Home cinema - TV license for mobile phones

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfur Million
writes
"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...

So its OK to take the view "that's the way money works" when it comes
to
advertising supporting the media, but not OK to take the view "that's
the way money works" when it comes to taxation. You seem to have a
number of standards, exceeding one, to suit any particular
circumstance.

Ho hum. On the contrary, I am being entirely consistent. When I buy a
packet
of breakfast cereal I am happy with that purchase.

But I am not happy that the cost of my cereal funds C4, which I rarely,
if ever, watch and even less happy that it funds Sky channels which I
not only don't watch but don't even have the equipment to watch!

No need to be unhappy, because what you pay doesn't fund C4 or Sky, it goes
to wherever you shop. What they spend it on is up to them, of course. True,
C4 gets tax revenue (I don't think there's VAT on cereal, I may be wrong) of
proportions that are minuscule compared to what the BBC gets.

Funding
by advertising is like imposing the license fee whether you own a TV or
not. There is no choice in the matter for the consumer at all,

It is not like imposing a licence fee at all. It does not make you a
criminal if you watch TV without buying a set limit of advertisers'
products. The consumer has plenty of choice.

neglecting entirely the US experience that without a well funded
benchmark everything on TV degrades to product promotion rather than
independent viewpoint.

I've been visiting the US regularly for about 20 years. At first their TV
was awful compared to British TV, now I would say it's about the same
(comparing basic package vs basic package) if not better in the US. I think
that US TV has come up somewhat, and British TV has dumbed down enormously.

When I watch C4 I pay the
BBC £125 and I am not happy with that "purchase".

You are paying for the use of the equipment, not the BBC.

Suppose someone feels this way about the BBC? Why should they have to
forego
watching television in order to make such a boycott?

Why should I have to forego buying products on the British market
simply
because I do not watch ITV?

Clearly you don't.

Clearly I do - I suggest you look at how much of your purchases include
a TV advertising component at some point in their production chain,
whether by the manufactures or vendor. For food alone, you can
eliminate shopping at all supermarkets - these days that doesn't leave
much else.

Why would this be an issue for me? Perhaps as a check that I am purchasing
from the most efficiently run companies, perhaps - or would I have some
other motive?

Nice use of snipping BTW. Now perhaps you can answer the
question about why someone with a moral or political reason to boycott
the
BBC should also forego watching TV?

They clearly don't!

They do if they want to keep within the law.

That same swords cuts in many different
ways and just because you don't like the license fee doesn't make it
any
less justified.

And just because you like the BBC's programmes doesn't make it any more
justified, but it is becoming apparent that this is the basis for your
argument.

No it isn't, but it directly counters your argument that you don't like
BBC programming. You seem to think that it is OK for everyone, not just
people using TV, to pay a levy on almost all of their purchases to fund
ITV, Sky's network, UKTV's network, C4, C5 etc. yet still object to a
tax specifically on operating the receiving equipment. The burden of
the TV license is far more focussed on those individuals using TV
receivers, whatever they watch, than the burden of advertising costs
could ever be.

The TV licence is hardly focussed at all! Why on earth should a single
person pay the same as a household of 2 adults and 3 children who would
watch more hours and more varied TV (on average)? Why should adults who
happen to live with someone over 75 get the "right to operate a TV" for free
when others don't? However, this is moving into the application of the fee,
rather than the principle itself.

My argument is that the Licence fee should not have to be paid by people
who do not use the BBC.

But you are quite happy for the money spent on commercial channels to be
raised from people who don't watch them, whether they have the
facilities to watch or not.

If they are happy with the individual purchases that eventually lead to the
commercial channels, then yes, I'm happy with it.

For *me*, the BBC is far too expensive for what it
provides and I do not wish to pay for it. If *you* like its products and
are
willing to share its costs (with the others who like it) then long may
the
BBC prosper and provide a service that its customers enjoy. I am not
promoting abolition of the BBC.

And thus your argument is self defeating. You argue that the BBC should
be permitted to continue operation but the license fee abolished because
it is a cost imposed even on those who do not watch the BBC. Yet you
accept that without the license fee the BBC would have to embrace
advertising and thus you would continue to pay for it through other
means.

When did I accept that the BBC would have to embrace advertising? I would
prefer that it lived or died on a subscription (including pay-per-view)
model. Having said that, it would be a bit presumptious of me to say how an
organisation should operate when I almost certainly wouldn't use its
products. In a nutshell, if the BBC were that popular and cost efficient it
would survive on a subscription basis - if not, then why the hell are we
subsidising it?

Personally I prefer to have a national broadcaster with the freedom to
remain independent without obligation to government political views or
sponsor profits - seeing the alternative across the pond reinforces that
belief regularly.

Good for you, then pay for such a broadcaster - if you think you can find
one.

In addition
to a subscription much greater than the license fee, Sky are also
funded
by advertising - shafting its users at both ends.

Yet so many people still subscribe to it, despite *also* paying for the
BBC.

So if they are happy then what is your problem? They pay once to
operate the broadcast receiving equipment, then twice to access Sky.
Your whole argument seems to revolve around an objection to a cost which
is deliberately designed to be open and visible, whilst ignoring the
costs which are hidden - even though they are much higher.

And you are consistently ignoring the fact that these alleged "costs" for
commercial TV would exist anyway (other forms of advertising cost money too,
and are presumably less cost effective). You also ignore the important
"choice" aspect - in my system nobody would buy something they did not feel
was giving them value for money.

I
don't see why I should pay for a state education system, whether in
general taxation or not, since I don't make any use of it or a state
health service when I pay my own private medical insurance,

Education and health are essential services

Not state funded they are not.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the state to see that essential
services are supplied. Whether education and health are best supplied by
private or public money is a matter for one's political conscience - but at
least the idea is that everyone benefits, if the practice is often rather
disappointing.

, do you really want to apply the
same rules to these as for light entertainment? I don't make use of the
state education system either and I too have private medical insurance -
but
I can see that a healthy and well-educated society is a benefit to
everyone.

Lots of arguments against that, not least of which is Darwin's. By most
accounts our general taxation system has created one of the least
healthy and poorest educated societies in the developed world!

And you are the one promoting taxation to pay for TV!

I do not see the benefit to me of the chap next door watching Eastenders.

Or, clearly, a non-Murdoch vetted news.

You are obsessed with Murdoch, aren't you? No doubt you believe that the
people who run BBC News don't have an agenda.

But you can argue against the way public money is spent, and try to win
the
political argument. You could also draw a distinction between the way
private individuals spend their money and the way governments spend
*your*
money - but then you would run the risk of being accused of having
mutliple
standards.

Bringing it to your attention, as another example of public money being
spent on things you don't like, want or need, is not drawing a
distinction - quite the contrary. You object to one, the license, but
are quite happy to accept others, including poor health and bad
education - that is where the multiple standards lie.
--

Sure, plenty of public money is spent on things I detest, though for my
personal politics bombing poor countries would be a better example - I don't
begrudge the money spent on health and education. At least the chap next
door to me will benefit(?) just as much as I do from the fake "war on
terror" and I accept that *in principle* it is right for the government to
decide to spend public money on military ventures for the country's
security. It's just that they often get it completely wrong. Mind you, I
think recent governments have committed war crimes, but that's another
thread.

Regards,
Arfur