PDA

View Full Version : British Government Considers Tax on Computers


RobertoOrtiz
03-04-2005, 01:59 PM
Quote:
"THE BBC licence fee should be replaced by a tax on the ownership of a personal computer instead of a television, ministers said yesterday.


Tessa Jowell told the BBC that the licence fee would be retained for at least another ten years until 2017 in return for abolishing the Board of Governors. But the Culture Secretary conceded that technological advances would mean that a fee based on “television ownership could become redundant”.

NI_MPU('middle');More than six million households have access to high-speed broadband connections and the BBC has begun experimenting with broadcasting video clips over the internet.

A legal loophole highlighted by the communications regulator Ofcom means that viewers could watch television and listen to radio over the internet and mobile devices free, potentially costing the BBC millions of pounds in licence fees. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s Green Paper setting out the BBC’s long-term future proposed a solution that could end the traditional fee.The paper suggested “either a compulsory levy on all households or even on ownership of PCs as well as TVs”. It said that technology might render it difficult to collect and enforce the fee."

>>Link<< (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1508650,00.html)
-R

stewartjones
03-04-2005, 02:04 PM
MONEY GRABBING $*I£" %^*(%£.


I hate this country and NEED to leave already.

samartin
03-04-2005, 02:27 PM
Hmmmm my 512k connection can't handle decent size streaming to compare to my TV !!! What a bunch of @rse is all I gotta say, you're right Vyntax, time to get outta here...

francomanko
03-04-2005, 02:36 PM
im with you vyntax...this country is going to the dogs....lets go..lets GO!

stewartjones
03-04-2005, 02:41 PM
im with you vyntax...this country is going to the dogs....lets go..lets GO!

Is going? I thought it had been $h*tty for a while now! :D

If we all stick together we could buy an island and live there, catch fish, play some soccer, and american football, oh, and of course have a building full of computers with all the software we want... Oh, and cute girls would be a bonus too, hehe!...

... *wakes up*... DAMMIT still in the UK... :sad:

mummey
03-04-2005, 02:45 PM
What's a VAT tax? :twisted: :D

(/me runs and hides...)

imashination
03-04-2005, 02:45 PM
MONEY GRABBING $*I£" %^*(%£.


I hate this country and NEED to leave already.

Bye.

Whilst you're enjoying your fantastic tv with channel number overlays, news tickers, adverts every 10 minutes, cancelled shows due to viewing figures, pretend news reports, poor ntsc colour quality, junk food ads aimed at kids and so on, Ill be enjoying the latest episode of some quality shows.

Now if on the other hand you had bothered to read any of it, you will have noticed that this was a headline in one of Rupert Murdoch's fine quality papers talking about one single possibility that has been proposed for 12 years from now when people no longer watch tv on tv sets.

ant-
03-04-2005, 02:46 PM
i'm happy to pay a fee each year to recieve the BBCs services. I think its well worth paying for a media company that isn't there just to advertise, and do a bit of media on the side. Having said that i'm not against adverts or commercial programming i just really like to have the choice.

It personally wouldn't bother me much to pay it. But taxing all users of computers would never get through, it would be an economic disaster.

mummey
03-04-2005, 02:50 PM
Bye.

Whilst you're enjoying your fantastic tv with channel number overlays, news tickers, adverts every 10 minutes, cancelled shows due to viewing figures, pretend news reports, poor ntsc colour quality, junk food ads aimed at kids and so on, Ill be enjoying the latest episode of some quality shows.

Now if on the other hand you had bothered to read any of it, you will have noticed that this was a headline in one of Rupert Murdoch's fine quality papers talking about one single possibility that has been proposed for 12 years from now when people no longer watch tv on tv sets.

Why watch BBC when you can have HBO and "skin"e-max? :)

rebo
03-04-2005, 02:59 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with what imashination said. The BBC is pretty much a one of its kind in the world. It provides so much content for less than £2.50 per household per week.

Such a tax on computers would only occur if television ownership dramatically falls over the next 10 years. Something that is highly unlikely considering the current rollout of tv and cable technology. Home entertainment IS still focused on the television and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

4+ premium quality channels with zero adverts, 30+ radio stations, 2 fully funded orchestras , funded concerts such as the proms, THE best news site on the internet, training and technical workshops in nearly every aspect of broadcasting.

Yea thats worth 5 dollars a week.

