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.

 

UK TV License is an unfair tax

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

There in no competition pe se.
We have wide range of options, Sky, BT etc but carrying BBC's content you still have to pay the tax.
Laughably the BBC are launching a subscription service so you can pay again to watch what you have already paid for..
They are not allowed to show adverts as they are publicly funded but make a load of extra income from the likes of BBC Worldwide.




posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Cymru

Thanks for clearing that up Cymru.

Being the cultural troglodyte that most of us from the colonies are, I thank you for the information.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I am assuming that there is no competition for the BBC over there across the pond?

I think the reply you got on this point is a little misleading.
In terms of television channels, yes there is competition.
Ever since the nineteen-fifties there has been at least one advertising-based alternative. Originally, just the one, so that the family formula for channel-swapping used to be (perhaps still is) "Let's see what's on the other side". Now there are three independent terrestrial channels, with many others available on cable and satellite.

The OP meant there is no legal alternative to paying the licence fee. Not so much because we are necessarily watching BBC channels, but because the licence is actually for permission to operate a television.
People still need licences in many countries to operate radio and television transmitters. Having a licence to operate receivers was originally just an extension of this.

P.S. In fact I'll quote you the actual wording on the printed licence (though the expression is rather informal compared with the old standard);
"This licence lets you use and install TV receiving equipment at the licensed place".

You will see that the licence attaches to the address, not the individual. If you gather in half the street to watch in your living-room, you are covered. If you go to a hotel, you are covered by the hotel's TV licence. If you own two homes and watch television in both, you need two licences.

P.P.S. Another fun fact. It is still legally possible to get a cheaper licence for televisions which cannot display programmes in colour, only in the old black-and-white. I believe that provision kept the market for black-and-white sets alive for years.
edit on 4-8-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Yeah, I get that, pay a license fee to own and operate a TV signal receiving station. Similar to paying a cable fee I suppose, better if there is good programming with few or no commercials.

However, that idea is incredibly foreign to me because in the states, I can monitor any broadcast with any equipment without a fee. I can freely receive audio, video, audio/video, analog, and digital broadcasts without paying for anything more than the one time cost of buying the equipment.

If I'm being bombarded by radiating EMF signals across a broad frequency spectrum for 24 hours everyday for my entire life, I should be allowed to intercept and monitor those signals and the information contained in them.




People still need licences in many countries to operate radio and television transmitters. Having a licence to operate receivers was originally just an extension of this.


Of course, if I wanted to broadcast a signal, that requires a license for radiating more than the allowed license free (extremely low) output power.

This all makes me wonder though. If paying a license fee for receiving broadcasts is related to the license fee for broadcasting a signal, how long before they want a license for broadcasting a sound wave from a speaker and listening to it?

To me it comes down to who owns the air, the same air we breathe. It's the same atmosphere that has RF signals and sound waves traveling through it and some government is going to charge me to utilize it? Regulations I can understand, it helps keep "pollution" in control, but charging a fee?
edit on 4-8-2019 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
This all makes me wonder though. If paying a license fee for receiving broadcasts is related to the license fee for broadcasting a signal, how long before they want a license for broadcasting a sound wave from a speaker and listening to it?

The TV licence began as a Radio licence, which amounts to the same thing. Historically, the movement has been in the direction of abandoning fees that are hard to collect. The radio element was given up in 1971, thamks to transistors (and they'va also stopped requiring dog licences).



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cymru
Laughably the BBC are launching a subscription service so you can pay again to watch what you have already paid for..


About a quarter of the BBCs income is from the license fee. The rest (over three billion) is through other revenues, of which a paid service called Britbox in partnership with ITV will be another revenue raiser, given the good reputation of content and the huge back catalouge available.

The BBC is much misunderstod. It does a huge amount of programming (TV and radio) and other services. The cost of providing news services is fairly modest, but rather a BBC with warts than a CNN, RT.com or PressTV.

BBC governance



posted on Aug, 5 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I was aware that over the years the UK was loosing the reins after looking into the history of the CB movement in the 1970s. It's good to know that you are having more free access to the airwaves over the years.







 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join