Slashdot Mirror
British Government Considers Tax on Computers
Jumbo Jimbo writes "A story in the UK Times talks about the UK government's proposals to tax personal computers, as a replacement for the television license currently paid by every household with a TV. These are proposals and aren't intended for a few years yet, but due to the growth of computer ownership, this would probably amount to a tax on nearly everybody. Hope it's not per computer, or those people with a pile of old 286s in the shed could be in for a shock."
I know its better than old news, but are you aware that this is just one of many possible schemes, and that none of them are due to take effect before 2017.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
There is so much conjecture and guess work in this, that I don't know where to start. The BBC has only just had its charter renewed for the next 10 years, so imagining what will happen after that is total guess work.
unless they'll levy the tax on components as well they can hardly prevent me from building my own, it'd be difficult to implement on eBay as well.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
...When TVs are becoming replaced by computers as a method of visual communication. It's far easier to live without a TV than a computer now, and they know that. So much for the people protesting the tax by not using a TV, if this goes through.
Not mooted until 2017 currently. The playing field will be a lot different by then, so it may be moved forward.
I would expect the fees would be a lot lower than the £120 TV licence currently in place. PC users would not be accessing BBC content 24/7.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
I'm a big fan of the BBC's independence, and also of the license fee to pay for it, therefore I would like to continue seeing the BBC funded by the taxpayer for the forseeable future. Saying that, I'm not entirely convinced that a computer tax is the right way to go about this.
If you buy a television, you're pretty likely to be watching tv shows on it, and therefore the license fee seems like a good idea. With PCs, the scope of activity is pretty much unlimited, so I can't really see the connection between computers and BBC funding. Although, this may all change in the future as no-one really yet knows how television will eventually integrate with computers. All we can do is speculate.
I'm not stressed. I'm just terribly, terribly alert.
No, they're saying that broadcast television is likely to give way to internet delivered content, and so it makes no sense to charge those people using TVs, and let Internet users have access to the content for free. Even now, I use the BBC's online resources far more than I watch their television shows. By 2017 (the earliest these plans are expected to be enacted), I very much doubt I will still own a television as a stand-alone device.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"Here's one for you, nineteen for me"
</GEORGEHARRISON>
Moll.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
We fought against taxation without representation. Now, we have representation without enough taxation (at least for our level of of spending). Makes me think about the line in the patriot when MG says, "A king 1000's of miles away can do as much as 1000 kings 1 mile away" (or something like that).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
With TV's its pretty simple, you have this massive aerial plus they can pick up signals off your TV (or so they claim), does anyone know if PC's give off any types of signal like this?
;-)
Try using an FM radio near a PC, and scan through the frequencies. All sorts of buzzing, shrieking, farting and so on can be picked up - some of the fun harmonics chatter and clunk as the screen updates or the hard disk is accessed.
On my old Atari ST, I could even tune into the sound chip, and listen to whatever it was playing at the other side of the room. And I wondered why it was called a 104.0 ST FM...
Admittedly, TV detector vans are mostly a myth, and this proposed 'computer tax' is about as realistic - but do read up on Tempest radiation - they'd have plenty of signals to play with if they wanted to.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
If I am to be taxed for ownership of a PC, with the grounds being that I can use this to access BBC-produced broadcasts, then I better actually had be able to access that content.
In other words, that content has to be accessible on a Mac, on Linux (any distro, my choice), on a PC, on some wondeful-but-yet-to-be-conceived-of OS that gets written in 2009...anything. If they're taxing me for it, then I must be able to receive the benefit the tax is actually on.
Incidently, I'm not opposed to the license fee (I'm in the UK). I believe my money to be well spent on the Beeb, though not necesasrily on television so much as radio and the internet.
Cheers,
Ian
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
This is how British politics works. In the UK, there is a knee-jerk reaction to like more taxes, however unfair and unwise, just as in the US there is an automatic tendency to like tax cuts, however unfair and unwise.
British counter-example.
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Actually at the time of the revolution in the United States British taxes were lower, in fact, were almost non-existent. This is why the capitalist businessmen in the eastern states launched the Boston Tea Party and "No taxation without representation" - because they could not compete with better, cheaper British imports. Thus began the current United States - capitalism without a real principle of fair competition.
Dave Bell
The actual article is quite short and brief, but I condense it here to attempt to avoid questions answered in the article.
... 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.
... ... ... /edited
"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".
