-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
If the Corp for public broadcasting is defunded...
- Thread starter markwooldridge
- Start date
ajc_trw said:I know Disney has some connection with Sesame Street but to what extent I do not know. However, I'm guessing SS makes enough $$ to fund themselves and perhaps help out all those stations airing their shows aka selling their brand to the wee ones.
Explain your logic that you would expect the Sesame Street enterprise to dig into their pockets to make rural market TV stations function,
but it is not the opportunity and/or obligation of the public at large to dig into their pockets to make rural market TV stations function.
Why hang the burden on the Sesame Street enterprise?
If I suggested that we tell General Motors it is their burden, I suspect you might object.
If I suggested that Wall Street should take on the financial burden, I suspect you might object.
If I suggested that Bain Capital or Clear Channel or Cumulus should shoulder the load, would you go along with that?
The Kock Brothers are accused of spreading a lot of their resources around the country in recent years. Would it be proper for us to turn to them and tell them that it is their obligation to make sure small market/rural public TV is financed?
Why hang the burden on the Sesame Street enterprise?
Maybe we can con Warren Buffett and Bill Gates into thinking the burden belongs on their back.
D
desertv
Guest
ajc_trw said:PTBoardOp94 said:
I know Disney has some connection with Sesame Street but to what extent I do not know. However, I'm guessing SS makes enough $$ to fund themselves and perhaps help out all those stations airing their shows aka selling their brand to the wee ones.
Disney owns the Muppets now
D
desertv
Guest
e-dawg said:
All those are paid for by yearly licenses on TVs and radios
Sesame Street could probably be produced and air as E/I, commercial free and the network could still make good money on the commercials shown in the programs immediately before and after it's broadcast. Plus one of the Big 4 could broadcast it in E/I form as the centerpiece of a three program children's block bookended by two programs with the Fruit Loops and Kool-Aid commercials and then rerun Sesame Street with a full commercial load on one of the network's cable channels.
Not even including non-E/I specials (Big Bird's Xmas Special, etc).
I just can't imagine a reason Sesame Street couldn't be a very profitable brand for a Big 4 OTA network to exploit while continuing to provide a show similar to what PBS carries now.
PBS does not need government funding. TV will not be harmed if we quit sending tax dollars to PBS. Some public TV may continue to exist or thrive through state and private funding. The Feds just need to back off. Opinion stated.
Not even including non-E/I specials (Big Bird's Xmas Special, etc).
I just can't imagine a reason Sesame Street couldn't be a very profitable brand for a Big 4 OTA network to exploit while continuing to provide a show similar to what PBS carries now.
PBS does not need government funding. TV will not be harmed if we quit sending tax dollars to PBS. Some public TV may continue to exist or thrive through state and private funding. The Feds just need to back off. Opinion stated.
Goat Rodeo Cowboy said:ajc_trw said:I know Disney has some connection with Sesame Street but to what extent I do not know. However, I'm guessing SS makes enough $$ to fund themselves and perhaps help out all those stations airing their shows aka selling their brand to the wee ones.
Explain your logic that you would expect the Sesame Street enterprise to dig into their pockets to make rural market TV stations function,
Sesame Street relies on affiliates to get eyes on the program and to sell its merchandise. Oh, and out of their need to educate the kids. These stations solicit donations, are they going to turn down their money?
desertv said:
Among those public broadcasters of the world that do have commercials, there are typically much more stringent regulations than with any private broadcasters in the country. In Germany, which has a relatively high license fee, the two nationwide public channels, ARD ("das Erste") and ZDF, air commercials, but only up until 8 PM, the traditional start of prime time. After 8 PM, there are no commercials, and even during the part of the day when advertising is allowed, the commercial load is lower than on the private networks. Also I believe that none of "die Dritten," the collection of regional public broadcasters throughout Germany, have commercials during any part of the day.
As far as I know, France Télévisions uses the same model as in Germany these days, in that their license fee-funded stations air only a limited amount of advertising before 8 PM each day.
