For UK members. If you own a TV you must have a licence. WRONG!

page: 8
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Insomniac
 



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.

How dumb are you? Why is it that the majority of countries don't pay TV license fees hmmm? Have you ever wondered about that? Oh right we must have super high tax rates. I bet UK taxes are even higher than Australian taxes.





How dumb am I??? Less dumb than you are rude evidently!

Anyway,

The licence fee is not a tax it's a voluntary payment if you watch TV - TV watching isn't compulsory! Are you really advocating a state of affairs where News International is the only broadcaster in the UK? Do you appreciate how much power that would give the Murdochs? Obviously not.

If you'd read the previous posts you'd realise that the licence fee also finances the entire broadcasting infrastructure in the UK except for Sky (owned by News International).

So, if you take away the licence fee only Sky would remain. Obviously, the commercial channels could conceivably take over that burden, but whether those companies could afford to is another matter.

And to answer your other question: Why don't the majority of other countries pay licence fees? Because they're happy with commercial ridden low quality television presumably. £150 a year is not a lot of money and is tremendous value when compared to subscription rates for Sky and Cable.




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 
Yeah to me it just seems like being presented with "To enforce this we have to mobilize a whole infrastructure" How did it get past that to being implemented? How much are these necessary fees? How much does this organization that checks if your paying cost to maintain.

I see multiple logic flaws here and find it funny no one in the UK Government cares. Divert the funds that maintain that regulatory inspection group to the weird licencing tax. Job done! The fact that didn't occur is a good example of failure of our institutions lol.....



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Insomniac
 



The option? The BBC could carry commercials and produce and import the same mindless drivel we get on many of the commercial channels constantly punctuated by annoying commercials.

Then why isn't the BBC channel offered as an extra thing which requires some sort of subscription? Why must they make it necessary to pay a license to watch TV at all? If you want advert free TV it should be payed for as an extra thing, not forced upon people. There should be a completely free and license free channels which are supported by adverts. If you want something more than that it should come as an extra which needs to be payed for if you can afford it. That is sensible and logical.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Because the BBC isn't a channel it's many channels, both regional and national as well as satellite and cable channels. Not to mention the international channels (some are commercially funded) and radio - national, local and the World service.
Far too many channels to list here, so I'll offer this link which will give you all the details.

BBC Wiki

As mentioned in the above post, the commercial channels use the broadcasting infrastructure which is funded by the licence fee,



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Insomniac
 



So, if you take away the licence fee only Sky would remain. Obviously, the commercial channels could conceivably take over that burden, but whether those companies could afford to is another matter.

Of course they could afford it, and they would also make a profit. I don't watch free TV very much, but I know we have at least 10 different free channels that all make a profit through their commercials. Of course it is a viable option if countless different countries all do it.


And to answer your other question: Why don't the majority of other countries pay licence fees? Because they're happy with commercial ridden low quality television presumably. £150 a year is not a lot of money and is tremendous value when compared to subscription rates for Sky and Cable.

They are happy with commercial ridden TV because it's free! If they want higher quality television they will subscribe to a payed service! They should not be forced to pay just to watch TV at all... that is insane.


Because the BBC isn't a channel it's many channels

Yes... and all those channels could be part of an OPTIONAL payed subscription. Not something people are forced to pay if they want to watch any TV at all.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Insomniac
 



So, if you take away the licence fee only Sky would remain. Obviously, the commercial channels could conceivably take over that burden, but whether those companies could afford to is another matter.

Of course they could afford it, and they would also make a profit. I don't watch free TV very much, but I know we have at least 10 different free channels that all make a profit through their commercials. Of course it is a viable option if countless different countries all do it.


And to answer your other question: Why don't the majority of other countries pay licence fees? Because they're happy with commercial ridden low quality television presumably. £150 a year is not a lot of money and is tremendous value when compared to subscription rates for Sky and Cable.

They are happy with commercial ridden TV because it's free! If they want higher quality television they will subscribe to a payed service! They should not be forced to pay just to watch TV at all... that is insane.


Because the BBC isn't a channel it's many channels

Yes... and all those channels could be part of an OPTIONAL payed subscription. Not something people are forced to pay if they want to watch any TV at all.
edit on 23-3-2012 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


You're right of course, but it would cost far more that £150 a year! The top package on Sky (which I also have) is £63 a month.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


You've been going on about free TV in Australia.. Even calling me dumb for for being willing to pay £150 a year to finance the BBC and broadcasting infrastructure... Well I've got news for you, it's not free in Australia, you pay via your taxes...


Founded in 1929 as the Australian Broadcasting Company, it was subsequently made a state-owned corporation on 1 July 1932, as the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983[6] changed the name of the organisation to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, effective 1 July 1983.[6] Although funded and owned by the government, the ABC remains editorially independent as ensured through the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983.[6]


Source:
ABC Wiki

Big fail ChaoticOrder!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Ahoy from across the sea. It's nice to see a thread based on another country's concerns.

Over here we have NPR National Public Radio and PBS Public Broadcasting Service. Both are funded
by public donation and corporate grant. Both tend to have a quite liberal stance.

I had never heard of your "tele' tax until now. Strange that. Over here we pay with our eyes and ears--
being constantly bombarded with adverts (about fifteen minutes per hour). Our public service usually
is rather mundane (though it did give us Sesame Street and Jim Henson's muppets) except for the
occasional concert or humanitarian piece. (I realized some opera and classical music fans may
disagree with me).

Anywhoo, I don't see how this tax could possibly be enforced without a very costly infrastructure to
over-see its enforcement. But that's the way governments work. I recently purchased a "john" boat
with a small trailer (really small). So now I have to license the trailer, license the boat, and license
myself if I want to fish...

