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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
what really pisses me off is the tv licence fee is for bbc as bbc contracts Capita to collect and enforce the fee, other channels and cable channels are funded by ads or subscription fees but the bbc reckon you need a licence for these channels also and yet those channels receive no funding from the licence fee,
also you cannot "block" or turn off the crap that is on bbc, and I thought in order to issue a warrent and or fine in court dont they need a name??
when they write they have no clue as to the name of an occupant, they write "to the present occupier




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

I am quite happy to pay 40p a day for the privilege of watching TV without moron breaks every 6-7 minutes!

BTW it's not just 5 channels, that information is way out of date.

Since the UK switched over to digital TV a few years ago just about everyone can get loads of channels on Freeview, which just about every modern TV set can pick up with no extra box needed.

There are over 50 channels available free of charge (if you pay the TV licence of course)

www.freeview.co.uk...


How much does a cable subscription cost?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I have NEVER paid for a TV license ever, but then I also didn't watch TV in like...a decade or so.

I don't know how much the fees were back in Germany (not that I ever paid them...) ...but those would only apply if you were to watch "state TV" channels since the private TV channels are NOT funded by the fees but by advertisers.

In other words: If you were able to prove you never watch "state TV" and only private channels you may be able to get away with not paying a fee...MAYBE.

HOWEVER: Watching "state TV" has a benefit although I don't know how this is in the UK with BBC etc.
While movies etc. on the private channels are interrupted by commercials all 15mins etc....watching movies on "state TV" channels there were no commercial breaks during a movie.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: uninfluenced

There are over 50 channels available free of charge (if you pay the TV licence of course)

www.freeview.co.uk...


How much does a cable subscription cost?


free of charge if you pay the tv licence fee??? well thats a contradiction if you have to pay its not free of charge, also should not be advertised as "freeview" or called "freeview" "licenced-view" seems more appropriate also why do you have to pay for say sky1 when the licence fee goes to the bbc????
www.tvlicensing.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
>>
There are over 50 channels available free of charge (if you pay the TV licence of course)
>>

This is one bizarre sentence...

So the channels are "free of charge" but you pay a fee? What?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: anonymous1legion

You pay to receive/watch "live" broadcasts from whatever station (bbc, itv, sky, cable, computer stream or any foreign channels) they come from... yes, even freeview.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

exactly my point above its ludicrous to say such a thing, its like saying driving is free (if you buy a licence of course)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Mister_Bit

so you have to pay for sky/cable twice? even though they (sky/cable) get none of the fee?? its like saying your water bill does not cover just taps but bottled pop/beer as that has water in too



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonymous1legion

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: uninfluenced

There are over 50 channels available free of charge (if you pay the TV licence of course)

www.freeview.co.uk...


How much does a cable subscription cost?


free of charge if you pay the tv licence fee??? well thats a contradiction if you have to pay its not free of charge, also should not be advertised as "freeview" or called "freeview" "licenced-view" seems more appropriate also why do you have to pay for say sky1 when the licence fee goes to the bbc????
www.tvlicensing.co.uk...


If you watch TV then you pay for the BBC. That is how it works. The benefit is that you don't get any adverts, and you get better programmes.

As for Sky, that is not a free channel. If you want to watch Sky then you have to pay, whether through satellite or cable subscription.


It really doesn't bother me. I pay just over 12 quid a month and get 50 channels, far more than I ever watch.

Don't most people pay more than £12 ($20) a month in cable fees? How many channels could you get for free in the USA?



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonymous1legion
a reply to: Mister_Bit

so you have to pay for sky/cable twice? even though they (sky/cable) get none of the fee?? its like saying your water bill does not cover just taps but bottled pop/beer as that has water in too
Yeah, correct..
You would have to pay £145 a year for the license, to get the complete sky package it would be a further £684 a year, not including the HD update and not including the price for the reciever equipment.
Sky of course is optional, the other is not.
edit on Jul130831America/ChicagoTue, 01 Jul 2014 16:13:08 -0500_9251331 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

it doesent matter you still have to have a licence if you only watch sky and the difference is you get a choice if you want it pay for it why not make the bbc a subscription for 12 quid a month then people who do not want the garbage the bbc spew dont have to pay for it, dont get me wrong i dont think we should just get it for free, if you want it pay for it but dont make it compulsory and dont call it freeview as thats just a lie its not free to view if you have to pay