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 Dept for Culture, Media and Sport's Green Paper setting out the BBC's long-term future
Officially, the Government says that changes would not be needed until 2017,... but insiders said that the department would act if internet viewing took off.
Over the next few years, internet broadcasting is set to increase rapidly... The BBC already broadcasts all its radio stations over the internet, and [some TV too]
Ofcom predicts that more than half of Britain's households will be watching television over the internet by 2012. Other emerging technologies will allow television to be broadcast direct to mobile phones. [O2 aiming to test in 2007]
Even go a stage further and insist every household has to have someone with a PC use accreditation to be able to connect to the Internet.
As a computer geek, I'm sick and tired of having to endlessly fix the crappy Windows PCs of friends and relatives, I'm totally bored with spending time keeping my machines (both Linux and Windows ones) updated only to still have my Internet connection slow to a crawl every time the latest Windows worm hits and maybe the government can "sponsor" non-commercial citizens' web-sites so that I'm not constantly bombarded by banner ads and pop-ups every time I load a page in my browser.
UK Gov. can even go a stage further and send out a free Knoppix CD with each PC Tax registration form :-)
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Incase anybody didn't notice, this comment was made as part of a general debate on possible loop holes and issues that might exist when the 10 year renewal is up, it was not part of any formal law or decision making process.
As an MP was rightly pointing out, there is a potential loophole where a household may not own any televisions at all, and only computers and monitors (without any tv tuner card, as thats already covered) through which they may be able to watch the increasing amount of tv programs the bbc make available over the internet, and thus avoid paying the tv license fee under the current rules.
its pretty obvious that someone is going to suggest 'tax all computers instead then' as a solution to that loop hole, it doesnt mean thats sensible or will ever be seriously considered, its just media sensationalism on an otherwise dull topic.
It's going to be interesting to see what a computer precisely is. PCs and laptops are obvious, but how about a dreambox or divx-player or wifi accesspoint running linux or something similar? A firewall appliance? How about a Xbox or a Playstation? Is a subnotebook a computer? A PDA? A smartphone?
Not to mention stuff like internet-connected fridges - an internet connection tax, like one AC mentioned, is more likely. Except that most new mobile phones can connect to the Net, even if they can't display webpages...
Of course this generalisation applies more to the left than to the right, but then the left are in power at the moment... The Tories still try to win votes with tax cuts, but interestingly these days they focus on choice. As you note, tax cuts are not as popular as they once were. I would suggest this is because people realise that taking money away from public services is hardly going to improve them, but that's just my feeling.
The public dental health issue is tricky, but for all other health areas the NHS is considering a lumbering dinosaur, but one that will still suffice for most people. Dental health is difficult because all the dentists are going private, and thus it is hard to actually find an NHS dentist. The quality of NHS dentists is considered by just about everyone to be equivalent to the quality of private, it's just the supply of them that is a problem.
The tax on PCs appears (I haven't RTFA) to be a possible replacement for the TV licence. If this is the case, it would not be a new tax - just moving an old one onto new technology.
Once upon a time in Europe, there used to be a tax on windows (they were considered a sign of wealth)
I've since emigrated to Australia and here is where you see what effect the TV licence has: the BBC stations provide a benchmark of quality that the commercial stations have to match and they generally do. Well, compared to the Australian stations, they do.
Australian commercial stations treat the audience like a numbers game. They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings, and by 'commitment', I mean that they won't keep a series in prime time long enough for it to the story to mature and to catch on (examples: Farscape got booted to beyond midnight after about 4 episodes and you should have seen the backflip with The Sopranos series 4) or they'll decide to axe a show because the station owner doesn't like what he sees (example: Packer pulling the "Michallef" show because of a comment Michallef made).
They show movies, but intersperse them with so many adverts, animated station ID's, "what's next" scrolling banners and the like that you lose any sense of the 'magic' that a good movie can bring. Maybe British TV has gone to hell since I left, but I doubt it can be as bad as commercial Australian TV.
A solution for viewing sanity is the PVR and here's where I link back to the posted topic: by taxing PCs, the British government ministers are looking to the future (2017) when TVs are computers in their own right and internet broadcasting is a much, much bigger phenomenon. Provided that the tax keeps the quality of programming high, then you can't complain - the money is going where it should and you don't end up with a crappy viewing experience.
But what we also like is getting stuff at a reasonably price instead of paying through the nose for it. That's why we tend to support the BBC (cheaper than US-style subscription TV channels, which we also have, despite the fact that there's no adverts) and the health service (no need for all that expensive insurance in case you get cancer and need to stay in hospital for 6 months).
