^^^
...people tend to underestimate how much the BBC is part of their daily routines.
Kirk Bayne
That's the monopoly for you. On the radio side, the BBC effectively outlawed its competition ("commercial interests", as they called it) until the 1970's. I would bet the story is similar for TV. Sadly, the Britons just have never experienced much "choice" until those restrictions are lifted, and so they are under the impression that the BBC is some sort of deity. This is fueled by entire generations who, in fact, had no other options but to watch the BBC, and the network could continue to be fed by the British government as much as they wanted. In the US, we accuse the media of being misleading, and we hold them accountable. In the UK, the BBC has only itself to consult before publishing stories, and they have been responsible for so many hoaxes (such as the Spaghetti growing on trees prank), and yet the BBC is not just above the law, they are the law.
It's the practical equivalent of if PBS/NPR suddenly decided to broadcast whatever format they felt like, and then require a license to receive that content, and then saying that anyone running a commercial operation (like ABC/CBS/FOX/NBC, for example) without the permission of the PBS should be shut down. Now imagine that Bachelorette, Young Sheldon, Chicago PD, and Masterchef was all ran on PBS, probably with some changes to appease the station and the government. There would likely be 7-10 stations labeled as PBS, and that would be the only reliable way to recieve content. On the radio side, we would see NPR probably having quite a few subchannels, with translators all over the band, and they would play all sorts of music. Although it sounds like a good thing, the reality is that this alternate NPR would've ran out the other stations like the BBC did, and if there was any other stations, it would probably be a conglomerate who runs it. (In London, as an example, KISS, Classic FM, Talk-Sport, and others are all massive corporations that the government made excptions for. Only recently has individuals been able to put a station on air, and the story behind "Radio Jackie" on 107.8 is a great testament to how the small people won their rights). So in a world where NPR was all-ruling, an Audacy and an iheartradio would crop up late in the game, and they would still be at the whims of NPR. (Remember that in the real world, NPR wants to screw over Franken FM's. If the US went the way of the UK, the Franken FM'S would be wiped off the map decades ago.)
Considering that analogy, we can see how the BBC has truly brainwashed its own audience. As so long as these people continue to be complacent on the matter, the BBC will always raise new generations to continue "supporting" the service. Not to mention that the BBC has a pretty good deal: Speak highly of their government, and the government will have the BBC'S back every single time.
Now, it's not all bad, because at least government ran stations usually have some standards as to programming, so the quality is usually okay. Considering that a government funded network like the BBC has a rather unlimited supply of assets and cash, they will always have enough funding (which is precisely why it's so hard to go up against them with your own station) to keep the shows on air.
However, we must look at the UK, and your article, Kirk, as a cautionary tale. Make a population dependent on you, and you can play puppets with the entire country. On top of that, the BBC (much like the UK itself) spans globally, and tries to be an influence on much of the Eastern Hemisphere.
I would use the BBC as much in the UK as Global and Bauer, in terms of radio. For television, BBC as much as ITV and Channel 4. Its just a part of you at the end of the day.
There's a difference between choice (which is what you have), and living under the weight of the BBC. I like their programming too, and would choose to watch it in my hotel room, or listen to it on their radio, but "it's a part of you" sounds like an excuse to let them have their way with the British. One must remember thar residents (hence the title of this thread) actually pays a license fee directly to the NBC to even own a TV, and if you don't have a TV (or pretend that you don't), you are investigated quite quickly to ensure that the BBC gets their cash from as many people as possible.
It really is quite the revelation that in 2027, nearly 68 million Brits will see for the first time what we Americans have enjoyed for decades. Now for those of you who are tempted to mention taxes, well both the US and the UK collect tax-revenue, and yet the UK still has that license on top of the taxes. Here, you pay out to the federal government, who may divert some of those funds to NPR/PBS as needed, but across the pond, the BBC is so big that they profit off of ridiculous choke-points.
].
