Markets don't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard to enter the market at all - like in banking! But it's better than the alternative which is usually nothing.
The BBC is accountable because it's state run, and so there is a lot of infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc
How exactly can the state force change? The government basically leaves it alone on the grounds of 'political neutrality' except for occasionally adjusting the license fee (upwards). It's left to its own devices. As for fining it or taking it to court, that applies to any company, doesn't it? Fining the BBC is useless anyway, it's just a pass-through fine on people who have a television.
Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn't mean people have to watch it, or even pay the license fee
Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they don't watch it. Yes, in very recent times for the first time ever there are significant numbers of people who don't have a TV or radio at all. But that's still a small minority. In effect, no matter how great or useless the BBC is, their income remains the same.
At any rate, the original issue is more like "is the BBC more accountable to conservatives than Apple" and the answer is clearly no. The principle that the government leaves the BBC alone, especially in matters of news, is too well established.
Markets don't always work, most notably when heavy regulations make it hard to enter the market at all
We all know the problem with unregulated banking. And there is a market in broadcasting in the UK, the BBC doesn't stop that.
How exactly can the state force change?
Because it's backed by public money, so there are laws surrounding its use. The BBC isn't some corporation set up on a whim, great thought went into the system, including the charter. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/governance/regulatory_framewo...
Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they don't watch it
This more than anything suggests you don't actually know what you're talking about. The license fee is only for watching OTA broadcasts and certain situations with iPlayer. I don't pay for my flatscreen TV that I only use to watch Netflix, youtube etc. And it's a !TV! license fee, not radio, you don't need a license to listen to radio.
The BBC is accountable because it's state run, and so there is a lot of infrastructure in place to force change, fine it, take it to court etc
How exactly can the state force change? The government basically leaves it alone on the grounds of 'political neutrality' except for occasionally adjusting the license fee (upwards). It's left to its own devices. As for fining it or taking it to court, that applies to any company, doesn't it? Fining the BBC is useless anyway, it's just a pass-through fine on people who have a television.
Further, just because the BBC is a public broadcaster, doesn't mean people have to watch it, or even pay the license fee
Everyone with a television or radio has to pay the license fee even if they don't watch it. Yes, in very recent times for the first time ever there are significant numbers of people who don't have a TV or radio at all. But that's still a small minority. In effect, no matter how great or useless the BBC is, their income remains the same.
At any rate, the original issue is more like "is the BBC more accountable to conservatives than Apple" and the answer is clearly no. The principle that the government leaves the BBC alone, especially in matters of news, is too well established.