I don't mind that for infrastructure (roads, power grid) and core services (police, fire dept), but TV is not a requirement. Or rather, entertainment is not a requirement for life. If they want public funding for a channel for emergency broadcasts then I wouldn't object too loudly (other than questioning value vs radio and web).
By that logic though you should be able to only contribute for the specific programming you watch. As in "I agree with paying for BBC news, but not kid's programming".
In Australia we fund the ABC and SBS through tax, which have charters requiring a certain amount of locally produced programming, and serve as publicly owned news media (which I think is in the public interest so long as the government isn't exerting too much in the way of influence), as well as programming that could be considered too niche to be profitable otherwise.
When I was a teenager SBS was how I was exposed to some really good stuff I wouldn't have been able to see otherwise because it was anime or foreign language films.
Yes please! I 100% support unbundling and buying exactly what I actually want
Edit: It took a reread for me to realize that you were actually arguing in favor of it. I do see your point about positive externalities, but I'm still not convinced it's a good trade off overall.
>but TV is not a requirement. Or rather, entertainment is not a requirement for life
Well, life is more than the base "requirements". Humans are not wild animals that only understand bare utility, so some societies/states can acknowledge that and also provide some "non-requirements".
Besides TV (and cultural products in general) is not universally viewed as mere "entertainment", but also as information, culture building, citizen development, and so on. Some nation states do trust themselves to have capable people to provide quality programming -- whether many of their folks just care to watch reality shows and entertainment or not.
