No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

austrianecon · Mar 29, 2017

Visbek said:
Meanwhile... Covering rural areas is pretty much the point. It's not a commercial network, that is driven by the need to push ads to the largest number of people possible. It's intended to fill in some gaps.

And you can fill most of the rural areas not by creating 15000 stations that you have to employ x amount of workers. You boost signal or you switch to AM.

Visbek said:
News flash! Many of those programs ARE funded and patronized by locals. The NEA is simply providing a little support.

(I am glad to see you dropped the "Keynesian" nonsense, by the way.)

News flash! Those programs are still getting NEA money. That's support.

Visbek said:
....no, I'm arguing based on what is good for everyone.

No, you are arguing on what you think is good for everybody based on what think (want). You still can't grasp that. I've thrown out how NPR and PBS can be fixed, still get money from CPB and be more efficient with that money and provide better content. You hate those ideas because it's common sense stuff and actually doesn't harm anybody. All you have to do is reduce the number of NPR stations, switch NPR news/talk to AM signal, apply a PBS tax of $39 on every tv household each year and created a model similar to BBC.

Visbek said:
More to the point:

You're trying to apply commercial standards of "efficiency" to networks that are deliberately designed to fill in the gaps left by that commercial culture, such as providing service to rural areas.

No, I am applying common sense to horribly inefficient model of production of PBS shows that show more repeats of shows filmed over 25 years ago. You don't think Travel Channel, Nat Geo, Discovery, Science Channel don't produce highly educational and culture shows?

This is the 21st century, there is no such thing as rural when it comes to TV. In the era of HD TV, Rise of cable cutting, Increased online watching and now ATSC 1.0/2.0 model we have to becoming 3.0 pretty soon..which will create OTA of 4K TV and open up more OTA (with costs for people).. PBS has to be ahead of the game in providing content to match the change in how TV is being viewed. Showing shows filmed 25 years on HD and in the future 4K TV is down right shameful. Content is highly important if you want to stay relevant in education and being useful to the public. Right now, PBS is just not doing that. We can quibble on how we can do that. I am not anti-Public TV, I just think MAJOR reforms need to take place.

Visbek said:
For less than the cost of The BFG (massive box office bomb), the CPB contributed to 1500 radio stations and 170 public television stations, many of which operate in rural areas that commercial stations won't cover. The goal is not to make a hyper-efficient ratings monster, it's to provide good programming that benefits Americans.

LMFAO.. You don't think there is local TV in rural areas? Or even radio? You do realize CPB actually spent around $479m in 2016 right? That's 3 times BFG. But, NPR costs $151m last year to run but that's just NPR, that's not the local station costs. It's why there is tonnes of Underwriting on public radio which is really just another form of Ads. PBS cost $390m in 2016. Reality is you say "Hey look, it's cheap to run.." it's actually not. It's HEAVILY subsidized by underwriting and donations by public. CPB money to NPR (it's stations) and PBS (it's stations) are nothing to what it actually costs.

Visbek · Mar 29, 2017

austrianecon said:
you clearly aren't understanding Sesame Street is not a PBS show anymore. It's HBO owned which is owned by Time Warner.

....no, that's not what happened.

HBO does not "own" Sesame Street. It's owned by Sesame Workshop (former Children's Television Workshop), which has owned it for decades. They set up a deal where HBO pays production costs, and gets exclusives on new shows for 9 months. After that period, it is shown on public television.

Most public television shows combine private donations and public funding. Of course, the deal would not be necessary if there was better government funding. What a surprise.

And as a reminder, Sesame Street was shown exclusively on public television stations for 45 seasons before the HBO deal. But hey, who's counting?

Because it's PRIVATELY funded. What aren't you grasping here?!?! PBS stations can go commercial free not because of Government fund, but because major Corporations and Foundations fund them.

PBS relies on corporate funding because our government are cheapskates when it comes to public broadcasting. Oddly enough, other nations -- like the UK, which funds the highly respected and successful BBC networks -- doesn't go after corporate donations. As you noted, for example, the BBC is funded by dedicated taxes; it also happens to run numerous networks, produce lots of shows, many of which are good enough for export, along with a highly respected news agency.

All of that is "optional," of course....

Do you know how many channels are OTA? I get close to 20 OTA channels which include ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CW along with their off channels like Me-TV and such.. then all 3 PBS channels from WOSU. But none of them are FREE of charge. You pay taxes....

CPB budget = $150 million or so
2016 federal revenues from individual taxes = $1.48 trillion
Percentage of revenues that go to CPB = 0.01%

So if you paid $10,000 in income tax last year, then approximately $1 of that went to CPB. Wow. They are killing you with that wasteful spending!!! It is a crime that you don't get $1 of useful information or entertainment from public broadcasting.

BBC is "OTA" and commercial free as well and the produce higher quality because it collects about $4.6b in taxes on 25m households. PBS can be funded by $39 tax ($3.25 a month) and collect $4.6b to do better quality shows. Nobody would blink an eye at that because viewers would see the quality different. People are willing to pay for better quality. They aren't willing to pay for **** quality.

How did we get from "CPB is ragingly inefficient" to "I don't like PBS"?

You do realize that not everyone agrees with your characterization of public broadcasting, right?

You do realize that you're actually making an argument to increase public broadcasting, not cut it, right?

