British PC Tax to Replace TV License?

caffeination writes "Here in Britain, anything capable of receiving live or virtually live broadcasts is considered TV receiving equipment. Because the detector vans can't actually 'catch' people watching such broadcasts on their computers, the BBC is proposing a blanket tax on PCs instead. They received several thousand responses to this green paper, ranging from the insightful to the unprintable."

Comments

No, nay never!

[Turn-X Alphonse]

We pay the TV licence so fund the BBC, if they wish to develope beyond that they should raise their own funds and not charge us for it. If I buy 1 PC, 2 PCs or 10 PCs, I may never use them to watch BBC content and as such I'm paying for fresh air in effect.

If they want to licence web content why not just make a yearly subscription service and charge for it? £50 a year for BBC programs online for up to 1 week of airing and then random "classic" shows such as Only fools and Porridge. The classic shows would sell it to a lot of people and if they make it downloadable in some way which means it's portables I can't think of a single person who wouldn't DL such content for long trips and when they're out of the country (no more need to miss Eastenders or your poison of voice).

The BBC has been quite good to the online community, if they start taxing "innocent people" (AKA people who don't watch online content from the BBC), then they are more or less just a thief with government permission.

Re:No, nay never!

[aslate]

It all depends how it works though, doesn't it? Instantly accusing it of being a flat tax on PCs would be the same as saying that the TV licence is a flat tax on TVs, it's not as it's per household. It would also depend on what would count as a taxable PC. A PC with a TV tuner (Already covered), a PC with internet access, a PC without internet access?

Also, it states in the article:
"The Government reckons changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017"
Well, every home should have the ability to download TV shows by then in some form or another, so it's not like you'd be taxing a large number of people for the minority that can.

It also states that they're not just looking at taxing PCs randomly, nor that this is the only thing they're looking at:
"In that event a fee based on television ownership could become redundant and the government could look at other ways to raise revenue, from subscriptions to taxing other access devices."

This isn't just about taxing for internet content either, it's about the ability for the BBC to continue as an advertisement free public channel, free from the restrains of lowest-common-denominator programming like Big Brother. When the idea of a Television as opposed to a PC and souped up monitor seems laughable, the BBC won't be able to survive on TV licences alone.

General taxation

[Richard_J_N]

I do in principle support the TV license, because the BBC (especially the Radio - World Service + Radio 3,4) is extremely good. However, I think that the TV license is a bad way to do it, and it ought to be included in general taxation. Reasons:

1)The license is there as a "tax of choice". So, if you don't have a TV, then you don't pay (not even if you do listen to the radio). This made sense in 1960 - but not so much now, when virtually everyone has a television.

2)The license collection is extremely inefficient. It involves hassle for the licensor, a draconian TV licensing authority (who make an enormous nuisance of themselves if you don't actually own a TV), and you cannot legally purchase any TV-capable equipment without giving a name and address to the retailer. [Yes, this is outrageous.] Enforcement and collection must cost a significant proportion of the total fee!

3)With the exception of pensioners, the TV license is the same for everyone. Yet, some can afford to pay more than others.

4)On principle: As a citizen, I have a natural right to my share of the RF spectrum - and to operate a Radio receiver!

However, the idea of a centrally funded broadcaster is a good one: it means that the quality of output need not go into freefall in the pursuit of ratings.

Re:General taxation

[TheEvilOverlord]

1)The license is there as a "tax of choice". So, if you don't have a TV, then you don't pay (not even if you do listen to the radio). This made sense in 1960 - but not so much now, when virtually everyone has a television.

Yeah well I don't use a TV at the moment and I'm quite happy not having to pay the BBC for a service I don't use. I think we should all get petrol for free from the government and they can recoup the cost through general taxation, because lets face it, 75% of it is tax and virtually everyone has a car, right?

2)The license collection is extremely inefficient. It involves hassle for the licensor, a draconian TV licensing authority (who make an enormous nuisance of themselves if you don't actually own a TV), and you cannot legally purchase any TV-capable equipment without giving a name and address to the retailer. [Yes, this is outrageous.] Enforcement and collection must cost a significant proportion of the total fee!

You are right there, they do send out loads of stupid letters. I doubt the overall cost is very high though compared to other forms of taxation; there are, for example, a very small number of detector vans.

3)With the exception of pensioners, the TV license is the same for everyone. Yet, some can afford to pay more than others.

Oh but of course, those of us that go out and work hard at making ourselves more employable, get the high value jobs and become successful should pay for those lazy good-for-nothing layabouts that sit on the dole. Pensioners have reached the end of their working lives, the rest of the lazy rabble should stump up or shut up. I'm all for working together to create a better society, I'm not for me working while the rest sit on their collective arses.

4)On principle: As a citizen, I have a natural right to my share of the RF spectrum - and to operate a Radio receiver!

"my share"??! Since when did frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum become property? I DEMAND my share in the ownership of the colour RED! I have a natural right to apply a blunt force instrument to your skull until you die; however most governments have decided to regulate both the RF spectrum and murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority.

Re:My thoughts

[agm]

Why stop at a TV license? Why not cherge people progressively more for bread, milk, meat, cars, computers etc. based on their income. I mean, surely it's unfair that that rich pay proportionally less of their income on food than the poor do - right? That's the logical conclusion of such a corrupt socialist system - people are rewarded for doing poorly and punished for doing well. Quite frankly it sucks.

Re:Last year's news, changes a long way away

[c_forq]

It's just as strange for someone in the UK to hear that you might be asked to pay in advance for emergency hospital treatment as for an American to hear that you need to pay a tax on televisions

I've never heard of emergency treatement requiring payment in advance. In my experiance it isn't until after treatement that they start talking about payment (for any planned visits everything is always paid in advance though).

Re:Last year's news, changes a long way away

[Bloater]

The BBC is also required by law to provide a variety of programming and not just what is very popular. It means channel 4 gets the crap but popular stuff like "big brother", and the BBC gives us great, but virtually unheard of stuff like "the mighty boosh".

The BBC is now providing its content online for PC viewing. As long as there is a need for the BBC online (and there currently is), I believe a license fee (read "tax") should be payable on all computers wired up and capable of decoding and displaying BBC content at an acceptable quality. If you don't have the software though, or your computer is too slow, or it doesn't have a monitor, or your network connectivity is spotty, then I don't think you should have to pay anything.