January 20th, 2008

Licence Fee

OK, what happens now that you can, to a pretty good approximation, 'watch TV' with a broadband connection?

Too complex for a poll, I think.

To keep the BBC more or less as it is...
i) Include 'having a broadband connection' (suitably defined) as something you need a licence for. People who never watch video will lose out and whinge but there you go.
ii) Abolish the licence fee, put the necessary increment on VAT or income tax.
iii) Make explicit that this is a bizarre regressive hypothecated tax and charge everyone it.

Presumably Murdoch et al would object to any of the above. But...
Thesis: it is in the interests of Murdoch (in particular) to keep the BBC about as strong as it is because there is a danger that a government would decide to privatise it with adequate transition funding and commercial freedom, and that it would then be a serious competitor for e.g. sporting rights
Antithesis: But things probably wouldn't happen that way, and/or the management would cock things up in the classic British tradition
Synthesis: ???

Do not answer on more than one side of the paper at once.

Paging Simon Tation, you are needed - that's Si Tation needed

From the latest Wikipedia edit to the entry on Cryptonomicon ' The sole detail keeping it in the science viction (sic) genre are the life-restoring cigars used to restore [[Enoch Root]] back to life.'
Is this one of those plausible but dull lies as per the Verity Stob fable 'the boy that told plausible but dull lies', or is there anything to it?
I mean obviously we can do without the genre wars, that this would surely be fantasy not SF, that there are other related fantastic elements and that you don't spell fiction with a v :-)