TV license for mobile phones

Adrian wrote:

We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed.

*****

Peter Eckersley ... 2MT Writtle ...

Depends on what you mean by 'broadcasts', I suppose ...

André Couatnche

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

Which is collected by the BBC and the same amount spent by the BBC.
Hardly a
coincidence, is it?

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?

That would be a strange ear-marking (boom-boom) of the tax, it would make
more sense to fund that out of general taxation;

That depends on whether the agency responsible for the tagging had an
obligation to remain independent of the political leanings of the
government - and given government handling of the recent BSE and foot
and mouth incidents that would seem to be a sensible precaution.


One would hope that it wouldn't have any political leanings at all.

or if it were to be
hypothecated then perhaps a tax on meat/milk products would be more
appropriate.

But you are assuming that it *should* have some connection between the
raising and expenditure mechanisms - it doesn't have to

Actually, I did say that it could come out of general taxation - you were
the one suggesting (or asking about) a direct link between the TV Licence
fee and tagging, I merely suggested a more appropriate hypothecation.


But in answer to your question: yes, of course I would be
happier if the money were spent on a real public service instead of light
entertainment.

And I would be a lot happier if the 70% of my weekly supermarket bill
that currently goes towards advertising and the needless processes and
regulations they impose on their suppliers to deliver the claims of that
advertising was instead spent on real cost savings and life benefits for
the production workers instead of increasing the wealth and power of an
Australian megalomaniac.

Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will,
according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you are
currently wasting your money on.


Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds?

No, its a lot more expensive than that

If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be.

Regards,
Arfur

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , Roderick
Stewart writes
In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
As pointed out previously and by others, the license has nothing
whatsoever to do with the BBC - it is a tax on the operation of a TV
receiver.

The licence fee is used to fund the BBC. I don't understand how that can
be said to have "nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC".

The is a significant gulf between imposition or collection of a tax and
its expenditure. Does the job you do, as opposed to how much you earn,
dictate what you spend your income on?

The BBC seems to think that there is a direct correlation between who
collects it and who spends it. You might like to take a look at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/.

snip

Regards,
Arfur

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

And I would be a lot happier if the 70% of my weekly supermarket bill
that currently goes towards advertising and the needless processes and
regulations they impose on their suppliers to deliver the claims of that
advertising was instead spent on real cost savings and life benefits for
the production workers instead of increasing the wealth and power of an
Australian megalomaniac.

Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will,
according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you are
currently wasting your money on.

As you are no doubt fully aware, that is not an option that is available
to anyone in this country, since virtually all products have a
significant advertising levy applied to them at some point in the
delivery chain, whether to advertise that particular item or to fund the
advertising of another product by the same company.

Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds?

No, its a lot more expensive than that

If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be.

Where is your evidence that the BBC is particularly expensive for the
service it provides?

To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a
subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license
*and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that
feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts. If you want
to talk about an expensive service which actually charges you at least
twice over for the privilege of burning their logo into your screen, Sky
is a far more appropriate target!
--
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)

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

And I would be a lot happier if the 70% of my weekly supermarket bill
that currently goes towards advertising and the needless processes and
regulations they impose on their suppliers to deliver the claims of
that
advertising was instead spent on real cost savings and life benefits
for
the production workers instead of increasing the wealth and power of an
Australian megalomaniac.

Fine, so spend your money on those non-TV advertised products which will,
according to your claims, be only 30% of the cost of those products you
are
currently wasting your money on.

As you are no doubt fully aware, that is not an option that is available
to anyone in this country, since virtually all products have a
significant advertising levy applied to them at some point in the
delivery chain, whether to advertise that particular item or to fund the
advertising of another product by the same company.

Hmmm, really. There would be a big commercial advantage for products that
didn't have this "levy" applied, wouldn't there? Surprising some
entrepreneurial types don't spot the potential market ;-)

As for this idea of a "levy", there is nothing to stop people or companies
spending their income on what they want. If I buy something at Tesco's, that
money will be spent on all sorts of things that I don't like and no doubt a
few that I disapprove of quite strongly. That's because the money will be
spent by Tesco's on some such things. and because they will pay their
employees money. Some of their employees no doubt belong to all sorts of
political organisations that I despise; or go to evening Media Studies
classes so they can work for the BBC; some money will go to advertising
(both for Tesco and indirectly for the company's products I've bought) -
there's not really much I can do about it. But, so what? That's just the way
money works - the important thing is that if I wasn't happy with the
purchase I wouldn't have made it.

Certainly if companies directly fund activities that our conscience would
not allow us to support, then we would want to withdraw our custom from that
company. I can see that if companies that advertise on TV fall within this
bracket from your point-of-view then it would be difficult to achieve this,
but I don't think that's the point you're making (?).

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


Does tagging cows really cost £2.8 billion pounds?

No, its a lot more expensive than that

If the BBC were to do it, it doubtless would be.

Where is your evidence that the BBC is particularly expensive for the
service it provides?