Absolute rubbish! You just made this up. I live in the the UK and I don't know anyone who gets 'a warm fuzzy feeling' due to increased taxes.
Since I suspect you pulled this out or your arse perhaps you could link to some scientific study to backup your theory. If not then your theory is no more valid than mine. Mine being that people in the UK do not like tax increases.
Smuggling was big in England too, with the fortunes of some modern day companies being founded on smuggling, Avery being one of them.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Mainly because the OP is full of shit. People don't "like" tax rises, however if a service is seen to be doing particularly badly at a time (see: the NHS) people will accept tax rises despite grumbling. There is also the fact that the NHS isn't that bad, and hasn't the cost of "health insurance" risen by a huge amount in the US recently?
Also, in the UK, most people don't go the private route, even though it's avaliable for them.
A tax on PCs is probably one of the suggestions so that people go "OMG" and then they throw it out favouring a less controversial suggestion (lets keep the TV licence) etc.
A blanket license on computers instead of TVs seems a bit silly.
What they can do is this. Keep the TV license as it stands. However, if you want to watch BBC TV content on the Internet, you must log into the BBC website, providing your TV license details. This shows you have a TV license, and then you can go and watch BBC TV on the Internet.
This means people with TVs only are paying and people with no TV but a computer and broadband get to support the BBC too if they are using BBC content. And people with both a TV and a computer don't end up paying twice since they supply their TV license details to the BBC website when creating their account.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It would be like a mandatory Slashdot Premium, you pay a tax to keep BBC Online and BBC News Online an ad-free website. Given my utter hatred for advertising, I have little problem with this, but I just hope here in Ireland they don't transfer THEIR current system to the internet...
See, in Ireland the state sponsored broadcaster, RTÉ, is supported by funds from TV taxes, like the BBC. Unlike the BBC, they also show loads of advertising. You get the worst of both systems in Ireland.
Yup...
Yes, I personally can't wait to pay extra on my next computer purchase so you lot can sit by the Thames sipping shandy and downloading Olympic Bid screensavers over your free WLAN :p
Concerned, of Aberdeen
The point is that the NHS was very badly underfunded in the past, so increased funding was clearly needed. British people want free health care: the National Insurance premiums are based on your ability to pay and available to everyone.
Nobody in the UK *wants* to pay more taxes. However, people have made the logical connection between more funding and better services, so are prepared to pay higer taxes if it brings them a benefit. This happened back in 1997 when the right-wing Conservatives were thrown out after decades of heading towards a more US style small government, free market approach to government.
Our taxes are still lower than much of Europe. On a £30,000 salary, you could expect to pay £5300 tax and £2800 National Insurance (health and state pension contributions)
There is something of a warm and fuzzy feeling about the NHS - it was founded in the socialist reforms after world war 2 that aimed to create a more equitable society out of the incredibly poor state the war left the UK in.
The NHS is good enough for most purposes: waiting times are down, staff recruitment is up. I went into my local hospital with a broken arm on a busy afternoon, was seen straight away and was on my way home within a couple of hours. The state of dental care is another matter, of course, and so is the whole MRSA/nursing staff not knowing how to wash their hands thing. I don't know many people with private health insurance.
Really? I'm interested to see where Microsoft are taxing me on my current server (All components individually bought, running Gentoo Linux).
In fact, even my XP desktop is lacking in a Microsoft tax since I actually bought my copy seperate from the components.
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Who, The Times, for publishing such unfounded speculation as "news", or the story submitter, for considering it the same?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
No, you are wrong. A friend has a TV which he only uses as a display for retro consoles and home computers. A man from TV Licensing dropped by unannounced one day, observed that the aerial lead was disconnected and all channels detuned from those frequencies in use in his region, and declared that no license fee was payable.
No you're not. Why don't you try READING about it or SPEAKING to the f'ing license company. Stop spreading that stupid f'ing urban myth.
Please let me show you...
"If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence."
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/
It's HOW you use it, not what your equipment can be used FOR.
I don't have a TV tuned it or aerialed up at ALL, so called up the TV license people, told them that and they promptly said I didn't have to pay and sent me a form to get a refund of what I'd already paid for that month.
No one has yet mentioned the greatest jewel of the BBC: BBC radio. Whether you are considering Radio 4 (news), Radio 3 (culture), or the World Service (international), these are all funded as part of the TV license fee.
