC are meant to be politically neutral - and they do a reasonably good job of being so. Better than anyone else by far.

That's a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Even if you think the news on the Beeb is mostly politically neutral...suppose it isn't? What are you going to do, stop paying for it and watch another channel? Oops, you have to pay for it to watch ANY channel. Which means that politically un-neutral commentary (which should be PROTECTED) is forced to indirectly fund the BBC's idea of 'politically neutral,' which could be anything at any time, depending on who's in charge.

>> It also funds the BBC website - which is easily one of the best news sites around (note how often it gets submitted here, and upvoted, as opposed to other general news sites :))

Got me there; I don't have a problem with the BBC website. I rather like it, actually. Aside from the fact that it's paid for by taxes. Notice how if you watch TV but don't happen to have a computer + internet, you're still paying for a website you can't even access?

>> Additionally it funds iPlayer - HD streaming of BBC content. Again, yet to see a commercial offering as slick.

Yeah, speaking of that: "BBC blocks open source video players"
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1157704

>> Finally the tax funds Ofcomm which regulates all TV - I think this is one of the main reasons we aren't suffering shoddy corrupted TV :D

We have the FCC; how is that different? Censorship, just what the world needs! Why let people pay for what they enjoy and not pay for what they don't enjoy, when we can just let the government tell us what is and isn't "quality programming"?

>> People are used to solid hours of content with no advertising on te BBC - which means other channels cant get away with as much as certain other countries cram in. Example: Channel 5 shows CSI from 9pm on Tuesdays. It has 10-12 minutes of advertising between segments

Firstly, CSI is an American franchise. Advertisements over here are likely making up the difference for those smaller commercial breaks over there.

Secondly, this is EXACTLY the process by which a little bit of government interference can sometimes completely distort a market. Suppose (hypothetically, now) that shorter commercial breaks aren't cost-effective enough to produce certain quality shows. But the State (having appropriated your money already) can afford to eliminate commercials on its channels. Like you said, this changes the standards that private companies have to live up to. In many markets to the point where it simply isn't worth it to do what they do, or to do it as well as they could.

Yes, US television companies have _plenty_ of problems.

The way things are going, though, advertisements aren't really one of them any more. DVRs, Hulu, Etc. It's only a matter of time before the advertisement/quality ratio balances back out. And what set us off is this direction? Well, it wasn't the efforts of government. It was the internet (decidedly UNregulated) and new hardware like DVRs (time to tax those, too?) that have made us less reliant on the whims of the TV industry, an oligopoly which is largely the result of government regulation to begin with.

>> So, yeh, I think it's a great deal for what you get (7 BBC channels and guaranteed between 3 and 10 other, well regulated, free-to-air channels plus the BBC website).

I like BBC channels, too. I even listen to BBC radio from this side of the pond. But you can't say one way or the other what kind of television you might have if the BBC didn't exist, because it's been with you since 1932. Maybe you'd have even BETTER television if the BBC wasn't taking up market share that could otherwise be utilized by broadcasters who are actually accountable to their viewers (and their viewers' wallets)? Our personal taste in television is no basis for government programs that are funded by taking other peoples' money.

>> Certainly I'd never consider paying for cable channels in the way other countries do :(

That's great; neither would I. And the very fact that I have a CHOICE not to pay for something that I DON'T WANT is the matter at hand. But with tax-funded television, what are my options? I guess, like you said, I could just not watch any television at all. But I'd rather that the government and all the busybodies of the world would just keep their thieving hands to themselves, and let me pay only for the TV that I want, like a sensible civilization would.

Yes, things could be better. There are solutions to our many television problems, and all of them involve LESS government, NOT more.

[edit- snark reduction]