And lo On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:14:23 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 18:02:22 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> In the UK, everybody who owns a TV has to pay money to the BBC. The BBC
>> therefore has no incentive at all to ever show anything. (Well, except I
>> suppose that if they stopped broadcasting, the government wouldn't be
>> too amused about it...) In general, the BBC used to produce some pretty
>> high-quality stuff. (They also have fewER adverts.) Today, even the BBC
>> is being diluted across too many channels.
>>
>> I just don't watch TV any more. :-P
>>
>> Let's face it, watching TV adverts is like a bad acid trip.
>>
>> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV
>> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a
>> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to
>> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to
>> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
>
> Well, arguing about the TV license fee in the UK is something of a
> national pastime.  (As you probably know, the funding it also goes to pay
> for BBC radio, which doesn't charge a license fee, and for the BBC
> website - outside the UK, we see ads unless using ad blocking software)

Used to be a Radio License then a Radio and Television Licence; in reality
it's a license to receive broadcasts and the radio bit's been dropped.

That's kind of like what Orphi was saying about if you have a tuner in
your toaster, it's up to you to prove that you're not receiving broadcasts
if you have the ability to do so. Of course this obviously applied to
computers with tuners in them; and now you don't even need that to watch
them online as the license applies to watching television that has been
broadcast even if you're not watching it via a broadcast medium.

In theory simply owning a computer connected to the internet could mean
you require a license; in practice it can be a hassle to prove.

> Comparatively speaking, though, the amount you pay for your TV license is
> far less than Cable TV costs in the US - so for me, my reaction is kinda
> like most UK residents' reactions to US people complaining about the
> price of petrol.
>
> You pay 142.50 GBP per year (about $210 at current exchange rates).
>
> For Comcast basic+digital cable, that covers only about 2.5 months worth
> of service (our cable bill is about $100/month, without any premium
> channels.

Ah but you have a choice of cable companies, we don't. Competition should
keep the prices down...lol

> What's more, most of what we watch originates in the UK on the BBC.  We'd
> happily pay $214/year for what we watch, rather than damn near *$1,200* a
> year.

And you get the joy of watching adverts too.

> Just like you'd rather pay 0.49 GPB/litre (the cost our gas station down
> the block is charging for 87 octane right now) instead of 1.14 GBP/l (the
> reported average in the UK right now).

I drive past a station on the way to work and watched it go from 110.9p to  
114.9p over a couple of weeks.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 11-3-2010 19:19, Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> PS. In theory if you don't own a TV you don't have to pay for a TV 
>> license. In reality, *everybody* has to pay. If you so much as own a 
>> toaster which contains a CPU with is hypothetically powerful enough to 
>> run a TCP/IP stack, they will argue that you could mod your toaster to 
>> watch TV, so you need a TV license.
> 
>   That's nothing. In Finland they are passing a law that every single
> household has to pay for TV. Yes, even people who don't own any kind of
> TV nor computer and are blind and deaf at the same time.

We used to have a license system here too.
At some point in time they realized that the number of people that did 
not watch TV or listen to radio was getting very small. Keeping the 
whole system with separate TV and radio licenses and a special 'police' 
force that could track down violators was not very cost effective. A 
cheaper, but perhaps not as fair, system was just let everybody pay. 
That would result in the Finnish system.
But... Effectively this becomes a sort of tax in this way. Hence some 
bright politicians made sure the system was indeed converted to a system 
paid from tax money in stead of from licences (while slightly increasing 
tax).

>   And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
> alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
> living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
> 
>   Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
> that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
> For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.

Tax also solves that.

Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
support the obviously wrong solution?

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:34:21 +0100, andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not  
> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to  
> support the obviously wrong solution?

In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of  
moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected) many  
times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be independent  
 from the state.

The latest thing they (i.e. the ones collecting the fees) are trying to  
push through here is that they want people to have to pay the fee for  
computers as well as TVs, as shows are increasingly being offered online.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >   And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
> > alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
> > living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
> > 
> >   Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
> > that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
> > For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.

> Tax also solves that.

  Polls suggest that the majority of people would want either the current
system to remain, or for the "media tax" to be taken directly from tax funds
instead of this proposed fixed-fee-per-household. Taking the money from the
tax funds would, indeed, solve the problem of the fee being unfair to poor
people and those living alone because it would be directly proportional to
people's income.

  The government, so far, is not hearing the people on this. (Tells
something about democracy, doesn't it?)

> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
> support the obviously wrong solution?

  There has been some argument that taking the money from tax funds would
increase governmental control over the public media, or something like that.
Most people (including myself) don't quite understand what this means, as
the TV channels currently funded by the current payment system is already
run by the government. I suppose there's some complex politics behind all
this mess.

  IMO it's not so important who runs those TV channels (because it's not
like there weren't privately-owned alternatives; there are quite many of
them). It's more important for this "media tax" to be fair.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of  
> moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected) many  
> times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be independent  
>  from the state.

  The media fee is used to fund *one* broadcast company (YLE), not all of
them. Even if that one company would be run 100% by the government, it's not
like there wouldn't be plenty of independent alternatives.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:31:41 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

>> Well, arguing about the TV license fee in the UK is something of a
>> national pastime.  (As you probably know, the funding it also goes to
>> pay for BBC radio, which doesn't charge a license fee, and for the BBC
>> website - outside the UK, we see ads unless using ad blocking software)
> 
> Used to be a Radio License then a Radio and Television Licence; in
> reality it's a license to receive broadcasts and the radio bit's been
> dropped.
> 
> That's kind of like what Orphi was saying about if you have a tuner in
> your toaster, it's up to you to prove that you're not receiving
> broadcasts if you have the ability to do so. Of course this obviously
> applied to computers with tuners in them; and now you don't even need
> that to watch them online as the license applies to watching television
> that has been broadcast even if you're not watching it via a broadcast
> medium.
> 
> In theory simply owning a computer connected to the internet could mean
> you require a license; in practice it can be a hassle to prove.