People think they can get everything in the world for free, but they dont realise they are paying in a much more painful way by accepting adverts. Well ill say something id rather pay a couple of pennies to fund the best broadcasting company in the world than rot my brain with junk adverts which only make people like murdock richer and richer. I value my brain cells too much for that.

samartin
03-04-2005, 03:07 PM
you'll find in the original article from the register :-

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport Green Paper (http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/have_your_say/green_paper/greenpaper_home.html) on the BBC's long-term future proposes an end of the traditional license fee and "either a compulsory levy on all households or even on ownership of PCs as well as TVs"

Hmmm seems like a money grabbing potential to me, while I don't mind paying for the Beebs services and enjoy some of the high quality programmes then fair play but don't tax my PC unless I can do full quality streaming with a decent connection...

Gentle Fury
03-04-2005, 03:16 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with what imashination said. The BBC is pretty much a one of its kind in the world. It provides so much content for less than £2.50 per household per week.

Such a tax on computers would only occur if television ownership dramatically falls over the next 10 years. Something that is highly unlikely considering the current rollout of tv and cable technology. Home entertainment IS still focused on the television and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

4+ premium quality channels with zero adverts, 30+ radio stations, 2 fully funded orchestras , funded concerts such as the proms, THE best news site on the internet, training and technical workshops in nearly every aspect of broadcasting.

Yea thats worth 5 dollars a week.

People think they can get everything in the world for free, but they dont realise they are paying in a much more painful way by accepting adverts. Well ill say something id rather pay a couple of pennies to fund the best broadcasting company in the world than rot my brain with junk adverts which only make people like murdock richer and richer. I value my brain cells too much for that.

Hmmm, let's see....yeah, think I would prefer that to paying $50 a month for crappy cable that has nothing on......I actually haven't had cable in about 6 years....and I really don't care....it sux. Waste of money and time in my opinion....got my DVD player....thats all I need.

slaughters
03-04-2005, 03:23 PM
...I actually haven't had cable in about 6 years....and I really don't care....it sux...Did you really just say, I know nothing about it, haven't for six years, but here is my opinon? :)

...got my DVD player....thats all I need.Kind of agree for movies, but "ouch" those original series DVDs cost some serious bucks (HBO's "Band of Brothers" was awsome)

Gentle Fury
03-04-2005, 04:59 PM
Did you really just say, I know nothing about it, haven't for six years, but here is my opinon? :)

Kind of agree for movies, but "ouch" those original series DVDs cost some serious bucks (HBO's "Band of Brothers" was awsome)

Didn't say I live in a cave....lol. Just cuz I don't have cable at home doesn't mean I don't have friends and family with it.....everytime I turn on a TV with cable I do the same thing as when I turn on the radio.....flip the channels for about 20 mins.....realize it sux and turn it off unamused.

While I love my plasma TV and HDTV would rock....I just don't care for television programs enough to really have a use for it. I just want them to come up with a damn HDDVD format so I can use the TV to it's fullest potential!

Though progressive scan/component video does a pretty damn amazing job of it!!

stewartjones
03-04-2005, 05:12 PM
For someone who watches TV perhaps once a month paying for a few channels is absolutely disgusting in my opinion. We have to pay for a TV, pay for cable/sky if u want it, then pay the BBC for a few channels, and radio stations... AND, it is not optional... If you are happy paying for it go ahead, but I think it's a joke.

As for quality shows, remind me of one!

Plus, this may be down the line, but why should I pay for any extra service I don't want? EG - I dont care for TV, so dont need to pay extra for the BBC channels... So why should I. Likewise, when we dont watch TV anymore we have to pay for it for our computer systems/mobile devices... Err, no thanks, I pay for my Internet already.

Oh, and as for poor NTSC quality, please give me it! Japan, and America have had HDTV for over 10 years... We are getting it at the end of this year supposedly!

I'll stop there then! :D Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and thats mine! :thumbsup:

Clanger
03-04-2005, 05:30 PM
I think it's all my fault, I got rid of my TV 3 years ago no more license fee for me :thumbsup: I just listen to radio and watch the odd DVD through the computer, don't miss it one little bit.

mushroomgod
03-04-2005, 05:38 PM
well, needless to say...if you don't like the uk leave.

