The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIV

[Peck of Arabia]

Just out of curiosity - does the UK TV license cover both terrestrial & satellite broadcasts or are satellite channels free?

Locally this came up in the 90s when satellite channels became widely available and as YLE didn't have satellite broadcasting it couldn't charge for it so in practice if the terrestrial receiver part was removed from a tv set & then the set sealed one was freed from paying the yearly fee while being able to watch satellite channels all day long.

Well, the TV license is for the TV set itself, rather than the BBC programmes that are on the set or the BBC channels that are broadcast through the set, so while I'd guess theoretically you could subscribe to satellite TV and watch it on your laptop (but not while it was actually being broadcast) you'd probably have a hard time explaining it to the licensing authorities

 

[Grendeldef]

Thx - there was a difference in licensing then. We also originally paid for a tv set and separately for B&W and colour ones but this was later changed so that one license covered a household and B&W license was dropped on '96.

Technically we paid for the ability to watch domestic TV channels and satellite channels required an external receiver anyway and a TV set rendered to a plain monitor which wasn't a subject to a license. One was also supposed to pay the fee for having a TV card on a PC but I can't remember ever hearing about an incident involving such.

 

[Mise]

It's not just the TV set, it's anything capable of receiving TV broadcasts. So a satellite dish plugged into a laptop would count, but a TV that isn't plugged into any aerial wouldn't count.

The opt-outs you're talking about Peck aren't, in practice, particularly useful. The TV license goons are so thick-headed that they just assume that every household has a TV, and that every TV needs a license. Borachio's post about the menacing letters insisting that he had a TV and that he would have to pay are entirely reflective of my experience too.

Additionally, the divorce you're talking about between paying for a TV broadcast and paying for the actual content is part of what I meant when I said that it probably made sense 60 years ago, but doesn't make sense any longer. It made sense to pay a license per TV set back in the 1950s, because at that time, (a) a TV was necessary to watch BBC content on, (b) if you had a TV, then you didn't really have a choice over what to watch -- you definitely were watching BBC content at some point, and (c) only rich people could afford it anyway, meaning that it didn't matter that the whole thing was a regressive tax. Now, though, none of those things are true, and the license fee makes little sense.

I really can't see any rational, reasonable argument for keeping the license fee. Arakhor's argument is simply FUD. I mean, why don't we just pay for everything with a flat license fee? Let's have a flat hospital fee instead of paying for the NHS through taxes, or a flat school fee instead of paying for education through taxes, or a court fee instead of paying for courts through taxes, or a fire fee instead of paying for a fire department through taxes. I would love to go on, but you get the idea. It's a nonsensical way of paying for a public service. The fact that there is still a specific fee for Black and White TVs just shows how antiquated the whole system is. Modernise it, rationalise it, make it fair and progressive.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ha, you do know having flat fees instead of taxes is a leading goal of conservatives over here, right? It makes perfect sense to them surely.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The way I was told, American narrators are far too dramatic, the music is always the same annoying loop, and the effects are much worse and cheesier. The examples they brought up was comparing The Apprentice to American Apprentice, Britain's Got Talent to American Idol, and Masterchef to American Masterchef.

After this quote i expected some more reasobable people to discuss the pros and cons of Amercian v British documentaries.

Instead all that happened was more dick swinging, 'We are the best because BBC. Suck it Iowan cornholers!'

Hahahaha you brits,
so defensive.

Judging from some of the quotes, people are going to start claiming Michael Bay is the preeminent American documentarian next.

 

[bhsup]

Dude, wrong Michael. Michael Moore is the greatest American documentarian ever.

 

[Grisu]

Instead all that happened was more dick swinging, 'We are the best because BBC. Suck it Iowan cornholers!'

Hahahaha you brits,
so defensive.

well, it's not that different from "OMG you guys pay government for TV!!!"

but seriously, I'd wager most people watch one or the other (if at all) and thus don't have much basis to compare. From when I was in the US I remember the TV programming not being that much different from here except that they usually were a season ahead of us and that there were around 70mins of commercial breaks in a full hour, or something. But we're getting there as well :/

 

[Traitorfish]

Semi-serious question, but why don't evangelical and fundamentalist Christian men grow Jesus-beards? They seem to place a lot of emphasis on emulating Jesus, so I'm wondering why this doesn't extend to the facial hair as it does in some other religions, like conservative strains of Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy (albeit in the latter case now restricted to the clergy)?

 

[Grendeldef]

Mr Grisu - how's the money divided between German/French/Italian channels or do cantons take care of that themselves ?

 

[Traitorfish]

£12 per month is a LOT of money when your wages are already low and being squeezed. Whether or not it's worth the money is rather dependent on what else you could have spent the money on. The fact that the license fee is inherently regressive is pretty galling.