Death and taxes...it seems soon you won't be able to breathe without a license.

Oh, one more thing. Over here in some areas you are not allowed to collect rainwater for personal
use as it has been deemed to belong to someone else ...I mean rainwater from the SKY that falls on
your property actually has an owner...and that owner is not you!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 


WHAT??? I didn't know people in Britain had to pay for a licence if you watch tv...
I think they will come up with a fee for you to pay for a licence to breath and exhale CO2 in Britain faster than in the rest of the world...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


If you don't watch any TV you don't have to pay it. So no one is being forced, unless you watch any of the channels the licence fee pays for.

I understand in the days of the internet everyone wants their content for free and are not prepared to pay for anything that does not directly effect them, but you carry on down that road and you find content is compromised as there is no money to pay for journalism or production companies. The BBC operates without advertising, so you can watch or listen to your programs without being interrupted every 10 mins, by companies trying to hawk their wears.
Makes for a much better viewing or listening experience, which in my opinion and most British people I know would say has a value, especially in world dominated by advertising on the media.

I have visited America a few times and it's almost impossible to enjoy a TV show with adverts almost every 5 mins. If I watch a show I want to watch it and not be subjected to adverts every 5 minutes. Call me old fashioned.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
license fee was payable for the radiogram contraption in the 30's and when visual transmission
was born the fee applied also to ensure transmitters/infrastructure were built across the land.
my grandparents won some sort of lottery/pools in the fifties and purchased a b/w tv and aerial.
the aerial cost as much as the tv set. well, i remember giggling when informed of almost the entire
street of two up two downs squeezed into the parlour to watch some show.
my favourite shows? sky at night and the nature documentaries. no adverts just relevant content.
other than that and a quick peek at the Never Ending Waste of Space as the wifey calls it.
furthermore one of the most fascinating operations ever undertaken by the bbc was the filming
of chris bonnington,rusty baillie and tom patey climbing the Old Man of Hoy in the sixties
if memory serves me right. the operation involved moving tonnes of transmission equipment to
a barren corner of scotland for this first ascent. i still have the footage on video. over
15 million people watched this event over three days and the logistics were groundbreaking.

bonington.com...

regards fakedirt.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
As I read this, I am in shock
A license to watch....TV?
Wow that just sounds crazy to this American!!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise
As I read this, I am in shock
A license to watch....TV?
Wow that just sounds crazy to this American!!


There are lots of things in America that seem crazy to this Brit. Having to watch a TV show with commercials every 5 minutes being one of them. The commercials effect the content of your media. Making cable news networks to focus on the dramatic and shocking stories to keep people watching.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Basically these so called TV License enforcement officers are just a salesman with a bailiff/policeman fetish.

The reason women are getting hauled up to the courts so much is because they do their best to catch women out whilst the boyfriend or hubby is at work, the women's minds are elsewhere doing chores and the nipper is watching Cbeebies. They usually stick their foot in the door and once in you are so desperate to get these overbearing blokes out of your house you'll sign anything. When that's done and dusted you are shafted by the court. He then walks off smirking at a menace job well done.

Invariably the courts then fine you less than the actual license fee itself, even though it's cost god know's what to take you there in the first place. Then should you have been petrified by the whole experience enough to actually immediately obtain a licence, you find you spent a further £150 for a months license only to have to pay another £150 the following month because the prick you opened the door to made the dates up to get his commission.

Awesome it is not....

£400 in one year just because some git caught your two year old watching Mr bloody Tumble.






posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity
reply to post by PW229
 


Pay again ? But you won't have paid at all.

You might have "The Blue Planet" downloaded from some dodgy site on your hard drive. Or streaming on iPlayer. But if you don't have a tv licence, you've never made any financial contribution towards that documentary at all, or any other BBC tv show. Nor made any contribution towards the amazing BBC Radio services (and surely they deserve a mention too ?)(especially the BBC World Service, which the Foreign Office pay towards).

As someone from across "la Manche", I can say that the quality of BBC TV and Radio more than justify the fairly insignificant costs of your tv licences. That's not to say the BBC is beyond criticism, that it isn't a bit top heavy. I don't approve of the celebrity wages some of their people get. And there seems to be too much management, too few innovative, creative people.

But still. You're very lucky. Try the European equivalent for a few days. You'd soon go nuts.


I have paid. I do not download content from "dodgy sites." I purchase the DVD's then rip them to a hard drive. I can produce the original DVD for every single TV show, film on the drive. So my point stands, I would be "paying again" if I purchased a TV license purely because I own a television.

I own a fridge, should I pay for what I MIGHT put in there? I think the saying, "I have milk but that doesn't mean I own a cow," is quite fitting.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wigit
 


To my knowledge pensioners only pay about a tenner a year for the license. Don't know if that's still true, have to ask my dad. I know yonks ago my nan only paid £7 a year though.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:08 AM
link   
What about other countries that watch bbc channels?do they have to pay towards the tv licence?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by jademegjosh
 


No, BBC Worldwide channels carry advertising and are on cable and satellite networks which may or may not (I'm not sure) have a subscription fee.

Channels include: BBC Entertainment, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Knowledge, CBeebies, BBC America and others.
edit on 23/3/12 by Insomniac because: To add info



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Revolution9
 


We are exceptionally adept at getting shafted..
Whilst keeping a stiff upper lip.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jademegjosh
What about other countries that watch bbc channels?do they have to pay towards the tv licence?


BBC Worldwide, is the commercial division of the BBC where they sell shows around the world to other broadcasters. So no, they don't pay for the licence, but do pay for the content. Then when the shows are shown on commercial channels, I imagine they have advertising during the programs.
edit on 23-3-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
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.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join