Why BBC and PBS are "worlds apart"

Imagine for a moment that you could have the best show on American television.  It's critically acclaimed, has a giant fan following, and the network wants to have several spinoffs.

The catch?  You have to pay $600 a year for the privilege.  If you don't pay this $600 a year, the TV Enforcement Police will come and take you to jail.

Sounds silly, right?  Not if you're in Britain.  An "As You Were Saying" column in the Saturday Boston Herald breathlessly extols the "fresh and innovative" programming of the BBC over the "stuffy, predictable" PBS.  Britons pay $230 a year for a TV license, which is a mandatory tax which is paid to the British government and is considered a criminal offense to try to evade it.

Unlike Britain, however, Americans have the luxury of not paying a TV tax to fund PBS, as PBS is already funded by taxpayers - partly by the government and partly by viewer donations through fundraising drives.  The programming might be a little less than the BBC offers, but it's still good programming nonetheless.

Furthermore, the BBC has had its share of controversies and criticisms - thanks to its left-leaning political bias.  Britons may not mind forking over $8 billion a year for improved programming, but when that money is used to promote political agendas from its directors and viewers that some Britons don't believe in, then it's no wonder Britons are not too keen on paying an excise tax just to watch TV.

If PBS were to take the licensing tax route, The Corporation for Public Television - PBS's parent - could demand that everyone pay for their network programming through a TV tax.  In some respects the programming might improve, but at the expense of having the political opinions of the CPB overshadowing the next Office or Doctor Who.   It would also result in many viewers and non-viewers going up in arms against paying for something they don't need, want, or use - which is the reason why PBS doesn't have a big a budget as BBC and must engage in such tactics as selling $20 DVD's for $240 and to have Sesame Street characters plead that they'll be joining Mr. Hooper in Heaven if PBS doesn't get funding.

The commercial and cable networks self-sustain through advertising and cable fees; they can cancel shows when they are not bringing in viewers, even if they are "critically acclaimed" and are much better than the various permutations of lowest-common-denominator TV, designed to give people their 15 minutes of fame before disposing them.  PBS does broadcast commercials to a point, but even so, some upper-class viewers would immediately object to having McDonald's ads mixed in with Dora the Explorer, or ads for various drugs sponsoring This Old House.

If the intent of the writer was to promote a TV tax to fund PBS, he might want to read up on why the American Revolution got its roots - from the tax on tea.