That's true. And, honestly, something I should have thought of, given that I'm not exactly rolling in it myself. I guess sometimes you should go with gut-resentment, and not with how you imagine a proper grown-up would react.

 

[Peck of Arabia]

It's not just the TV set, it's anything capable of receiving TV broadcasts. So a satellite dish plugged into a laptop would count, but a TV that isn't plugged into any aerial wouldn't count.

The opt-outs you're talking about Peck aren't, in practice, particularly useful. The TV license goons are so thick-headed that they just assume that every household has a TV, and that every TV needs a license. Borachio's post about the menacing letters insisting that he had a TV and that he would have to pay are entirely reflective of my experience too.

Additionally, the divorce you're talking about between paying for a TV broadcast and paying for the actual content is part of what I meant when I said that it probably made sense 60 years ago, but doesn't make sense any longer. It made sense to pay a license per TV set back in the 1950s, because at that time, (a) a TV was necessary to watch BBC content on, (b) if you had a TV, then you didn't really have a choice over what to watch -- you definitely were watching BBC content at some point, and (c) only rich people could afford it anyway, meaning that it didn't matter that the whole thing was a regressive tax. Now, though, none of those things are true, and the license fee makes little sense.

I really can't see any rational, reasonable argument for keeping the license fee. Arakhor's argument is simply FUD. I mean, why don't we just pay for everything with a flat license fee? Let's have a flat hospital fee instead of paying for the NHS through taxes, or a flat school fee instead of paying for education through taxes, or a court fee instead of paying for courts through taxes, or a fire fee instead of paying for a fire department through taxes. I would love to go on, but you get the idea. It's a nonsensical way of paying for a public service. The fact that there is still a specific fee for Black and White TVs just shows how antiquated the whole system is. Modernise it, rationalise it, make it fair and progressive.

I'd agree the automatic assumption of TV ownership is harsh but; at the risk of sounding like a government surveillance apologist- if you have nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about- to me it's more a case of needing to update monitoring to account for the modern world than abolishing the license and levying a a tax on (almost) everyone (but especially some people), regardless of actual TV consumption to... subsidise TV watching.

It doesn't matter, either, if you use the TV to watch BBC programmes or not- it funds the BBC, sure, but it is not a BBC subscription service and was never intended to be, particularly after 1955 when ITV came about; it says at much on the TV licensing website.

Your argument against Arakhor misses a critical difference, too; health, education, fire services and the like have have a necessity that television will never have. In much the same way there's no great outcry over the extremely regressive tobacco, alcohol and gambling taxes.

To put the BBC on the same level of a "Public Service" as, say, the NHS is rather a stretch, would't you say?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Semi-serious question, but why don't evangelical and fundamentalist Christian men grow Jesus-beards? They seem to place a lot of emphasis on emulating Jesus, so I'm wondering why this doesn't extend to the facial hair as it does in some other religions, like conservative strains of Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy (albeit in the latter case now restricted to the clergy)?

Semi-serious answer:

I really think the hippies ruined beards for evangelicals. Around WWI, beards in the US fell out of favor as you couldn't have a beard and get a proper seal on a gas mask. So they weren't taboo, just out of fashion but then the hippies came along with beards and free love and their demon music and taboo'd the crap out of beards for the jesus freaks FOREVER.

well, it's not that different from "OMG you guys pay government for TV!!!"

but seriously, I'd wager most people watch one or the other (if at all) and thus don't have much basis to compare. From when I was in the US I remember the TV programming not being that much different from here except that they usually were a season ahead of us and that there were around 70mins of commercial breaks in a full hour, or something. But we're getting there as well :/

hahaha true story

Though we pay for our government TV too...

 

[Ajidica]

Semi-serious answer:

I really think the hippies ruined beards for evangelicals. Around WWI, beards in the US fell out of favor as you couldn't have a beard and get a proper seal on a gas mask. So they weren't taboo, just out of fashion but then the hippies came along with beards and free love and their demon music and taboo'd the crap out of beards for the jesus freaks FOREVER.

I was going to say something similar. Beards became associated with hippies and the 'morally degenerate' and sent the wrong image that 'morally upstanding and pure' individuals embody.

 

[Mise]

I'd agree the automatic assumption of TV ownership is harsh but; at the risk of sounding like a government surveillance apologist- if you have nothing to hide you've got nothing to worry about- to me it's more a case of needing to update monitoring to account for the modern world than abolishing the license and levying a a tax on (almost) everyone (but especially some people), regardless of actual TV consumption to... subsidise TV watching.

It doesn't matter, either, if you use the TV to watch BBC programmes or not- it funds the BBC, sure, but it is not a BBC subscription service and was never intended to be, particularly after 1955 when ITV came about; it says at much on the TV licensing website.

Your argument against Arakhor misses a critical difference, too; health, education, fire services and the like have have a necessity that television will never have. In much the same way there's no great outcry over the extremely regressive tobacco, alcohol and gambling taxes.