I'm all for the BBC, but i can understand people risenting paying for a license. The way I see it is this, The BBC has the best news, some of the best documentarys, some of the best comedys in the world. They also have many quality radio stations, most of which I listen to every day, Oh, and let not forget all the educational programing as well.

I happy to make a contribution (license fee) to pay for this wonderful service, it doesn't just benefit me but benefits many people in the UK and around the world.


Sorry, that sounded like a speach.....but thats how I feel

DZL
03-04-2005, 06:10 PM
i think, in honor of the Boston Tea Party, all UKer's should throw their TV sets into the the River Thames.

The BBC has some good programming, but why assume everyone that has a PC is using it to watch the BBC? This is a classic example of a government-controlled service that was slow to react to new technology, and now is trying to play catch-up with the 'ol government go-to: more taxes. how incredibly original.

special note to the BBC: please bring back 'The Office'.

jeffthomann
03-04-2005, 06:12 PM
Don't know if you have it over there across the pond, but here in the States, On Demand cablie is pretty sweet! You pick a movie press play, and it basically acts just like a dvd player except and it's a part of the monthly digital cable bill. It's a nice little incentive for me to stick with cable besides the fact that dsl is slower than cable, at least around in these parts.

Steve Green
03-04-2005, 06:12 PM
I'd happier defending the BBC if they weren't trying to have their cake and eat it. The amount of self-promotion has increased, almost to the point where they might as well be a commercially funded station.

BBC Three is frighteningly similar to the American cable channels that are moaned about Other than films, they have a channel logo, graphics to tell people what day it is... seriously, upcoming programme straplines, permanent reminders for new shows - and this is all within a 4:3 safe area of a 16:9 frame which looks absolutely ridiculous.

TV these days seems like some kid with attention deficit disorder, they are constantly fidgeting, paranoid that the viewer is going to switch channels. I can understand this on commercial channels, but on a publicly funded company like the BBC it is unforgiveable.

- Steve

percydaman
03-04-2005, 07:01 PM
Funny, but Im incredibly sick of american progamming as well. Overused comedy sitcom ideas and year after year of the same "reality tv" programming. All I can say is thank god for the history channel, discovery channel and those of that kind. Is it really that much better or worse in the UK?

L.Rawlins
03-04-2005, 07:14 PM
There has been coverage about what the licence fee is actually getting a viewer on the news recently. Suffice to say that it is reported that the 'BBC' are going to be making scheduling changes.

Personally, I'm less upset by the lack of 'HDTV' at the moment given that we are still trying to wein our nation onto 'Digital', and more disheartened by the lacklustre mobile phones our nation is being swamped with.

'3G' is an absolute gimmick here, compared to what it should (and is) capable of doing elsewhere.

Boone
03-04-2005, 07:44 PM
If the BBC launched a new BBC-Japan channel...I wouldn't care! :love:

Still, the BBC have given us the miracle of "Little Briton" - what more would a mortal man wish for or deserve? :cool:

Titus
03-04-2005, 07:54 PM
... *wakes up*... DAMMIT still in the UK... :sad:

Want to switch countries?

After living a couple of months in a banana republic you'll want to return to your country with 4 channels.

Boone
03-04-2005, 08:02 PM
Re: Titus.

WOW - You live in a Banana Country? Talking to sentient Bananas sounds like fun! :bounce:

Titus
03-04-2005, 08:18 PM
Actualy it isn't. We're ruled by general banana with an iron fist.

Mungo J
03-04-2005, 08:19 PM
vyntax: the licence fee IS optional, if you speak to anyone at the licence fee company, they'll tell you that if you don't have your television tuned to any BBC channels, then you don't have to pay the fee. if you want to watch the channels with adverts, and only them, you're more than welcome to.

but remember that the programming in the UK is only the way it is because of the BBC, without them our television would be far worse than it is, the competition has had to to stand up to their quality to get any viewers,

i can't stand by every decision of theirs tho, the handling of digital hasn't been great, and surely they can't really introduce this internet payment?

jeffthomann
03-04-2005, 08:28 PM
Overused comedy sitcom ideas and year after year of the same "reality tv" programming. All I can say is thank god for the history channel, discovery channel and those of that kind

You forgot the most important ones - National Geographic Channel, Cartoon Network and Sci Fi Channel! :)

percydaman
03-04-2005, 08:57 PM
You forgot the most important ones - National Geographic Channel, Cartoon Network and Sci Fi Channel! :)

ya those ones too. all the others i couldn't think of off hand.