Also, I think that it is important that the BBC (especially radio) remains free to access. Personally, I'd like to see the BBC adopt a model such as Mandrake use, i.e. people who like it pay, in order to keep it free for everyone to use.
Not exactly true.
They will pester you but if you can prove that you have rendered it incapable of receiving a broadcast, and detuning the receiver is enough, then you are not technically breaking the law.
It's hard to do on "idiot" proof sets, but it can and has been done.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
However, you can block that signal with a faraday cage. TV detectors pick up the signal being rebroadcast from your arial. Quite a few office buildings have a steel frame construction that make it difficult to get signals into/outof the building. So you could put your monitor into a place where they cannot detect it.
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
Are you saying that you're routinely visited by guys to check if you have a TV license?!? For air broadcast?!?!?!? What's the difference between that and inspecting your computer to check if you have illegal stuff in it? What kind of law allows that?!? In my country you need a judge to order it. Nobody can enter your house if you do not give your permission (or have a judge order to do so).
Your head a splode
Think about it... if they charge you a "copyright tax" of 40 Euros per computer, then you can download stuff via p2p to your heart's content... I'd willingly pay a one off levy on purchase to tell the minions of the **AA to P off... and gladly make sure my receipt for this levy was kept very, very safe...
Ah but unfortunately it doesn't work that way. That would still be a copyright infringement and remain illegal under the current proposal. Think about it: if the 40 euro covered whatever copyright infringement, you could also put "pirated" copies of Windows, Office, or any other commercial software on it legally.
Also many computers (think businesses) are never ever used for copyright infringement, but they would have to pay the tax too.
Can I ask why so many people have modded up an obvious troll? Cracks about socialism, protecting property, English teeth? C'mon, engage your critical faculties when modding.
UK taxes are not popular, but yes, increased taxes for important services like the National Health Services will be tolerated. We like public services, we recognise that taxes are necessary, but we don't like them, we don't generally* want more of them, and proposing a tax raise is always an unpopular move.
* Side note: I'd cheerfully pay my taxes provided I can tick boxes for what I want them to go on. I might choose to tick plenty for healthcare and education for example, and perhaps choose to tick fewer related to, eg, military spending.
I'll forego the option of moderating this discussion to tell anyone interested that Sweden is contemplating a very similar change.
The TV-license is going to transform into a "media license" and everyone with access to a computer, TV or other "media"-item is going to have to pay for the use of it.
Personally I'm not a fan of TV-licensing, and this is even less titillating to me.
I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
You'll be surprised.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
However, not many people know that certain agencies are permitted, at any time.
HM Customs & Excise can without notice, but even British Gas and the Post Office are permitted to enter your home.
I was surprised when I found out about the Post Office - gas I can understand for gas leaks etc.
There's another couple I can't remember off hand that have that permission, so I'm not sure about TV Licensing, but I'm pretty sure they can.
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
okay.
:)
BBC starts from assumption that all PCs have software installed that makes it capable of displaying sound and video over the internet.
that's a fuck right up from the word go.
so let's assume that iWhacks, MAC OS/1, BeOS, FreeBSD, Atari ST500s and BBC Micros (the ones with the ARM processor) are all capable of viewing video and listening to sound, over the internet.
great. so the BBC must first fund [patent-unencumbered!] free software development of video and sound compression and broadcasting technology, in order to guarantee that the technology is available across all platforms.
that sounds good to me.
so your computer _is_ capable, your OS _is_ capable, but you choose _not_ to install capable software: will the BBC force people to pay a license fee just because your PC is _capable_ of being used to view video, listen to sound, and be connected to the internet?
mmm
The TV licencing goons' inability to accept this is, of course, another matter. But then, they can't seem to get it into their brains that some people can manage to live without a TV at all, so subtlities like whether a TV is installed are clearly beyond them.
This doesn't mean anything. The people still LOVE tax cuts. It's just that they also seem to like a truly-epic-in-proportions Government and they don't tend to mind being about 8 Trillion dollars in debt.
Note to Republicans: if you're going to cut taxes, how about you cut Government spending, first?
This last tax cut reminded me of quitting your job and buying everything with a credit card instead. I mean, uh, sure, you can do it, but eventually, you're going to get fucked.
Note to Democrats: Stop smiling. You're not much better.
Look, mate;
I use the railway daily; without it, I'd be totally stuffed, since I can't drive. And I will note here that the amount the UK government provides to its railways is laughably tiny compared to spending on the Continent. I have once used unemployment benefit, and it was fortunate that it existed, because otherwise I'd have been living under a bridge.