Yep - and it is difficult to prove that it's being used that way, unless 
of course you start tracking IP address assignments, which starts to get 
into privacy issues.

>> Comparatively speaking, though, the amount you pay for your TV license
>> is far less than Cable TV costs in the US - so for me, my reaction is
>> kinda like most UK residents' reactions to US people complaining about
>> the price of petrol.
>>
>> You pay 142.50 GBP per year (about $210 at current exchange rates).
>>
>> For Comcast basic+digital cable, that covers only about 2.5 months
>> worth of service (our cable bill is about $100/month, without any
>> premium channels.
> 
> Ah but you have a choice of cable companies, we don't. Competition
> should keep the prices down...lol

And yet it doesn't.  Greed keeps prices up, and causes them to increase.

>> What's more, most of what we watch originates in the UK on the BBC. 
>> We'd happily pay $214/year for what we watch, rather than damn near
>> *$1,200* a year.
> 
> And you get the joy of watching adverts too.

Yep.  Well, unless we record and skip them, which is what we do.

>> Just like you'd rather pay 0.49 GPB/litre (the cost our gas station
>> down the block is charging for 87 octane right now) instead of 1.14
>> GBP/l (the reported average in the UK right now).
> 
> I drive past a station on the way to work and watched it go from 110.9p
> to 114.9p over a couple of weeks.

Yeah, I pulled the pricing for the UK from a UK site that tracks petrol 
prices.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 12-3-2010 15:42, Warp wrote:
> andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>   And yes, every household pays a fixed sum. That means that if you live
>>> alone you will be, effectively paying double than your neighbor who is
>>> living with his/her spouse (at least if both of them have a job).
>>>
>>>   Also if we proportionate the fixed sum to your yearly income, it means
>>> that the poorer you are, the more you have to pay relative to your income.
>>> For some people this can be a rather large sum of money.
> 
>> Tax also solves that.
> 
>   Polls suggest that the majority of people would want either the current
> system to remain, or for the "media tax" to be taken directly from tax funds
> instead of this proposed fixed-fee-per-household. Taking the money from the
> tax funds would, indeed, solve the problem of the fee being unfair to poor
> people and those living alone because it would be directly proportional to
> people's income.
> 
>   The government, so far, is not hearing the people on this. (Tells
> something about democracy, doesn't it?)
> 
>> Which leaves the me wondering if the Finnish politicians are not 
>> thinking the problem through or if there are other reasons for them to 
>> support the obviously wrong solution?
> 
>   There has been some argument that taking the money from tax funds would
> increase governmental control over the public media, or something like that.

Here and in other countries it didn't happen, so why would Finland be 
different? Judges are paid by tax money also, are they also under 
government control?

> Most people (including myself) don't quite understand what this means, as
> the TV channels currently funded by the current payment system is already
> run by the government. I suppose there's some complex politics behind all
> this mess.

My first suggestion would be that there is some *simple* politics behind 
it. Some group is paying people to argue against it. Likely suspects: 
the boss(es) of the current TV company (interest: freedom to give 
yourself a 'market conform' salary), those of the commercial competitors 
(interest: keep the station in constant debate), foreign IP holders 
(keep the playing field simple), political parties (either afraid of 
what a good journalist may uncover or just believing in their own 
rhetoric), etc.).

>   IMO it's not so important who runs those TV channels (because it's not
> like there weren't privately-owned alternatives; there are quite many of
> them). It's more important for this "media tax" to be fair.

Content can be important. The major functions of an independent state 
funded channels are:
- broadcast statewise important content because you don't want somebody 
to make money from the e.g. the funeral of a king/queen/president. You 
also may want to make sure these things will always be broadcasted for 
free. Other important things in this category may even include important 
sport events. (our most important sport event (the 11 cities skating 
tour) takes place irregularly with less than a week time for 
preparation. If you give that to one or every commercial station you can 
not make sure the whole 200km tour is covered. Nor do you want that on a 
pay channel.)
- make programs for/about minorities
- programs that very few people watch but are considered important 
nevertheless, like plays/opera.
- programs that are to costly for a commercial company (best known 
example: Attenborough)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 15:44:33 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> In Sweden we have a system very similar to that in Finland. The idea of
>> moving to a tax-based system has been discussed (and so far rejected)  
>> many
>> times. It is an ideological issue; the media is supposed to be  
>> independent
>>  from the state.
>
>   The media fee is used to fund *one* broadcast company (YLE), not all of
> them. Even if that one company would be run 100% by the government, it's  
> not like there wouldn't be plenty of independent alternatives.

We prefer to have at least one alternative that is also independent from  
commercial interests.



-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/10 11:00, Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> BTW, once upon a time cable TV was supposed to be free of ads because you were
>> directly paying for the shows.  Somehow, that plan didn't work out...
> 
>   So you pay for cable... and have to watch commercials regarldess?

	Sure. I thought that was normal. They do have premium channels that
cost more that don't show commercials.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/11/10 10:14, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> But of course with things like the "magic skippy button" (ie, DVR and the 
>> ability to skip commercials)
> 
>   The only way the recorder can do that automatically is if the TV channel
> sends metadata telling when the commercial break begins and ends. Unless
> they are forced by law to do that (which might be the case in some countries),
> the only thing they have to do is to not send that metadata.

http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Commflagging

	I don't think it works well, though.

-- 
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.

Post a reply to this message