TV license for mobile phones

ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I agree, the T.V license should be for the BBC crap only and that is
it, you should not have to pay it if you do not watch the BBC.

And they police that.... how?

In this day and age it is simple to do. you can have an encoder for
digital and analouge, if you pay they will allow you to watch BBC
channels, if you do not, then it is switched off.

*Roughly* how long do you think it would take for it to be cracked? And
who's going to pay for it?

Do you think ITV, C4 and C5 cost you nothing?

I've got some news for you. They cost you a LOT more every year than the
BBC.

Let's assume that 100% of households in the UK have a colour TV licence.
That's 21.66m households in the 2001 census.
£121 per household = total maximum possible licence revenue of £2.6bn.
Nice little sum, isn't it?

No. It's actually fairly insignificant.

55% of UK households have digital TV. The average annual spend is around
£250 per household in subscriptions. Twice the TV licence.
Total revenue? £3bn.

ITV PLC (Granada and Carlton alone) have turnover of around £2bn per
year. Then there's all the other franchises.

Channel 4 has turnover of £770 million per year, of which £690m is ad
revenue.

C5 has turnover of "airtime sales" of £250m - for a channel that gets
6.5% of viewers.

Channel Five's advertising alone costs the 80% of the population with
access £15 per year per household.

BSkyB turn over £3.7bn per year - of which £13million went to one
director, Tony Ball as a bonus payment. In one year. On top of his £700k
salary. And £125k into his pension. Nice.

Then there's NTL and Telewest. I can't be arsed to look them up, but
somebody's got to pay for all that interest on their huge debts.

Then there's the cost of actually making the ads. Have you ever been on
the set of a TV ad? I have. There was a short series of adverts for a
certain well-known beer brand a couple of years ago.. One of my cars was
used for a couple of *VERY* quick scenes. Blink and miss it. I was paid a
grand for that. They used a number of other vehicles, which didn't even
make it into the final ads - but the owners still got paid. The filming
went on for eight days, dawn to dusk, with a crew of around 50 or 60
people on set. Plus, of course, all the work either end of the actual
filming. What do you think that must have cost? An absolute *fortune* by
the time the actual brewery got invoiced for the concept, production, air
time. For approximately 90 seconds of aired material, repeated over the
course of about a month.

Now - where do you think all that advertising money comes from? Have you
ever noticed cornflakes being differentially priced when you go into
Tesco? One price for those that watch commercial TV, and a lower price
for those who don't? No, nor me.

The BBC is actually bloody good value, and they ought to be congratulated
for managing to provide so much high quality output for such a low price.
Even better, it's a *visible* price, unlike the price of commercial TV.

Peter Goodland ) gurgled happily,
sounding much like they were saying :

There was a story in one of the papers last week which stated that
only 1 in 5 people actually watch BBC.

Daily "We Hate The BBC" Telegraph?

The Sun? (prop. R. Murdoch)
The Times? (prop. R. Murdoch)

Gosh, and I thought *I* was cynical... Do you think there's a conflict of
interest there?

Remind me which paper started the "Jerry Springer" silliness off? Was it
the Sun?

Now - which TV channel *sponsors* the theatre show of Jerry Springer the
Opera? Could it be Sky? Owned by...?

In article , ad
writes
In article ,
says...

What's changed? Nothing.

You have to have - and have always had to have - a licence for any
equipment capable of receiving a TV signal. Not one thing has changed -
apart from the technology.

But it is not a T.V signal as such, this service is over a phone
network. The sooner this government comes to is senses and get rid of
this T.V tax the better.

It is as much a TV signal as DTV or Sky - and you still need a license
for those. The means of delivery is irrelevant - it is a broadcast
signal that the phone network is redistributing. How they do that is
irrelevant - just as a communal aerial on a block of flats still
requires the residents to obtain a separate TV license for each
dwelling.

Grow up - the imposition of the TV license is no different from a car
tax or many other taxes. The unique issue of the TV license is its
hypothecation, not its collection or imposition. Even if the BBC folded
tomorrow, you would still be taxed to operate a TV and the money would
be spent elsewhere, probably promoting Two Jags to Four.

The real issue isn't why the BBC are funded by a hypothecated tax, but
why other organisations, which ought to have an obligation to be
independent of government interference and political pressure, are not.
When the police arrest Tony B Liar's son for being drunk and disorderly
I want to see him prosecuted under the full remit of the law, not just
given a lift home in the back of a squad car because daddy can influence
the Chief Constable's budget next year and he wouldn't want to upset
him! Similarly, when the government impose and unjust tax or invite
human rights abusers and/or war mongering Heads of State here for
visits, the police should not be put under pressure to break up or block
peaceful protests - or incite them to become violent so that they then
justify intervention.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

A TV which is powered by its own internal batteries DOES NOT need a license.
I guess most mobile phones would fall into that category.

