Cyclone, I invite you to listen to US public radio which is very similar to the ABC tone and depth of analysis, yet relies greatly on its own funding. But, I am just one opinion, and it is up to all Australians how much funding the ABC gets.

But I would be prepared to donate to the ABC, as I do to Wikipedia and other media causes I think are worth helping.

Alan, your case was evident yesterday when listening to New York Radio, as it is currently begging for money from the public due to declining revenue in these tough coronavirus times.

One private donor matched any donation 100% up to the $100,000 figure within a 24 hour period.

//Cyclone, I invite you to listen to US public radio which is very similar to the ABC tone and depth of analysis, yet relies greatly on its own funding.//

The US has a different culture of philanthropy to Australia. Just look at their tipping behaviour in restaraunts - tipping in the US is basically compulsory because without it waiters don't earn a living wage. In Australia, we just ensure a decent minimum wage and then we don't have to worry about the bother of calculating tips, although of course we can leave one voluntarily. Much more efficient if you ask me.

They're different to us in quite a lot of ways. I feel that a better basis for comparison are the Commonwealth nations Canada, NZ and the UK. We have more similar systems of government and closer cultural ties. I don't know a lot about public broadcasting in Canada or NZ, but the UK have their BBC. Like our ABC the BBC relies more on government funding than private donations, but still seems to do a bloody good job (about 90% of my favourite shows are BBC productions).

Sorry, the UK does not fund the BBC, People pay an annual licence fee per household and its compulsory for you if you have a TV or radio in the house. So its a compulsory subscription service, Not a government handout. Irrespective of that the BBC is the original 'Aunty' as the lovies of the ABC call it ( bet you some even think is a ' acknowledgement to Aboriginals!).

Its effectively got a budget based on household numbers and the fee is negotiated to meet their demands for funds and adjusted by law thru Parliament, so in effect they have a budget and guess what, the "Their scary ABC" has learnt all the leftie tricks it uses from Aunty BBC staffers.. Having been exposed to both, I couldn't choose which was worse.. Would get rid of Both.

They both rely on the onetime myth that they were national broadcasters that gave us hope through wartime... That reputation is now gone, and is an insult to those who actually built those early reputations that used to be the envy of the world. Now, they rank among the most biased and partisan and in one direction towards 'Red' comradeship, with healthy salaries to support the luvie lifestyles they deserve of course!

I know of colleagues from Europe and Middle East who grimace with humour that when the BBC arrived in a terrorist zone, everyone expected trouble... just I suppose the way the ABC like creating the news, as opposed to reporting it!

Toni, yes BBC is very good.

IN UK, "standard TV licence now costs £154.50 a year and pays for the BBC’s TV, radio and online operatations".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/16/qa-how-the-bbc-is-funded-by-tv-licences

Would we be prepared to pay such a high compulsory fee?

Should a govt enforce such a fee?

//Would we be prepared to pay such a high compulsory fee?//

Doubt it. A lot of people in this country seem to feel that they should be entitled to a high quality national broadcaster, but that they should also be entitled to not have to pay a cent for it. I consider this an unreasonable view.

//Should a govt enforce such a fee?//

Our 'licence fee' come in the form of tax, which the government does enforce. Is it a perfect system? Of course not, it means there are people funding the ABC who never use their services. But it seems to me that the alternative would lead to a lot of bludgers happy to use their services and never pay for them. Some would, but the issues around piracy (not the nautical kind) indicate that most would try to weasel out of it.

As it is, I already pay for commercial channels that I don't watch. The only show I've watched on commercial TV this year has been LEGO Masters, everything else they offer is either complete crap, or of insufficient quality to outweigh the annoyance of ads.

But I still have to pay indirectly for these channels that I don't watch: they get their revenue from ads, ads cost businesses money, and they pass those costs on to the consumer.

So either way you're getting hit in the hip pocket, whether it's via tax or via consumption. Both are unavoidable. Indeed I put it to you that it's easier to avoid tax than essential consumption: if you give up paying tax you get audited; if you give up eating you die.

We're all collectively paying for all the free-to-air channels. Even the bits we don't watch. Even the bits we despise. Even the endless re-runs of shows that were bad the first time around. The distinct advantage of the paying through tax model is that by cutting out the middle man, you get to enjoy shows uninterrupted by ad breaks - something that the ABC and BBC, to their great credit, continue to adhere to.

I fear Chris's comment ( remember he is the author of this piece which is a rebirthed article he gave to the Inst Public Affairs in 2016) is evasive. Yes the annual licence fee is circa au$300 BUT its COMPULSORY, not voluntary and if you don't pay you get fines and eventually can be sentenced for refusal to pay. As I kid I can remember some families kids running down the streets warning families that the BBC detector vans were coming, so if they didn't have a licence they had to switch the TV/radios off! Can't see they happening in so of the ' dodgy suburbs in Sydney/Melbourne,,, or indeed country towns!

SO its is a TAX not a subscription and hence its just the same as here only worse because now the government subsidies for pensioners have been withdrawn, even 90 year old grannies have to pay to listen/watch the BBC, while commercial channels are advertising funded.

As the ABC lovies also like Fairfax ( SMH $264 per annum, The Guardian $258 per annum) so if the 34% of Australia (according to Chris) watch ABC a $300 per annum fee similar to the BBC should seem fare. Let the 34% fund it, simple... but the catch probably is that their subscriptions to Fairfax and The Guardian online is probably something they access via they government funded permanent jobs! If not then there is no problem and that 30% ( say 7.5 million) can easily get what they want, while the rest of us can used our reduced taxes to select subscription to more balanced, less elitist sources for news, entertainment, drama and sport.