When I was a kid, I used the state education system. When I am old, I strongly expect to use old peoples' homes. If I have kids and then die horribly in a freak slipping-on-banana-peel accident, then I strongly expect that my children will find themselves in a children's home. At least, I hope they will, because otherwise the poor little buggers will be out on the streets begging, you get my point?
But I don't use the BBC. I survive just fine without it, and expect that state of affairs to persist indefinitely. TV is not education, it's not health, it's not contingency planning and it's not a basic human need; it's amusement. I'm aware that the ancient Romans used to refer to bread and circuses as the two things that the population desire, and I'm perfectly - indeed radiantly - happy for my taxes to go on the bread. That's the stuff that keeps you alive, well, educated and able to go out there and pursue happiness - but once we've got you to that point, the actual pursuit is your own problem.
I'm happy to cough up for libraries, but damn it, there's enough amusement in books. If people want to watch television, they can do it on their own wage packet.
They knew what they were doing when they decided not to fund the BBC from income tax. It meant that it was possible for the weird fringes of society to be either totally indifferent or become conscientious objectors, and that as quietly as possible.
That said, there is an interesting technical question in dealing with billing non-TV owners for watching online broadcast services. It is not, however, a question that necessarily needs to be answered by undoing one of the fairer elements of British law.
tosh! Have a look at:9 95004 5_en_4.htm
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/Ukpga_1
Gas Act 1995
22.--(1) Where a public gas transporter has reasonable cause to suspect--
(a) that gas conveyed by him is escaping, or may escape, in any premises; or
(b) that gas so conveyed which has escaped has entered, or may enter, any premises,
any officer authorised by the transporter may, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises
Brocklesby Park Cricket Club
The BBC is one of the more widely used public services in the UK.
Try the world! The BBC's TV and Radio programs are widely watched and listened to around the world by alot more people than use the service in the UK. I don't think people in the UK are quite aware of just how big an international PR medium the BBC is. Other countries can only dream of having a state controlled TV network that is watched by this kind of an international audience. Furthermore, at least in so far as news reporting is concerned, the BBC commands alot more respect internationally than the big US networks do (Althoug to be fair there is a number of notable exceptions to this rule among the latter but it is depressingly small) recent reporting scandals not withstanding.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
One interesting side effect of the NHS is that because they're not concerned about charging you for the treatment, the process of getting that treatment is vastly simplified --- no billing, no registration, no lengthy identification process to ensure that you are actually entitled to treatment. Getting a doctor's appointment is as simple as walking into a surgery and asking for one... they'll ask you your name, and that's about it. (They will check to see if you're on their records, because you're supposed to go to one particular surgery, but you can see a doctor anywhere if you have to.) This means that the NHS saves a vast amount of money when compared to a private health care system, simply on administration fees and process.
The state of dental care is another matter, of course...
Yeah, public dental care here is a farce, and does everything wrong that the NHS as a whole gets right. I basically don't bother any more; I go to a private dentist. (I get so little help from the NHS for dental care that it's not worth going through the paperwork.)
I always thought the law was "If you have equipment capable of receiving..."
But the BBC says this:
"If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."
Looks like using one for a DVD player, or your old Commadore 64 would be OK without a licence, the key is "If you use", not "If you have".
You DO need one "If you use" a tuner card in your PC to watch TV, but not if you use it for digitising home movies.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
Why is there no tax on stupidity?
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
There's no reason why you hard-working UK citizens should have to put up with this crap. Unplug your telly/pc/whatever, drive it right on down to the Thames or whatever your nearest waterhole is and TOSS IT IN!
Let "the man" in parliament know you ain't gonna pay no taxes what you ain't got been done voted fer yet. No more.
Hey, it worked for us!
Sincerely,
USA
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
> TV is not education, it's not health
Well, it ought to be, at least partially, and in the UK it's closer to being so than most places thanks to the BBC.
I'm fine with continuing to fund BBC in current manner, but you do derive benefit from it even if you never watch it, listen to the radio, or read the website.
The BBC justifies its cost due to its PR benefit alone. The world service enhances UK's reputation abroard and leads via circuitous routes to more money for British companies etc.
Increased obesity levels in US are partly due to excessive advertising for fast food. The strain on the NHS extra commerical channels would have is enough to justify the license fee.