tazy7
03-04-2005, 09:01 PM
the licence fee IS optional,

Im sorry but the licence fee isnt optional its the law for anyone with a television set in the uk. i think thats the whole reason why ppl are annoyed is that it isnt optional. personally i love the bbc there internet site is unmatched with news coverage, sport coverage and all the other stuff. i think the problem ppl have with the tv progs is they are being dumbed down, an hour to explain some which could be done in half and hour and with crap like eastenders on most nights its plain annoying.

bbc comedy tho is excellant im waiting for their comedy channel, little britian the office pint of lager packet of crisps what more could u ask for.

if they do the fee on pcs i sense a riot from everyone as its a plain and easy way to see that the licence fee is out of date, especially when u consider u pay a larger fee if u own digital and how many bbc channels on their ppl actually watch ...

L.Rawlins
03-04-2005, 09:09 PM
The licence fee is NOT optional. If you own a set and are connected to an aerial you have to pay for the licence.

Most TV retailers send your home details straight to the licensing officials the moment you buy a new set, so that they may pester you with 'intimidating' mail.

slaughters
03-04-2005, 10:36 PM
...the programming in the UK is only the way it is because of the BBC, without them our television would be far worse than it is, the competition has had to to stand up to their quality to get any viewers...I'm curious. I always thought that the BBC was essentially a government run monopoly that did not allow anyone to compete against them. Is there competiton now ?

imashination
03-04-2005, 11:41 PM
A monopoly? we DO have more than one channel y'know. The BBC is there to make entertaining and educational programs. By not having to fill programs with product placements and slice up films in a dozen 10 minute sections padded with ads they can make some great shows. They don't have to worry about getting as many viewers as they can; therefore they can run decent shows and not just run the same sensationalist shock value crap which is found on so many channels.

When they run a new series, if it isn't massively popular after a couple of episodes, they are free to improve and tweek it instead of pulling it completely and replace it with re-runs of 'cops' which they know will get the ratings.

The Office and Little Britain are worth their weight in gold. I simply cannot imagine such great shows ever being made under a commercial station where ratings are king and making different shows is seen as risky.

I think is the bbc is more than worth its cost, I really dread the day when they are forced to become a commercial station. Look at it this way, we pay for the bbc and we pay for allllll of the commercial stations. The difference is that I pay for the bbc directly and therefore they make stuff which is in my interrests. With the other channels, I pay the commercial companies, then they pay the tv stations, therefore they make ad filled crap for the sake of the commercial companies. You still end up paying just as much, the difference is that the payments are disguised as an extra 2p on a can of coke and and extra £100 when you buy a car

mushroomgod
03-04-2005, 11:51 PM
You still end up paying just as much, the difference is that the payments are disguised as an extra 2p on a can of coke and and extra £100 when you buy a car

id never thought of it like that before

DarkTure
03-04-2005, 11:54 PM
Sweden is talking about doing the same thing, only differens is that bbc have made lots of good programs and documentaries, the swedish tv 1 and tv2 (owned by the state) make 1 good program every other year, rest of the programs are just crap :(

Mungo J
03-05-2005, 02:19 AM
i said it was optional because the t.v. licencing company said over the phone when i rang last year enquiring about ours, that if your t.v. isn't tuned into bbc channels then they will have no problem with you...

we got those letters through the post saying that the 'inspectors' or whatever were in town, who will supposedly catch you, but it does seem the documentation doesn't agree with what they told me though...

Clanger
03-05-2005, 08:37 AM
i said it was optional because the t.v. licencing company said over the phone when i rang last year enquiring about ours, that if your t.v. isn't tuned into bbc channels then they will have no problem with you...

we got those letters through the post saying that the 'inspectors' or whatever were in town, who will supposedly catch you, but it does seem the documentation doesn't agree with what they told me though...

No, you need a licence for ITV as well and if you only watch cable.

slaughters
03-05-2005, 01:20 PM
A monopoly? we DO have more than one channel y'know....I see. I was going off old news.

I was getting it confused with the deregulation that occured in the 90's under Margret Thatcher when the Independent Broadcasting Authority was abolished and with the BBC's historical monopoly:

"The first ITV contractor to begin broadcasting was the London Weekday contractor Associated-Rediffusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated-Rediffusion), on 22 September (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_22) 1955 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955). On the first night of telecasts, BBC, who had held the monopoly on broadcasting in Britain, aired a special episode of their popular radio soap opera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera) The Archers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Archers) on the Home Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Home_Service). In the episode, core character Grace Archer was killed in a fire, and it was seen as a ploy to sway loyal viewers and listeners away from the new station."