From the BBC's annual review. Their expenditure in 2004 financial year was a
tad over £4 billion. In contrast, C4's was £770 million (taking Adrian's
figures posted elsewhere in this thread). I would certainly swap the BBC for
5 C4's!


To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a
subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license
*and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that
feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts.

*And* the TV licence!

If you want
to talk about an expensive service which actually charges you at least
twice over for the privilege of burning their logo into your screen, Sky
is a far more appropriate target!
--

I can't say I've been particularly attracted to the Sky package either, but
for the life of me I can't see why people who want Sky's channels (and not
the BBC ones) should have to contribute to the BBC - whether it's out of
general taxation or not.

Regards,
Arfur

In article , Adrian
wrote:
We didn't have broadcast receiving licences before the BBC existed.

We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed.

True, but you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make.

A new licence fee was introduced when the BBC started.

No new licence fee was introduced when ITV started.

No new licence fee was introduced when Channel 4 started.

No new licence fee was introduced when channel 5 started, or satellite
broadcasting, or cable broadcasting, or when home recording machines
became available (though the record industry would have liked this).

In fact, no new licence fee has been introduced, and as far as I know,
no alteration has been made to the existing one, in response to the
introduction of anything to do with broadcasting - with the exception of
the BBC.

This is why I didn't understand the assertion in an earlier post that
the licence had "nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC", when it was
instituted for the sole purpose of funding it.

Rod.

ad wrote:
In article ,
says...


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

seems to me quite logical -


Of cause it is, to the BBC and this poxy government. It is just another
stupid thing thought up by a load of over paid dingos in whitehall.

The DCMS (which looks after media affairs on a governmental level) is based
on Cockspur Street, not Whitehall.

In article , Arfur Million
writes

But, so what? That's just the way
money works - the important thing is that if I wasn't happy with the
purchase I wouldn't have made it.

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.

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? 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.

From the BBC's annual review. Their expenditure in 2004 financial year was a
tad over £4 billion. In contrast, C4's was £770 million (taking Adrian's
figures posted elsewhere in this thread). I would certainly swap the BBC for
5 C4's!

You might, I wouldn't. I rarely watch much C4 output, perhaps an hour
or so per week - in fact I can't think of a single C4 programme I would
go out of my way to watch or even watched in the past week. C4 (& C5
for that matter) are still very minority channels whose own management
openly admit they can barely support their operating costs and are
incapable of expanding into the new medium of digital broadcasting
without license fee support. So they are hardly comparable with the
organisation that has been obliged to step and rescue DVBT - all out of
the funding it receives from money raised by the license fee! Without
the BBC (and the license fee!) there would be no DVBT today at all,
following the OnDodgy fiasco.

To obtain countless channels of sh!t on Sky I would not only pay a
subscription fee which is vastly more expensive than the TV license
*and* the advertising levy on all of the products and companies that
feature at regular intervals throughout their broadcasts.

*And* the TV licence!

No, the comparison was expense of the BBC versus Sky. Your argument has
been that the BBC should pack up and the license fee be abolished
because the BBC is far too expensive for what it provides - abolishing
the license fee would not make Sky's subscription any less. In addition
to a subscription much greater than the license fee, Sky are also funded
by advertising - shafting its users at both ends.


I can't say I've been particularly attracted to the Sky package either, but
for the life of me I can't see why people who want Sky's channels (and not
the BBC ones) should have to contribute to the BBC - whether it's out of
general taxation or not.

Because it isn't a BBC fund - it is a tax on operating a TV receiver. 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, but I don't
have a choice in either of them, if I earn an income in this country
then I have to pay for things I don't want or use - didn't someone just
say "that's the way money works"!
--
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)

"André Coutanche" wrote in message
...
Adrian wrote:

We didn't have *broadcasts* before the BBC existed.

*****

Peter Eckersley ... 2MT Writtle ...

Depends on what you mean by 'broadcasts', I suppose ...



How about the average, everyday meaning that people think about when talking
about radio/TV stations in the UK?

In article ,
says...

On mobile 'phones or generally?

It is an unfair tax in general.


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

But they do not do a fine job, this is one of the problems.


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.

Most of T.V is a load of rubbish anyway, to be honest, sometimes I think
why the hell do I bother with T.V at all.


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.


Is it? after all, it was not just the BBc that wanted to take over when
ITV digital went under, so someone would have saved it.

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


I am against the T.v licence, I admit that, but I am not the only one
and the amount of people that thinks it is about time the license
vanished, is increasing.


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!

Well that is just one of those things, but in general it save lives.l
Mind you seeing some of the idiots that are behind the wheel, I think
they should take lessons again.



How do you expect me to get the law changed?


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


None of the main parties want the T.V licence disbanded and even if they
do it is not really high on their list, starting my own party would cost
money, that I have not got and how many people do you think would vote
for someone against the T.V licence? There are far more important things
to vote for, one item parties do not work, which is why the UKIP do not
get very far most of the time.