But, you're still right, its better that those who directly use it should pay for it. I just wish that other areas of government spending worked in the same way... for instance, let those who support invasion of Iraq pay for it.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
The TV licencing people work by writing to all the residential addresses in the country that don't have licences telling them that they'll be in big trouble if they have a TV and no licence. They will usually follow that up by sending an inspector round. There's no obligation to let the inspector in, but if you do so voluntarily and the inspector is satisfied you don't have a telly, the threatening letters will stop, but only for a few years.
If you don't let the inspector in, they can only gain entry to search for an illegal telly by providing evidence that you have one to a court - typically this will be done by using TV detector equipment, or observing the glow of a TV through the curtains from the street at night. Not sure if they use that one so much today seeing as it could be a PC monitor and not a telly.
However, if you don't have a telly and you don't let the inspectors in to have a look around, they will keep pestering you with letters and doorstepping until you give in. From the TV licencing people's PoV it makes sense as only something like 1% of the population genuinely don't own a TV, but it does royally piss off the people who don't and keep getting pestered.
A few years ago they ran an advertising campaign where they displayed randomly selected street signs from around the country with the slogan "we know that X households in this street are watching television illegally" but they had to drop it after complaints from the residents in those streets who felt they were being unfairly accused.
state controlled TV network
The BBC is not state controlled! It is a chartered, independent , publically funded body. The BBC's prime responsibility is to the UK public (not to the UK government, not to some media mogul). And the organisations' news division have a history of critical examination of the UK government.
I don't pay a british licence fee, but I *wish* I could (if it would allow to me access their digital satellite transmissions. It's encrypted but access is free to UK residents - which I'm not.).
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
(a) that gas conveyed by him is escaping, or may escape, in any premises;
"I'm conveying gas. May I use your bathroom? Oh, step aside, of course I may!"
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
TV Licensing cannot enter your place without a warrant. If they can see or hear a TV, though, you're basically busted. If you ask them if they have a warrant they'll leave, and sometimes they'll come back with a warrant.
I have a TV license, but it's good to make them jump through loops when their records get cocked up.
...There's no obligation to let the inspector in, but if you do so voluntarily and the inspector is satisfied you don't have a telly, the threatening letters will stop, but only for a few years...
I had one of their meatheads come to me a few weeks ago who insisted even on looking in my wardrobes and bathroom for concealed tv equipment. Of course I had none so he went away satisfied that I wasn't breaking the law.. and lo and behold not a month has passed and already they're sending me their propaganda again.
Plus £1000 council tax and £3500 (17.5% of remainder) as Value Added (sales) Tax, for a total of £12500 a year, for a tax burden of about 40%.
Don't forget that the UK endures 17.5% VAT (sales tax) on almost all purchases made with already-taxed-once income. Not to mention additional tax (duty) on a range of other goods such as fuel and alcohol.
Here in the UK, the Police are not allowed to enter your property with out your permission or a warrant.
r e_evil_impli.html
Might be worth pointing out that the House of Commons has already voted to reverse this in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill and the House of Lords will probably allow it.
http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/archives/2005/02/mo
But, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide!
My mobile phone has more processing power than was required to put people on the moon.
My wristwatch has a faster processor than my first PC had.
Is either of these a "computer" ?
find more potp = www.planetofthepenguins.com
Let me ask you this: who defines "quality" in TV? If no one wants to watch what you call "quality" TV, then why should they pay a tax for it? The only possible just and reasonable justification for a tax on TV would be if the results were distributed among producers based on viewer ratings. Anything else would be, at least, undemocratic.
They won't make a commitment to a series unless it keeps getting great ratings
Yes, they are absolutely right in doing so, why should they ever consider doing otherwise? Do you think Ford should have made a lasting commitment to the Edsel? If a series doesn't get good ratings, it's not a good series according to the public and should be dropped.
The annual taxes on my cable bill are about $48.
The various taxes and mandatory "fees" on my various phone lines is $132 a year.
This is about half what the Brits pay, but not insiginificant.
They do hide the fact that you can do this pretty well though.
Let me give our British cousins some American advice. Don't worry you don't have to pay the tax on these. Here's what you do. Get dressed up as Indians (or native Americans if you prefer) and sneek into the harbor and get on the ships where these machines are being shipped into Great Britain. Then dump them all overboard into the harbor.
We had something like this with the British government a few hundred years ago. Since the rebellion we haven't had to pay one penny in taxes (to the British government).
Where are you getting this information from?
TV licencing told me on the phone a few years ago that I could use my TV to watch videos without a licence. They added a comment to that effect in their database. So long as you de-tune from all the broadcast channels and unplug the aerial, you're fine. Straight from the horses mouth.