"ad" wrote in message
k...

This country gets worse, have you ever5 heard anything so flaming
stupid. I am so glad my mobile is just a standard phone, that I make and
recieve calls on and nothing else.


http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?...ass=193&id=578

I just cant see it - are they going to have the TVLA turning up at
peoples houses and demanding to see their mobile phone?

Right now if you buy a TV/STB/VCR or ay other equipemtn capable of
receiving TV broadcasts you have to supply your postcode yes?

Does this mean we will have to start supplying our postcode when we buy
a mobile phone too??

Why don't the government just come and install cameras into everybody's
houses and dictate when they can sit down and stand up??

Sorry but I'm getting tired quickly the way we as a country are being
treated.

We complain about on screen logos on channels and we get told "it's so
you don't forget what channel you are watching"
We get told smoking is bad for you - then they go a step further and
start banning it in public places in the hope it will FORCE people to
stop.
We get told too much salt is bad for you and then all of a sudden
everything contains "less salt" - thank you very much but I would like
to make my own decision about things - not have them forced onto me!!
I could of sworn that we didnt used to live in a dictatorship!

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 1.4...
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

I agree, the T.V license should be for the BBC crap only and that is
it, you should not have to pay it if you do not watch the BBC.

And they police that.... how?

In this day and age it is simple to do. you can have an encoder for
digital and analouge, if you pay they will allow you to watch BBC
channels, if you do not, then it is switched off.

*Roughly* how long do you think it would take for it to be cracked? And
who's going to pay for it?

Do you think ITV, C4 and C5 cost you nothing?

I've got some news for you. They cost you a LOT more every year than the
BBC.

Let's assume that 100% of households in the UK have a colour TV licence.
That's 21.66m households in the 2001 census.
£121 per household = total maximum possible licence revenue of £2.6bn.
Nice little sum, isn't it?


An absolutely staggering amount, most of which goes on utter dross.

No. It's actually fairly insignificant.

55% of UK households have digital TV. The average annual spend is around
£250 per household in subscriptions. Twice the TV licence.
Total revenue? £3bn.

ITV PLC (Granada and Carlton alone) have turnover of around £2bn per
year. Then there's all the other franchises.

Channel 4 has turnover of £770 million per year, of which £690m is ad
revenue.

C5 has turnover of "airtime sales" of £250m - for a channel that gets
6.5% of viewers.

Good for them. No company is forced to advertise on C5, no company's
customers are forced to by products they do not think are good value. Let's
hope that C4 continues to reduce the public subsidy.


Channel Five's advertising alone costs the 80% of the population with
access £15 per year per household.

Spent on products that they want to buy at a price they are willing to
spend. This cannot be said of those who have to support the BBC when they
use alternative television products.


BSkyB turn over £3.7bn per year - of which £13million went to one
director, Tony Ball as a bonus payment. In one year. On top of his £700k
salary. And £125k into his pension. Nice.

Then there's NTL and Telewest. I can't be arsed to look them up, but
somebody's got to pay for all that interest on their huge debts.

Then there's the cost of actually making the ads. Have you ever been on
the set of a TV ad?

Yes.

I have. There was a short series of adverts for a
certain well-known beer brand a couple of years ago.. One of my cars was
used for a couple of *VERY* quick scenes. Blink and miss it. I was paid a
grand for that. They used a number of other vehicles, which didn't even
make it into the final ads - but the owners still got paid. The filming
went on for eight days, dawn to dusk, with a crew of around 50 or 60
people on set. Plus, of course, all the work either end of the actual
filming. What do you think that must have cost? An absolute *fortune* by
the time the actual brewery got invoiced for the concept, production, air
time. For approximately 90 seconds of aired material, repeated over the
course of about a month.

Now - where do you think all that advertising money comes from?

Companies that believe a certain amount of TV advertising is the most
cost-efficient way of marketing their products. Do you think that if this
avenue of advertising wasn't open to them that the money "saved" would be
taken off the price of their products? Would you prefer another couple of
hundredweight of junk mail on your doorstep every month; or horizon to
horizon billboards?

If companies have made the right decision about using TV advertising then
they have made the most efficient use of their marketing budget. If TV
advertising just increases the cost of goods, then customers will surely buy
(for less) alternative products that have been produced by companies that do
not advertise on TV.

Have you
ever noticed cornflakes being differentially priced when you go into
Tesco? One price for those that watch commercial TV, and a lower price
for those who don't? No, nor me.

Nor me, why would anyone expect that? Nor have I seen people who buy muesli
forced to subsidise those who buy cornflakes. Shame TV doesn't have a
similar pricing model.


The BBC is actually bloody good value, and they ought to be congratulated
for managing to provide so much high quality output for such a low price.

