Slashdot Mirror
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."
I don't get it, can't they just download the correct fonts to make it printable?
Virtual Betting on Facebook for non-geeks.
The "BBC Charter Review" consultation closed in May 2005. The consultation was far wider reaching than the methods of funding, never mind proposed taxes on computers.
The changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017.
Who would dare to predict what a "computer" will look like in 10 years time?
The up-to-date news is the Government Response to the Lords Committee Report on Charter Review, published on the 31 January 2006.
This document states:
Also remember this - I once had to take a foreign friend (an American living in Switzerland) who was visiting me to the Accident and Emergency department of the local hospital. All they asked for was her name and my name and address: they never asked for any payment. 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.
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.
I like muppets.
You don't need a TV licence unless your television is set up to receive broadcast programmes.
n k1 which states you need a licence "If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes"
In my house, we don't watch any broadcast programmes, but we do watch a lot of DVD's, so we have a set hooked up to our DVD player.
Recently we were getting increasingly threatening letters from the TV Licensing people, which I ignored after checking checking on http://tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp#li
Roll on a couple of weeks and one of the TV inspectors came knocking on my door, had a quick look at my setup and agreed I don't need to pay a license as I had no aerial and no way of receiving broadcast programmes.
Result!
Philosopher (n) - a wise person who is calm and rational; someone who lives a life of reason with equanimity
I'm not kidding, there was in sensationalist article in a newspaper (so poor I'm sorry to admit having read it) today (ok, it was the Mail), saying that shops are sending the details of all purchases of phones with video capabilities on to the licensing authority!
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.
No it didn't.
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.