>>>> Wikpedia Link <<<< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV)

baaah888
03-05-2005, 02:44 PM
Kind of agree for movies, but "ouch" those original series DVDs cost some serious bucks (HBO's "Band of Brothers" was awsome)

band of brothers rocked, the best short series ive seen in years.

back to the licencing, I actually have a TV just for DVD and consoles, and i phoned up the licencing people and was told as long as you don't have recieving equiptnment you don't have to pay a licenece, and since i don't watch tv (regularly, i still go to my mates house to watch the football and some series) im pretty happy i don't have to pay for a service i don't watch.

If i did watch TV alot and at home i'd certainly not mind paying money for a service liek the bbc, it's quality channels and great content, the ammount of great shows they made/commissioned is amazing, red dwarf for one is worht my licence fee alone ;)

KnickKnack
03-05-2005, 05:31 PM
I think you're all missing the bigger picture here and what the BBC are saying.

In 15 years time, we probably won't be watching television in the same way we do now; It'll more likely be some kind of streaming subscription based scheme, that allows you to download programs from the computer. I think in a few years time the BBC and other channels will stream their channels over the internet as faster broadband and bigger bandwidth become common place.

The whole issue of television and the channels you watch won't be so clear cut, and the BBC realise this.

Personally I'm more than happy to pay the yearly subscription.

Boone
03-05-2005, 10:48 PM
Re: Titus.

Golly-what? He sounds like one bad'ol fruit! :wise:

Re: Slaughters.

The only thing that the BBC must be critised for is...umm....errr...help us out here, lads......Eastenders! :lightbulb

colkai
03-06-2005, 11:39 AM
well, needless to say...if you don't like the uk leave.

I'm all for the BBC, but i can understand people risenting paying for a license. The way I see it is this, The BBC has the best news, some of the best documentarys, some of the best comedys in the world.

hehehe - good joke.
Lemme see - how often do you see a little "sky TV" logo on a TV news item? Or the fact that some BBC programs also come from the likes of Animal Planet / Discovery?

So the BBC buy programmes from commercial companies then charge you to watch them? Cheeky S.O.B.'s
It's not so much that though, if I never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, I STILL have to pay them for watching commercial channels which they have no control over. Why? now they want to charge me for my PC? what about if I don't watch TV on the internet? oh.. doesn't matter - 'cause it's the BBC. Sorry - no, as far as I am concerned, if I don't watch it - why should I pay for it?

And quality TV? "Little Britain" - they are keeping this as an example of TV that is NOT "dumbed down?" *CHOKE*
And for a non-advertisement channel - they sure as heck advertise all their channels a lot, "ooh look how good we are".
"If I don't like it - leave the UK"? Nah - I hate marmite - but doesn't stop me shopping for other things!

Hey - I got an idea - let's charge everyone a levy on their car because Ford have such good R&D ...it's only right. What's that? you don't drive a Ford? Doesn't matter - you gotta pay anyway.
See how stupid it sounds when applied elsewhere? If this was Microsoft saying something like this - all hell would break loose.

I love one newspapers quote about how the new boss has got off to a good start of sorting things out, he's made several thoushand people redundant - oh heck yeah - I can see the quality improvements happening now! It's ain't about quality, it's about money, how rich can the share-holders get? Did you know, that because the License is no longer a "BBC TV License" - it's not even a TV License, but is now a "broadcasting license" - legally, you're supposed to have one for every TV / device - so if your phone has radio built-in - you need one for that. So hey - all you with render farms that *could* receive BBC, will have to pay for each one. Well, s'only fair - it's quality TV you're not watching. Mad..me.. you betcha!

colkai
03-06-2005, 11:45 AM
vyntax: the licence fee IS optional, if you speak to anyone at the licence fee company, they'll tell you that if you don't have your television tuned to any BBC channels, then you don't have to pay the fee. if you want to watch the channels with adverts, and only them, you're more than welcome to.

WRONG - there was a high profile case of a guy who had Sky, didn't have his TV set to recieve any BBC channels, didn't listen to BBC radio. But in court, they won, simply because he had the ability to reset it to the channel. So this is a more or less an enforced law by a COMPANY.