That's a matter of opinion. I just wish those who share it would also be
willing to share the cost of the BBC. IMO, I think that £125 a year (twelve
month-ends to be more precise) is an extortionate proce to pay for the BBC's
products. But if I watch C4, I have no choice in the matter.

Even better, it's a *visible* price, unlike the price of commercial TV.

Regards,
Arfur

In article ,
says...


That's rather a different point isn't it? Personally, I'm in favour of the
licence but if you're not it doesn't matter how fairly it's implemented.

How on earth can you be in favour of a unfair tax?


This is the same argument people use to hate speed cameras. I think speed
limits should be raised - especially on motorways - but it's never a bad
idea to enforce the law. If you don't like the law get it changed.


Speed limits saves lives, that is what they are there for.
How do you expect me to get the law changed?

In article ,
says...

It is as much a TV signal as DTV or Sky - and you still need a license
for those. The means of delivery is irrelevant - it is a broadcast
signal that the phone network is redistributing. How they do that is
irrelevant - just as a communal aerial on a block of flats still
requires the residents to obtain a separate TV license for each
dwelling.

It is a lot different, for a start, how many full programmes are going
to be transmitted on mobile phones?
Most things are just clips.



Grow up - the imposition of the TV license is no different from a car
tax or many other taxes. The unique issue of the TV license is its
hypothecation, not its collection or imposition. Even if the BBC folded
tomorrow, you would still be taxed to operate a TV and the money would
be spent elsewhere, probably promoting Two Jags to Four.

Car tax is suppose to go and pay for the raods, the point that not all
the money do is not relavant.
The T.V licence goes to pay for the BBC, not every one wants to watch
the BBc and in this day and age, we should have a choice.



The real issue isn't why the BBC are funded by a hypothecated tax, but
why other organisations, which ought to have an obligation to be
independent of government interference and political pressure, are not.
When the police arrest Tony B Liar's son for being drunk and disorderly
I want to see him prosecuted under the full remit of the law, not just
given a lift home in the back of a squad car because daddy can influence
the Chief Constable's budget next year and he wouldn't want to upset
him! Similarly, when the government impose and unjust tax or invite
human rights abusers and/or war mongering Heads of State here for
visits, the police should not be put under pressure to break up or block
peaceful protests - or incite them to become violent so that they then
justify intervention.


What the hell have this got to do with the T.v licence?

In article ,
[email protected] says...


It is just silly, you got a small screen and yet you are expected tpo
pay for a license to use it.

So people with a 14" TV should pay less than someone with a 42" TV? Do
you ever think through your messages before you hit send?


Oh come on, you can still see almost everything on a 14inch screen, you
need a magnifying glass to see some of the screens on these mobiles.
I must admit, that when I had my 14 inch T.v, I did not pay a licence
fee.

In article ,=20
says...
=20
In this day and age it is simple to do. you can have an encoder for=20
digital and analouge, if you pay they will allow you to watch BBC=20
channels, if you do not, then it is switched off.
=20
*Roughly* how long do you think it would take for it to be cracked? And=
=20
who's going to pay for it?

Sky have not been cracked, so use the same system Sky uses,
The people who want BBC will pay for it, after all, it will only affect=20
them/

=20
Do you think ITV, C4 and C5 cost you nothing?

=20
I've got some news for you. They cost you a LOT more every year than the=
=20
BBC.



=20
Let's assume that 100% of households in the UK have a colour TV licence.
That's 21.66m households in the 2001 census.
=A3121 per household =3D total maximum possible licence revenue of =A32.6=
bn.=20
Nice little sum, isn't it?
=20
No. It's actually fairly insignificant.

Not for people who have to pay =A3121 for something they may not want.

Now - where do you think all that advertising money comes from? Have you=
=20
ever noticed cornflakes being differentially priced when you go into=20
Tesco? One price for those that watch commercial TV, and a lower price=20
for those who don't? No, nor me.
=20

How many times do we go though this, yes we do pay for advertising, but=20
T.V is not the only advertising medium, so9 even if there was no adverts=20
on T.v the prices would not come down for these products.
In fact you look at a lot of the products on the market and look how=20
many of them are advertised on T.V, not a lot.
Most adverts these days are to do with finance.
Gone are the days when there was loads of adverts for Fairy liuied and=20
Daz powder.



The BBC is actually bloody good value, and they ought to be congratulated=
=20
for managing to provide so much high quality output for such a low price.=
=20

But this is the problem, Where is the quality?
It is very few and far between. The BBC is getting worse all the time.


Even better, it's a *visible* price, unlike the price of commercial TV.

I tell you what, you pay your =A3121 for your BBC, I will jsut watch non-
BBc channels and not pay it.

Oh I forgot, I can not do that, because we are made to pay for the BBC,=20
even if we do not watch it.