I've no doubt that you're right, but there is nothing on the site that suggests they have UK interests. Even the about us page only lists US and Australia operations:
http://www.crowncastle.com/about-us/all-operations-and-subsidiaries.aspx
No the government Ie TV Licence money has to be spent to upgrade them because it's the government pushing for the digital switchover
As that money would have otherwise gone to the BBC I think your splitting hairs there. It
could have come from somewhere else. e.g. auction off the bandwidth but post date its availablity to allow the money to be spent on upgrading the equipment to digital.
Did you not read what I said about wiki and valid source information?
Did you look at the map? As that was all I was drawing you attention to. It illustrates better the break down of how TV is funded in Europe without having to repeat the information verbatim. It also shows that the UK isn't the only country in the world to have a TV licence. Anyway, all the information I pulled from wikipedia had external references (therefore was a valid, if concise, source in this case).
Eitherway the Yanks don't have a TV Licence and the Aussies don't have one
Never said they did, I only mentioned western Europe.
it's just so annoying that a small minority over here insists that we subsidise them
The only people I've found insisting that we subsidise the BBC is the BBC. Whilst some pay the licence becasue they do like the BBC's programming, others just pay becasue it is against the law not to. I am more than willing to admit that if it was optional I wouldn't pay.
It seems that the people who state they enjoy the BBC's programing that get accused of trying to force everyone else to subsidise thier viewing. If sky, virgin media, itv
et al got a slice, proportional to their audience, would you pay the (probably increased) licence? Or is it that other countries, like the US and Oz (to use your examples), can do without it so we should be able to also?
Of of interest do you realise that there is no limit to the number of adverts per hour in the US, and 22 minutes of adverts per hour depending on the time of day/program is not uncommon? The UK is restricted to about 12.5 minutes of advertising per hour of programming. And that the huge product placement deals the US programs enjoy (e.g. Ford in 24, Honda in Heroes) are illegal in the UK.
However, to argue both sides for a second
, AFAIK BBC America does run adverts. So its not like the BBC would have to go in completely blind... even if the markets are slightly different.
Oh when they've finished pumping their internet side of things they'll insist the government does this for them even though the vast majority of the public don't want it
I haven't seen any stats on support/opposition for a PC tax, but like most taxes I can imagine its not a popular idea.