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.
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Insomniac
Even if the BBC failed to be broadcast anymore, News International and BSkyB would not be the sole broadcaster in the UK in fact far from it. The majority of channels broadcast on Sky are produced by independant broadcasters. Then there is major broadcasters like ITV, Channel 5, Al Jazeera, CNBC, CNN, and many more to list that are all independant of Murdoch and all produce their own news service. What you are saying is just scare mongering, at the end of the day in this modern age funding the TV license should be by choice and I am sorry it is not a choice that if you choose not to that you cannot watch TV at all, that is called a monopoly, TV license fee is a crime and I can't believe the government have gotten away with it for so long.
Originally posted by Insomniac
Originally posted by Six6Six
reply to post by wigit
TV license is the same as protection money. SO don't pay it. If everyone stopped paying it then what can they do.
Well for a start either there would be no TV or radio in the whole of the UK apart from Sky - that would give Murdoch a rather dangerous grip on power don't you think? Or there would be a large hike on tax!
Please read the thread or at least my post above yours and get a grasp of what the licence fee actually pays for.
The Wiki link from my post above disappeared and it's too late to edit it now, so I've added it here...
Wiki: BBC
edit on 22/3/12 by Insomniac because: (no reason given)edit on 23/3/12 by Insomniac because: To add link that disappeared from previous post
Originally posted by Six6Six
Originally posted by Insomniac
Originally posted by Six6Six
reply to post by wigit
TV license is the same as protection money. SO don't pay it. If everyone stopped paying it then what can they do.
Well for a start either there would be no TV or radio in the whole of the UK apart from Sky - that would give Murdoch a rather dangerous grip on power don't you think? Or there would be a large hike on tax!
Please read the thread or at least my post above yours and get a grasp of what the licence fee actually pays for.
The Wiki link from my post above disappeared and it's too late to edit it now, so I've added it here...
Wiki: BBC
edit on 22/3/12 by Insomniac because: (no reason given)edit on 23/3/12 by Insomniac because: To add link that disappeared from previous post
And you used wikipedia...hahahahaha what a researcher you are. Not the fraudulent Wikipedia as your proof. Please learn to source things a little better to back up your argument. Not that you even have an argument.
The fee is only for the BBC and its corporation. Channel 5 doesnt get it, channel 4???? NO.
Originally posted by stumason
Originally posted by mainidh
Supposedly the BBC, being funded by the public tv viewers directly, use that to pay for the content they watch, which is supposed to be free from politics and influence.. lol
As well as everything else I alluded to earlier.
It doesn't just pay for Downton Abbey and Top Gear.
Originally posted by lacrimaererum
its funny how people will pay for a licence for a device that is used to brainwash you.
why the hell dont the governments just take a cut of ad revenue.
Originally posted by lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by randomname
It may sound ridiculous to you, my friend, but here in the UK I have not heard anyone in YEARS complain about the TV licence fee (note: posters to this site do not form a representative cross-section of the UK public).
To me, that indicates that UK residents are reasonably happy about the arrangement. Now that all TV broadcasting has gone digital, I think that the days of the licence fee are numbered and that we will will move to a subscription-based model in the next few years. It'll be interesting to see how people feel about that, if and when it arrives.
Originally posted by AlienStalker
A license to watch TV??? Are you kidding me??
I live in the US and this had me laughing upon first reading the title of the thread thinking it was a joke of some sort. But after seeing so many responses from people and their opinions on it I take it this is actually serious.
What a joke nonetheless! A license?
I read the license gives you access to certain channels without advertisements? Is that what it is about? If not what is the license for?
I don't get it...how did this come to be a law over there that you msut pay for this license to use your teevision? Under what conditions is it required?
I am very curious as this sounds BEYOND ridiculous. The lawmakers would be laughed out of business trying to pass this here in the states, I would hope anyway.
A license to drive, a license to hunt, a license to sell goods like beer and liquor, these all apply in my country. But a license to rot your brains with TV? Next you will tell me that you need a license to consume poisonous soda or something else beyond my ability of comprehension.
Originally posted by lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by grainofsand
What if there were a real emergency, say, one in which the fire or ambulance service had been called by a neighbour? I bet you wouldn't be so quick to show THEM the garden gate. Or if they refused to enter, on the basis that they don't have any particular legal authority over you anymore than the guy serving you at your local shop, I bet you'd be the first one to start bleating about their behaviour.