If it was optional, I'd be fine with it - simply wouldn't watch it. The cheeky buggers even started a pay per view system off the back of something you were ALREADY paying for a while back. I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls that. So pay 'em twice is fine? So where does it end?

mushroomgod
03-06-2005, 12:01 PM
actually colkai, if you took the time to read a few posts before mine you might have realized that my comments about leaving the country were not so much about the BBC, but someone complaining about wanting to leave because they no longer liked the UK in general.

As for you comments on the license fee, I don't disagree with you, I never said anything about what a wonderful thing that even people who don't watch the BBC should be made pay for a service. All I said was that I (as a viewer of the BBC) and more than happy to make a small contribution to keep (what i belive to be) a great product the way it is.

Its also a shame that you think theres no quality TV on the BBC, have you never watched news 24 and compare to to the laughable sky news or ITN news? Or what about the radio, i mean, much as I hate radio 1 I really love radio 2, 4 and 6 music.....But so what, they make a few crappy programs (eastenders) and all of a sudden all there programs a crap.

Also, as far as I know (and im sure someone will prove me wrong) the the BBC of a non profit organization, all the money it has is to be put back into its services.

colkai
03-06-2005, 01:49 PM
actually colkai, if you took the time to read a few posts before mine you might have realized that my comments about leaving the country were not so much about the BBC, but someone complaining about wanting to leave because they no longer liked the UK in general.
In which case - apologies.

As for you comments on the license fee, I don't disagree with you, I never said anything about what a wonderful thing that even people who don't watch the BBC should be made pay for a service. All I said was that I (as a viewer of the BBC) and more than happy to make a small contribution to keep (what i belive to be) a great product the way it is.
True - for those wanting to pay, fine and dandy, my gripe is, why should I pay if I don't want it?

Here's a giggle, from the actual BBC website about the TV License...
"...It is free if you are over 75, half-price if you are registered blind."

Now come - who doesn't "see" the irony in that? :p

.."and for those of you in black and white...it's just behind the blue ball" (a little nostalgia for you all ;) )

stewartjones
03-06-2005, 02:44 PM
Hey mushroomgod, yup, I am not a 'fan' of the country for sure. So, if you would like to set me up with a job abroad, and the cash to move I will certainly go! hehe!

As for the licensing fees, if you want to pay for the service then that is more than fine. BUT, it really is appauling that because I own a television I have to pay for it. Yes, Little Britain, The Office etc are excellent programs, but they would have been aired on other channels if the BBC was not there.

I listen to the radio reguarly. But, not the BBC, or any UK station for that matter, as I am not a fan of the music! So as you can tell, the fee I have to pay seems so unfair.

Just as a BBC documentary, can anyone remember a farmer who shot at 2 tresspassers, killed one, and the other was put into the pen? Well, the other guy is out (coming out, can't remember), and the BBC are paying him so they can do a documentary about it... If this is putting our money back into their programs, then I'm sorry to say, that it is disgusting!

Anyways! I have been told everyone is entitled to their opinions...! This has went somewhat off topic! hehe.. woopsie!

As for any licence, it should be optional if you want that service, no matter what it is!

mushroomgod
03-06-2005, 03:10 PM
Hey mushroomgod, yup, I am not a 'fan' of the country for sure. So, if you would like to set me up with a job abroad, and the cash to move I will certainly go! hehe

well, good luck, If you want somthing hard enough Im sure youll put the work in you will get what you want.


Just as a BBC documentary, can anyone remember a farmer who shot at 2 tresspassers, killed one, and the other was put into the pen? Well, the other guy is out (coming out, can't remember), and the BBC are paying him so they can do a documentary about it... If this is putting our money back into their programs, then I'm sorry to say, that it is disgusting!

Im kinda on the fence with that one....Firstly I agree, to make money out of what thay did is seriosly f%$ked. That said, ill watch the program when it comes on because Im intresting it hearing what he has to say for himself.

Pete2003
03-07-2005, 02:54 PM
Here's a giggle, from the actual BBC website about the TV License...
"...It is free if you are over 75, half-price if you are registered blind."



