TV license for mobile phones

In article , [email protected]
reversed.com says...

That do not surprise me, since I have had Sky, I have not really
watched BBC, apart from Little Britain, I did not watch BBC much,
before I had Sky.

Fair enough, but have you stopped to consider what this will do to your
brain? It seems to be fairly marginal already.

Is that all you can do is throw insults?

You tell me, why I should pay twice for my T.v, just because I want a
bit more choice?

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

Car tax is suppose to go and pay for the raods

No, it isn't.

Car Tax doesn't exist, and hasn't for 20 years. It was a (10%?) duty on the
list price of a new car. You mean what used to be Road Fund Licence - which
has been called Vehicle Excise Duty for years, and goes into government
central funds, as does fuel duty.

Roads are paid for out of government central funds. There is no
relationship between VED or fuel duty and road funding. None whatsoever.

"ad" wrote in message
k...
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?


On mobile 'phones or generally?

Personally, I think it's a small price to pay for a public service
broadcaster that does a fine job. I firmly believe that most of what is
watchable on Sky (which I pay far more for BTW) and on ITV is only there
because they've got to keep their standards up to compete with the BBC.
I've lived in the USA and I know what happens without state support. It
doesn't pull it's punches because it's afraid of advertisers abandoning it,
and it seems pretty free from government control. Then we've got the
digital debacle, and the BBC becoming the saviour of terrestrial digital
broadcasting.

You see my point then - I don't think it's unfair and you're just against TV
licences? :-)


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.

That is far from certain. I don't think it's reasonable to accept the
government line about speed "being a factor" in so many accidents. I
remember one incident when the poor guy at the wheel had a heart attack!

How do you expect me to get the law changed?


Vote for people or parties that favour your policies (Or start your own).

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

No. It's actually fairly insignificant.

Not for people who have to pay £121 for something they may not want.

What about those people who don't have a TV at all? They have no way to
avoid paying the several hundred pounds per year that an average household
will spend on TV advertising.

The total TV advertising airtime spend last year would have been in the
region of 150% the £2.6bn maximum possible domestic TV licence revenue.
Then there's the cost of ads on commercial radio - fairly negligable, but
then the TV licence funds BBC radio, too.

Let's be very conservative and assume the production costs of the ads are
only 50% of the airtime costs.

So that's £300 per household goes on TV advertising.

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.

How many times do we go though this, yes we do pay for advertising,
but T.V is not the only advertising medium, so9 even if there was no
adverts on T.v the prices would not come down for these products.

TV is by *far* the most expensive advertising medium, and there is a
reasonable chunk of all household expenditure goes on the products. You
can't easily avoid it by only buying non-TV-advertised brands, as most
normal household products come from the same few corporates.

Most adverts these days are to do with finance.

Try watching a non-brain-rot commercial channel. Most ads are for *real*
products. It's only pikey TV that advertises cheap loans for muppets with
no credit rating.

No comment on every household in the country paying Tony Ball of Sky 50p
last year? I'd be very happy with only 5p from every household.

In article .com,
says...
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!



Well done that man, I agre with you 100% and it will not be long before
there is a way to keep an eye on people it will be called an I.D card.

Yep, this country is getting worse all the time.

In article ,
says...



Car tax is suppose to go and pay for the raods

No, it isn't.

Car Tax doesn't exist, and hasn't for 20 years. It was a (10%?) duty on the
list price of a new car. You mean what used to be Road Fund Licence - which
has been called Vehicle Excise Duty for years, and goes into government
central funds, as does fuel duty.

What ever it is called, I do not drive, so I do not take much notice.


Roads are paid for out of government central funds. There is no
relationship between VED or fuel duty and road funding. None whatsoever.


Whatever, to be honest I do not care, but I do care about paying for a
T.V licence that I should not have to pay for.

In article , ad
writes
In article , [email protected]
reversed.com says...

That do not surprise me, since I have had Sky, I have not really
watched BBC, apart from Little Britain, I did not watch BBC much,
before I had Sky.

Fair enough, but have you stopped to consider what this will do to your
brain? It seems to be fairly marginal already.

Is that all you can do is throw insults?

You tell me, why I should pay twice for my T.v, just because I want a
bit more choice?

The fact that you are too stupid to realise that the purchase cost of an
item is not the total operational cost is your problem. You only pay
once for your TV if you only use it to receive non-broadcast material -
just as you only pay the purchase cost of the vehicle if you only drive
it on private roads. As soon as you connect to signals broadcast over
the geographic limits of the United Kingdom then you must also pay for
that facility, exactly the same as you pay for the right to drive on
public roads in the country as well.
--
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)

In article , ad
writes

I tell you what, you pay your £121 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,
even if we do not watch it.

No, you are forced to pay a tax for the operation of your TV receiver.
How the money raised through that tax is spent is totally irrelevant to
your argument.

If it was spent on tagging cows would you have any less objection to the
license fee?
--
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)

In article , JB
writes

"ad" wrote in message
. uk...

Speed limits saves lives, that is what they are there for.

That is far from certain. I don't think it's reasonable to accept the
government line about speed "being a factor" in so many accidents. I
remember one incident when the poor guy at the wheel had a heart attack!

And right on cue my local freebie paper arrived on my doorstep tonight
with a leading article about someone from the town who had been killed
on the M25 *because* an Essex Police car had flagged down another
motorist using unauthorised means, which that inexperienced motorist had
misunderstood, panicked and slowed immediately - in the fast lane! The
following vehicle, well inside the speed limit, dodged to avoid the
slowing vehicle and subsequently crashed into the central barrier
killing driver and seriously injuring 3 passengers. Essex Police are
conducting an internal investigation into their traffic police training
procedures.

Speed doesn't kill - its differential speed that is the problem. As one
Chief Constable remarked prior to retiring over 10 years ago: there is
no reason at all why motorway speed limits should not exceed 100mph -
everyone is travelling in the same direction and there are 3 lanes in
which to safely distribute the differential speed.

The Germans have done it for more than half a century - are the British
just too stupid to be allowed to, just as the media are suggesting we
are too stupid to be allowed civilised drinking times?

And don't forget, the national speed limit was introduced in this
country in 1973 during the fuel crisis as an economy measure - it has
nothing whatsoever to do with saving lives: if you hit a someone at
30mph, 20% will die, if you hit them at 40mph 80% will die, you hit them
at 50mph 99.9% will die - so it doesn't matter whether you are doing
70mph or 150mph, you and everyone you hit *will* die. 70mph is legal,
150mph is not but, using exactly the same arguments as for residential
limits, the national speed limit doesn't save any lives.
--
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)

In article , ad

Whatever, to be honest I do not care, but I do care about paying for a
T.V licence that I should not have to pay for.

Why do you think you have a right to operate a receiver without paying
any license for its operation? Ignore what the license funds - that is
irrelevant to your argument. Do you really think you have any more
right to operate a TV without license than a beer drinker has to avoid
paying tax and duty on the alcohol he imbibes, or a smoker tax on the
tobacco he burns? You might note that these products are still
advertised, though with restrictions, and their advertising budgets
mainly go to other TV stations.

Should the license fee be scrapped and a fixed percentage of the tax on
products advertised on other channels be used to fund the national,
government independent, public service broadcaster? I think the BBC
would be much better off if they did, but I doubt that you as a consumer
would be - though you are probably too stupid to notice the money being
lifted from your wallet.

The current system lets you see exactly how much it costs to run a
competitive TV system - you might not like it, but hiding that cost wont
make it any less, quite the contrary!
--
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)