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mister_Bit

originally posted by: anonymous1legion
a reply to: Mister_Bit

so you have to pay for sky/cable twice? even though they (sky/cable) get none of the fee?? its like saying your water bill does not cover just taps but bottled pop/beer as that has water in too
Yeah, correct..
You would have to pay £145 a year for the license, to get the complete sky package it would be a further £684 a year, not including the HD update and not including the price for the reciever equipment.
Sky of course is optional, the other is not.


my point exactly if you want sky pay for it, why not the same for bbc, the other "freeview" channels are funded by ads stick ads on bbc or make it subscription and id have no problem not having the bbc anymore, I watch everything streamed anyhow but its still annoying and stressful to get letters threatening action if you dont pay and even if you say you dont watch tv as its being shown you have to prove your innocence



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced
the answer is simple DON'T BUY THE LICENSE .and when they call round to check tell ,them to clear off.



posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
also Capita employees are paid commission so they are sales people as such you have a right to remove implied right of access



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: uninfluenced

Send them this letter if your in the UK and they will stop harassing you. You also have to remove there right of access to your property.


"Sir Michael Lyons
The Chairman
BBC,
Broadcast centre,
201 Wood lane,
London
W12 7TP

Dear Sir Michael Lyons

Re: The Royal Charter of the BBC, & the Treason & Felony Act, 1848
Notice Before Action.

It has been brought to my attention that the Corporation has received and is now receiving substantial amounts of funding from the European Union, in breach of Charter Provisions, and that in consequence of this very suspect arrangement the BBC is now reduced to the function of providing both broadcasting & propaganda facilities to a form of alien authority that fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown.

I must advise you that all such conduct serves to breach the provisions of the Treason Act, 1351 with the further provisions of the Treason & Felony Act, 1848.

In addition, I must advise that the Treason & Felony Act of 1848 provides that it is a Criminal Offence for Subjects of the Crown to give aid or comfort to Traitors, and that this offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.

I am concerned for my own position and I must ask you to cease and desist from all treacherous conduct & financial arrangements, without delay.

Unless I receive your written assurance that the Corporation will issue an immediate public apology for all Treason committed thus far, with your further guarantee that the Corporation will cease and desist from all and any conduct that fails to maintain the Supremacy of the British Crown, then I must give fair warning of my intention to discontinue the payment of all such moneys as are now being applied to the financial support of the BBC.

I look forward to receipt of your immediate response to this present letter and I give notice that payments in support of the BBC will be suspended, unless I receive a satisfactory response within 14 days of this present date(DATE).

Yours faithfully, Your Name."
edit on 2-7-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, good luck with that kind of pseudo-legal rubbish.

You'll have about as much chance as the "sovereign citizens" get with their magic words, i.e. NONE.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Well i'm 38 years old and never once yet have they managed to extort monies from me via there highly dubious extortion racket aka there TV licence fee.

But that's because i don't own a TV, honest!
LoL



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, lots of people don't pay. You don't need the "Treason" BS to do that.

Frankly though, I can afford 40p a day.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

Lots of people don't pay due to the principle of the matter, extortion is extortion, government sponsored or otherwise!

That's your 40p a day rob48, and it all adds up when there are 10s of millions of people following the same ethos.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Different social circumstances bring different taxes. You could probably go all around the world and find examples of fees and taxes that exist in some countries and not in others. Shock, horror.

As others have observed, this pays for an ad-free B.B.C. And I've seen people on A.T.S. expressing themselves as so annoyed by persistent ads that they suggested paying a fee just to get rid of them. It can be seen as an advantage.

Thanks to the digital revolution, "five channels" is out of date- as, again, others have observed.
It used to be worse. I grew up with two channels, the B.B.C. and one commercial.
That's why the standard way of suggesting a change of channels was for many years (and might still be) "Let's see what's on the other side".

P.S. It's not a license.
It's a licence.
edit on 2-7-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join