To put the BBC on the same level of a "Public Service" as, say, the NHS is rather a stretch, would't you say?

If you're saying that the BBC isn't an essential public service then it shouldn't be backed by a statutory license fee carrying a £1,000 fine and a criminal record, but should simply be a commercial, subscription service. If it is a service that the government should be providing at all then it should be provided in the way that every other government service is provided. There are two models: the state owned company, and the public service. The first option is like EdF in France, which is run and operated as a commercial entity that just so happens to have the government as its majority shareholder. If the BBC is like EdF then it should be funded as any other commercial entity is funded: by charging its customers. The second options is a public service, like the NHS or a school: if it is like the NHS then it should be funded like the NHS, through general taxes.

The license fee wasn't originally intended to fund BBC programming -- but it does, in fact, fund BBC programming. As I said, when it was originally designed it made perfect sense, but now, it makes no sense at all. So telling me what the license fee was originally intended for is irrelevant to what it is actually used for now. It funds the BBC. It also does your other argument no favours: you seem to be complaining that, if it was funded via general taxes, some people would pay more than others, even though they don't watch TV more than others. But that is exactly the case now: some people hardly watch the BBC, while others watch it all the time, so it is already the case that some people pay disproportionately to how much they make use of the service.

Of course, that is the nature of a public service. People don't always pay in proportion to how much they use a public service, but instead pay according to their means. I'm not a socialist, but that is how public services ought to work: from each according to their abilities, to each according to their need. In what way is it fair, right or equitable that a single mother living hand to mouth has to pay the exact same license fee as a rich family living a life of luxury? In what way is it fair that the single mother is forced by law to pay this fee, irrespective of whether they actually watch the BBC, or use BBC services? Is it right, fair or equitable that she will get a £1,000 fine and a criminal record for not paying for a service she doesn't use? What we have now is this bizarre, nonsensical hybrid, where people are charged a flat fee to use a service provided by the government, even if they don't actually use the service, on penalty of a £1,000 fine and a criminal record.

No part of the TV license is fair. There is no positive case for paying for a public broadcaster via a fixed poll tax. If you were to start from scratch today, you would never design such a nonsensical, regressive, unfair tax.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I was going to say something similar. Beards became associated with hippies and the 'morally degenerate' and sent the wrong image that 'morally upstanding and pure' individuals embody.

All over the world? Scottish fundamentalist Christians don't grow beard because of hippies in the '60s? What signifies a fundamentalist Christian in the first place?

 

[Grisu]

Mr Grisu - how's the money divided between German/French/Italian channels or do cantons take care of that themselves ?

the "SRG SSR" (the organisation who gets the money) operates 3 german, 3 french and 2 italian speaking channels...who the funds are assigned exactly is way beyond me, though knowing Switzerland it's most likely extremly complicated

 

[Grendeldef]

Seems probable enough, thx

There's an article of TV of Switzerland in Wiki but it's mainly a list of available channels, sadly. Somehow I developed a sudden urge to find out more about the government funded/ran TV.

 

[Farm Boy]

Semi-serious question, but why don't evangelical and fundamentalist Christian men grow Jesus-beards? They seem to place a lot of emphasis on emulating Jesus, so I'm wondering why this doesn't extend to the facial hair as it does in some other religions, like conservative strains of Islam and Eastern Orthodoxy (albeit in the latter case now restricted to the clergy)?

Some super-Christians do grow beards. You have to identify what sort of super Christian you are looking at though. The ones that tend to follow the basic allegorical message of love, healing, forgiveness, and acceptance of the downtrodden as the central tenant of Christ? You might see one with a beard. A textualist that has some very specific interpretation of laws that are required to be an upstanding human, and may be inclined to look at the downtrodden as the damned(since they probably act out of accordance with those laws)? More likely to be clean shaven - cleanliness is next to Godliness, all that. Plus you wouldn't want to be confused with the damned. At least that's kinda sorta how I see it round here. More, I just think there isn't really any sort of mandate on growing beards and they aren't exactly "in" for the most part.

 

[Borachio]

In regards to the assertion as well about British documentaries. Great Britain also has much trashier publications than potentially anybody in the world (The Sun, etc...).

The so-called "gutter press"? Yes. Indeed!

And the Sun is nowhere near the bottom. Unfortunately.

 

[Quackers]

I think I agree with Mise on this. Apart from prescription drug charges (in which there are many exemptions) and dentist payments there are few of these upfront fees. It would be considerably fairer if the funding for the BBC was taken out of the general revenue stream. Or at the very least give exemptions to low income households, I know the elderly get a free tv license.
It would be great to get shot of the TV licensing authorities too. The volume of letters I got wrongly telling me i didn't have a license and needed one was such a waste of someones time and effort.