Yes, it's about listeners per station because people in Mansfield OH, Johnstown PA, Ripley WV or Billings MT aren't listening to NPR "shows".

Yes, I'm sure you did a careful review of radio ratings before you made that statement

NPR big shows are listened to in major metro areas. So DC/Baltimore, NY, Boston will be about half of the listeners for those shows. Then it'll be San Fran, LA and Seattle. Then Chicago. NPR listeners are . NPR doesn't hide it. NPR embraces it. Just look at their website to explain what type of listeners they have. They use celebs for Christ sake.

They're saying that their audience skews wealthy and educated.

Meanwhile, 80% of Americans live in areas designated by the census as urban areas (which includes suburbs). If half their listenership was in big cities, that would be pretty much... normal.

You're complaining that they use... celebrities to promote their brand? WTF?!? HOW DARE THEY?!? What a ludicrous complaint.

And again, if CPB gets the axe, public broadcasting in those urban areas will not be hurt nearly as bad as rural providers. Again, part of the goal here -- and why standard commercial standards of "efficiency" don't apply -- is to fill in some of the gaps left by commercial programming.

Oh that's cute.. you think that map is actually correct. I grew up in southern PA, over 80 miles from DC and WAMU was our NPR station, so your link is bs.

Whatever dude

Let's look at WV. WOAH tons of overlap not

I think I'll stick with the map, rather than anecdotes about radio reception from an unspecified time.

Visbek · Mar 29, 2017

austrianecon said:
And you can fill most of the rural areas not by creating 15000 stations that you have to employ x amount of workers. You boost signal or you switch to AM.

That would be great... If there weren't FCC rules regulating broadcasts.

News flash! Those programs are still getting NEA money. That's support.

I'm glad we agree.

No, you are arguing on what you think is good for everybody based on what think (want). You still can't grasp that. I've thrown out how NPR and PBS can be fixed, still get money from CPB and be more efficient with that money and provide better content. You hate those ideas because it's common sense stuff and actually doesn't harm anybody. All you have to do is reduce the number of NPR stations, switch NPR news/talk to AM signal, apply a PBS tax of $39 on every tv household each year and created a model similar to BBC.

1) Yes, I am utilizing my own opinions about what will benefit the nation as a whole. Aren't you doing the same?

2) It seems fairly obvious that your first solution -- scale back -- won't make a big difference. I mean, really, think about it for a minute. Sesame Street alone costs $20 million a year; cutting stations isn't going to yield a massive production budget for public broadcasting. Reducing the number of stations will hurt those with the fewest resources and access (rural populations)

3) You want a $39 per TV tax? I just want to be clear, you want public broadcasting to scale back stations and collect $12 billion a year directly from the taxpayers? Okay. I don't see how I can argue with a massive increase in federal spending for the arts. :mrgreen:

No, I am applying common sense to horribly inefficient model of production of PBS shows that show more repeats of shows filmed over 25 years ago. You don't think Travel Channel, Nat Geo, Discovery, Science Channel don't produce highly educational and culture shows?

Okay.... NPR content is all pretty new, there's very little old stuff, same with most PBS programming. If there are a ton of ancient repeats where you are, then I'm guessing your local stations are drastically underfunded.

A handful of shows on those commercial stations are quite good in their educational content. Most... aren't. E.g. I thoroughly enjoy Mythbusters, but it is not exactly a fine example of educational TV. Shows like Naked and Afraid? Diesel Brothers? Doomsday Preppers? Not a lot of educational value there.

This is the 21st century, there is no such thing as rural when it comes to TV. In the era of HD TV, Rise of cable cutting, Increased online watching and now ATSC 1.0/2.0 model we have to becoming 3.0 pretty soon..which will create OTA of 4K TV and open up more OTA (with costs for people)..

Cable cutting doesn't work great when you can't get a high-speed Internet connection; rural adoption rates are, unsurprisingly, lower than urban areas.

4k OTA will be great.... if there are sufficient stations in the area. Which is apparently what you want to scale back.

Lafayette · Apr 2, 2017

Xerographica said:
A. Markets aren't the best way to determine the value of endeavors?
B. In some cases it's not necessary to know the value of endeavors?
C. People don't understand the benefit of using markets to determine the value of endeavors?

They are nonetheless the easiest to determine where a population seeks to spend its money. Not necessarily WHERE of ON WHAT a country should be spending its money.

For instance, the US Defense Expenditures compared to other countries (from here):

Versus, total expenditure on Education (from the OECD) here: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/spending-on-tertiary-education.htm#indicator-chart

Note for the OECD chart that public expenditure on education is the reverse of general private expenditure

James972 · Apr 2, 2017

Lafayette said:
They are nonetheless the easiest to determine where a population seeks to spend its money. Not necessarily WHERE of ON WHAT a country should be spending its money.

For instance, the US Defense Expenditures compared to other countries (from here):

Versus, total expenditure on Education (from the OECD) here: https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/spending-on-tertiary-education.htm#indicator-chart

Note for the OECD chart that public expenditure on education is the reverse of general private expenditure

USA spends a lot on military because it is responsible for protecting many countries, but it still is not enough given that we don't even have a good way to shoot down Iranian and North Korean missiles. The great irony is that we need to spend $trillions now because cowardly liberals would not let us attack and destroy North Korea and Iran when it would have been a lot easier

.

No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

austrianecon

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Lafayette

James972