To look at another case of how advertising is regulated, in the Netherlands Nederlandse Publieke Omroep is responsible for operating the country's nationwide public television networks, which used to be funded through a license fee but are now funded through income taxes. A comparatively small amount of advertising is allowed to be shown on the networks, but only in between programming, similar to the longtime model followed by PBS in the sense that regular programming is not interrupted by commercials or messages.
With regard to Spain, yes, RTVE's television networks stopped airing commercials a few years ago, but no they are not paid for by television licenses. Spain is one of the few countries in Europe, and certainly the largest in population, to have never had a fee all TV owners must pay. Instead, the national broadcaster gets support from government grants (like PBS) and, since commercials stopped being aired, taxes paid by private broadcasters in the country. ETV in Estonia follows a a similar model, whereby the source of funding for the nationwide public television networks there is through direct government grants and not a license fee. Starting next year, Finland will also be a European country without a license fee, but replacing the fee to support YLE will be a progressive tax leveled on all but the poorest of citizens in the country.
desertv said:
Americas don't want to pay $50 for a TV license, they also don't want to their taxes raised to pay for TV or ultra fast internet. They'd rather give Comcast $100 a month for crappy service.
nomadcowatbk said:
In 40 years I've never once paid for a Dog license, even though they have been required and sold by every county I've ever lived in. As long as my dogs stay out of the hands of the dog pound, the government doesn't know and can't fine me.
How would the Government expect me to fess up to how many TVs I own in order to collect a license fee? If they started collecting it at the "point of sale", I would just tell the government that the darn thing broke and I threw it out. The Government has no right to come into my house to search for televisions in order to tax them, plus they would have to get past my unlicensed dogs first and my licensed guns second (you have to figure out why I must have a license for those guns, I'm not telling... only in America!).
poledo said:
The majority of public broadcasting funds go to local stations, not PBS. So Congress would be cutting money going to their home districts. Not a popular thing to do if you're looking to get re-elected.
But cutting funding to PBS would require Congress to repeal the Public Broadcasting Act.
poledo said:
My understanding is that at least in the UK, the TV tax is charged by the household -- you pay the same tax regardless of how many TVs you own.
They have something called a "television detection van"; they can tell whether you have a TV without entering your home. All TV sets contain a "local oscillator" on predictable frequencies. (it's part of Armstrong's superheterodyne circuit. It's not practical to build a TV that doesn't use that circuit.) Some of this local oscillator signal "escapes" out the antenna and can be picked up.
I have no idea how they detect TVs connected to cable. I might guess they have access to subscription records. Satellite receivers also contain the local oscillator & can be detected that way. (also, you can usually see the dish!)
There has been an excise tax on TV sets in the U.S. in the past. I would presume it was levied at the time of purchase.
nomadcowatbk said:
ABSOLUTELY!!!!
TheBigA said:
Considering how many people bemoan the lack of local content in broadcasting these days, I don't think killing off stations that are locally operated is a good idea. That's really all that would be accomplished.
In many smaller markets, the only local radio with actual live people are the public radio stations. I lived in a city with 12 commercial radio stations. When a disaster struck, I turned to the radio since I didn't have TV or net access. Not one of them were live or local. They were useless. The only station left to inform me was the local NPR station. Turning that station into a simulcast of a larger market isn't a good idea. It hurts communities. That station would not survive without federal funding. The state has already slashed funding. I think for the good of the city, the stations should be protected. Federal funding helps ensure that.
PTBoardOp94 said:
Thanks PTBoardOp... this is what I was looking to get out of this question/discussion - which is what stations would be highly endangered if CPB funding by the federal government is cut to $0.
@tested - I know the report is political and it doesn't name stations, so that's why I'm asking... which stations are they thinking are highly endangered?
@recto101 - I dare say you're right. The larger public stations like KQED would have a smaller budget and investigative reporting may be a choice to be cut.
Overall I believe in a strong public broadcaster of sorts, you know growing up on the BBC, with its $8 billion a year budget... funded by what some say is "forced subscription". I just don't want to see public broadcasting threatened. If the CPB is defunded I don't think Big Bird or Jim Lehrer for that matter will go away... but that local station may be either off-air or no longer local, maybe a distant relay of something like WGBH.
Thanks for listening.
- Status