It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Compulsary tv license around 300 dollars a year

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Okay to BrIts this is no shock, because you guys have sucked it up for decades and are used to it, but for no British did you know that
standard UK television has just 5 channels (cable/ satellite are via add on services and you need the box etc)

However, standard television is just 5 channels and you need to pay the equivelant almost or not that far off 300 bucks a year
Even poor old black and white televisions are in for the dip, it is not that far off 100 bucks a year

www.tvlicensing.co.uk...

Bear in mind once again this is just for 5 basic standard channels, nothing else.

So, do you think it is fair? how would you feel if they introduced that in your country




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

"we have it too"

You need to pay about 300 bucks per year, even if you don't own a TV.

Its mandatory. It was forced upon couple years ago.

No public outcry.

In Finland.


edit on 1-7-2014 by menneni because: ..even if



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced
I own a TV but haven't paid the licence for over 15 years. The licence is required to 'watch TV as it transmitted in real time' I do not, so the fee is not appropriate to me.
The private company which administers the fee collection write to me every month and I throw away their letters.
I've had a few visits over the years and they tell me they 'need to confirm that I am not watching live TV', I tell them I don't care what they think they 'need' and that they have as much authority over me as a Microsoft employee knocking on my door to check my Windows copy, so get off my property. They usually then say 'we will come back with a warrent from a court', I then remind them that the court will not issue a warrent without reasonable suspicion or evidence.
They then make wild claims regarding evidence regarding alleged TV detection equipment, to which I reply that there is not a single conviction in the history of TV licence evasion where 'TV detection' equipment' has been submitted as evidence. I then tell them again to piss off my property or I shall use reasonable force to remove them, so they leave, and continue writing to me.

I enjoy the game to be fair, and especially enjoy their 'out of the blue' visits.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

It would be unprecidented in the USA. Simply put, the courts would never allow those bastards in DC to mandate that Americans must purchase something... wait... aw crap!

Straight answer, I pay for cable TV and there are regulatory fees and taxes on that one. As far as mandatory, 'if you own a TV you will pay' taxes? They can sit and spin on that one if it ever comes down to it. If I cancel cable, I'm not paying anyone a single cent.
edit on 1-7-2014 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:39 PM
link   


Bear in mind once again this is just for 5 basic standard channels, nothing else.

what about the dozens of digital channels and radio stations (all without adverts btw)?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The term 'tv license' is a scam. It is without doubt a BBC 'tax'. Brits have to pay it even if they don't have a tv. The BBC had the law changed to include personal computers and any phone that connects to the internet. Think about, if you have to pay it even if you don't have a tv how can it be a 'tv' license. It's a con to pick the pockets of the people to further line the pockets of of the BBC and government. BOTH of whom have DEEP connections to Jimmy Savile i might add.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I'm British --

Okay I know it sounds strange for some people who haven't yet experienced it but this will start to come across most countries of the world, and while we all say 'I'm not paying that' or 'its daylight robbery' most will end up paying for it, me not being one of them as I dont pay the tv license on the ground that I pay my sky bill and that should exempt me from paying the television license for basic tv.

Second, to the people who are saying its just for five channels, it hasn't been just five channels for a good few years now. Its freeview (though that's a laugh) the way it works is that the fee covers the channels you get access to on the freeview box that BBC own and they share the money with ITV I think its that one.

I've always said its backwards that we gotta pay for it, I've argued this on a dozen occasions with my local MP who promises (everytime) to look into it and get back to me. I will not pay a TV license until the day I die and then I wont have to. its all BS and sooner or later its gonna be a mandatory thing.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
As far as mandatory, 'if you own a TV you will pay' taxes?

Ah, no, ownership of a TV/flat screen/monitor/smart phone is not the issue. Using any device to receive transmitted TV programming in real time requires a licence. I own all of the above but do not use any to receive transmitted programming in real time. I am therefore exempt from the licence fee. I refuse to allow them into my home to confirm anything though, I enjoy the game of reminding these pseudo-officials that they have no authority over me, and it is up to them to find evidence that I am required to pay the fee, but without my consent they cannot enter my home.
Without evidence or reasonable suspicion a court can not issue a warrant. Failing to purchase a licence is not considered evidence that a person is watching live broadcast TV so they will not get that warrent.
15 years now, I've saved a quite few quid and had a few laughs while saving the cash.
edit on 1-7-2014 by grainofsand because: Rushed typo



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rikku



Bear in mind once again this is just for 5 basic standard channels, nothing else.

what about the dozens of digital channels and radio stations (all without adverts btw)?