Half-price if you are registered blind?! Gee, thats nice of them :rolleyes:

Zanmato
03-08-2005, 08:56 AM
I think most people are grumbling about the licence fee because the general quality of TV programming has dropped in recent years through 'dumbing down'. There has been alot of copycat programming too. Broadcasters find something that pulls in the viewing figures then other channels make other similiar unoriginal programmes. I'm for one sick of 'reality' and 'pop-idol' styles shows.
Let's not forget that the analog signal will be shut down in a few years, more or less 'forcing' those who want to watch TV to go digital by either subscribing to another service or buying a set-top box.
In my view the BBC is already a commerical station because it now plugs it's other channels and programmes every half hour or so. It was never like this several years ago. These other channels may be on 'freeview' but programmes that appear on those channels last year are now aired on the mainstream terrestrial channels anyway. Little Britain being a prime example. So what is the point of subscribing to a cable service or buying a set-top box then paying the licence fee when if you just wait a few months you'll see what you missed anyway.

My 2 cents worth on the tax on computers (getting back to the topic) - just another money grabbing idea by the government. If I want to watch TV, I'll watch it on a TV not thru a small 640x320 pixel window. My current 512k connection really can't handle it all that well anyway. If the BBC are losing money over it why make available live streams from their website?

Shoshanna
03-08-2005, 09:57 AM
Quote from the back of my TV licence

"What you need a TV Licence for
... to install or use any equipement to receive television programmes, including a television, video recorder, satellite, PC card, TV enabled PC or any other TV receiving equipment."

Doesn't this mean you already need a licence if you watch TV on your computer in the UK?

xynaria
03-08-2005, 10:07 AM
At the moment all the channels bar the BBC and premium subscription channels such as Film Four are the only ones where (in theory at least) you can watch a programme uninterupted by ad breaks and I'll gladly pay for that priveledge, though it's not hard to see why those who either don't see or care about the consequences of loosing the licence fee resent having to.
However surely the bigger picture is now how much longer will people be prepared to have their programming set for them and what happens to advertising revenue then when alternative viewing occurs?

Both the curent 'public broadcast' and 'brought to you by the wonderful world of advertisng' models are likely to surely go extant with the channels merely being advertisments for programming delivered by other means perhaps.?

dudders
03-08-2005, 10:35 AM
bloody hell it really does say 50% off for blind people:

"The blind concession is 50% off the full TV Licence fee, so you'll pay £60.50 for a colour licence and £20.25 for a black and white TV Licence."

but back to the thread:

I would pay double the license fee if it kept adverts off the TV. Why should we put up with them? There is no choice given to us whether we want adverts or not is there?

as an aside:

The BBC need to secure their future somehow, they remain independent of government influence, and provide good news coverage, as well as some good shows, for a fee. They are just shooting in the dark as to how we pay their fee because nobody really knows where technology will be in 10 or so years.

Another note is that the UK government is continually trying to get the BBC to drop the fee so that they can fund it, ie: they can control the programming better for their own needs. If this happens we would lose an independent broadcaster but still pay for it through taxes. :shrug:

OzzyCat
03-08-2005, 11:07 AM
I wouldn't pay. **** em. It's an obscene suggestion and wouldn't pass in law.

Pete2003
03-08-2005, 11:25 AM
"The blind concession is 50% off the full TV Licence fee, so you'll pay £60.50 for a colour licence and £20.25 for a black and white TV Licence."


Now that really is the most stupid thing I have ever read in my life!!

halo
03-08-2005, 03:06 PM
Now that really is the most stupid thing I have ever read in my life!!

unless you remember that the license fee isn't just for TV but all the non commercial radio stations as well and you can still hear programs as well...especially as the BBC use descriptive vocals on some of their late night programs, something else they are pioneering.

rebo
03-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Most blind people live with other sighted people, so its reallly not that stupid. Those others can watch for the reduced price too.

Oh and the office would not of been aired by other channels, its first season got mediocre audiences and it would of been pulled half way through if this was the states.

Cameo
03-22-2005, 12:21 AM
Yea I would have agreed about the blind concession being dumb a few years ago but my gran was diagnosed with macular degeneration last year and whilst she is considered legally blind, she can still make out forms and colours if she is within 4 or 5 feet of the telly. Besides which, something like Corrie which she would have watched for 30 years or whatever, she can still follow along just from the audio because she can picture the sets in her mind etc. Though given she is a pensioner in her 80's as well as blind, they might as well give it her for nothing.

CGTalk Moderation
03-22-2005, 12:21 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.