Yes we in the UK get around 70 digital TV channels (as long as you have a digibox or a compatible TV). The licence fee partly funds the Freeview network transmitter coverage and maintenance and also ensures that the BBCs collections of TV, radio and internet channels are commercial free. So we get to enjoy movies and series like Sherlock from start to finish with no breaks.

Now some may prefer a totally commercial TV service for a lower/no licence fee and others dodge it by legal loopholes. However some of the output from the commercial channels leaves a lot to be desired. But for around the price of a tabloid newspaper I actually think we get a reasonable service. You can have as many TVs as you want for the payment as well up to about a dozen (I think).


edit on 1/7/14 by mirageman because: ETA



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: sayzaar
Nope, ownership of a TV receiving device does not require a licence. Using such a device to receive live broadcast TV requires a licence. The private company administering the fee have to prove it.
If anyone is stupid enough to provide evidence of usage to this private company in support of a legal case then I've no sympathy really. They have no authority to stake you out, or enter your home, or hang around in your garden, and TV 'detectors' are just a myth which the masses sucked up from government adverts.
...but then some people will always just blindly comply with anything.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: sayzaar
Nope, ownership of a TV receiving device does not require a licence. Using such a device to receive live broadcast TV requires a licence. The private company administering the fee have to prove it.
If anyone is stupid enough to provide evidence of usage to this private company in support of a legal case then I've no sympathy really. They have no authority to stake you out, or enter your home, or hang around in your garden, and TV 'detectors' are just a myth which the masses sucked up from government adverts.
...but then some people will always just blindly comply with anything.

Correct to a point, but should they find evidence, however they achieve it, they could then get a court order and court Bailifs COULD and WOULD be allowed to enter your home.

Only court appointed bailifs can do this.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

Same here in Germany. Does not matter if you have a TV or not - you pay through the nose!



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Mister_Bit
Of course, but while being refused access to my home (and the fact that I do not use any device to receive live broadcast programming) there is no evidence to be found.
Remember, the 'detection equipment' is a blatant lie. There is not a single prosecution in the history of TV licences where 'detector equipment' has been submitted in evidence.

Keep paying it if you like, but without allowing access to your home they have no evidence, unless you are perhaps watching live TV and they pop their head in through your window before you get the chance to kick them off your property.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   
I stopped paying for a TV License around 8 years ago. i found out that by watching 'catch-up' TV you don't need a License! Anyone can stop paying for a License if you watch 'Catch-Up' TV or if you simply stream online content.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Ask them why you need to pay to watch tv anyway. If they send signals in the air that interact with the brain causing some negative effects, why shouldn't you be able to see that for free. You pay for cellphone service, but those who do not use it still get the negative effects, that is not fair.

We have free local programming here. The taxes and commercials pay for it. That keeps it going. Now if you do not have commercials, that is different, the system you talk about sounds stupid though.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
What is stupid about it?

The TV licence funds the BBCs 5 main national TV channels, it's local TV services, national and local radio stations and also the upkeep of the broadcasting network. We get no ads on these channels.Commercial TV and radio relies on funding from other sources and is designed to sell you something.

It's only like subscribing to a satellite or cable service if you really think about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

That is why Brits are skinnier, there aren't commercial breaks to get snacks.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman

It's only like subscribing to a satellite or cable service if you really think about it.


Not really. Cable and satellite are commercial so you're paying and you're getting ads.

Thanks to the SCOTUS knocking down Aereo last week those of us who live in broadcast deadzones would have to subscribe to cable or satellite for television as there is no free (pad for by commercials) over the air broadcast for us.

If paying for cable or satellite meant no commercials I dont think people would hate it as much as they do.


No Stations were predicted for this address

Due to factors such as terrain and distance to broadcasting towers, signal strength calculations have predicted no television stations may be reliably received at this location.

Verify the correct ZIP Code and address have been entered.

edit on 1-7-2014 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

We don't use dollars mate we use pound sterling.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

LOL!

There are commercials on ITV, Channel 4 and 5 and all the other channels (60 of them) . We grew up with this system here in Blighty. It's like the 58p a year that the Royal Family costs us. Now for a nice cup of tea one thinks.







 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join