[HN Gopher] TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
___________________________________________________________________
TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England
Author : szczys
Score : 249 points
Date : 2021-01-18 16:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (hackaday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com)
| Nux wrote:
| Unpopular opinion: I agree to and support the BBC TV license.
|
| I think most of their TV and radio programmes are as good as they
| come. The Brits are lucky to have it.
|
| "But Netflix, Prime!.." - sorry, that's 99% dopamine inducing
| mindless entertainment, Idiocracy-style. I want more than that,
| for me and my family.
|
| They can never replace quality programmes done without so much
| pressure for investment returns, engagement etc.
| mellosouls wrote:
| I agree with the Beeb being publicly funded too, though would
| prefer it being part of normal taxation rather than the license
| fee which is so controversial.
|
| But I don't think attacking American providers is a strong
| counter at all, the days when the BBC led the world in quality
| are long gone, HBO set the standard for modern drama which no
| British service has come close to matching; Netflix and Prime
| provide plenty of quality programmes too.
|
| The BBC/C4 still compete on non-fiction, comedy and radio, but
| not drama.
| Nux wrote:
| Yes, in terms of drama other parties have had more success
| and set the bar higher, but TV is (or should be) more than
| that. Maybe I am being naive.
| UK-Al05 wrote:
| Only a small percentage of the BBC is quality educational tv.
| Most of it is soaps, reality competition shows, and bad
| comedy(Mrs brown boys).
|
| Advocates vastly over estimate how much educational content
| they put out. It's very small compared to the mindless
| entertainment part.
|
| If you only paid for the education side of the BBC, you licence
| fee would probably be around 20 GBP annually.
| amelius wrote:
| Does Netflix have similar vans?
| rock_artist wrote:
| Israel had similar fee for many years. (The public television was
| deeply inspired by the bbc).
|
| But here they solved it by a much easier way.
|
| * once you got married, you were automatically assumed to have a
| TV set.
|
| * any tv that was sold were reported to the communication
| ministry.
|
| * a car owner would pay by default. Assumption was all cars would
| have and use a radio.
|
| * to show you don't have a TV set or it's not receiving any over-
| the-air broadcasts you were suppose to wait for random check ups.
| Once finally someone came, they can decide if you don't need to
| pay.
|
| But the most interesting story any Israeli know is the "mehikon"
| (Eraser in Hebrew) and its counterpart (anti-mehikon).
|
| Back in the days, the countrie's manifest at least was socialism.
| It wasn't "fair" someone would have a color tv while others
| can't. So the communication ministry required the broadcasters to
| wipe colors. So even color tv was shown as b&w. in order to "fix"
| that, The anti-mehikon was made. A device to "restore" the faulty
| tv signal and get the colors back.
| TheGuyWhoCodes wrote:
| "Solved" is a strong word.
|
| People suddenly had to pay licenses for at least 7 years with
| fines and interest that shot up the "price" by a 1000% The
| public television involved lawyers as collection agencies and
| threatened people with writ of execution.
|
| Good riddance.
| saberdancer wrote:
| Thank you for "mehikon" reference. It sounds as something out
| of a bad soviet joke.
|
| Your point about random checkups is probably how it was done in
| most countries. You could opt out, but you would have to allow
| them to enter your home for a checkup. If you refused, you
| would have to pay again.
| flower-giraffe wrote:
| I think the funding and governance (by Royal Charter) of the BBC
| have historically provided a huge benefit to society in the UK.
|
| Advertising free children's TV (and radio) may have delayed the
| onset or rampant consumerism fuelled by commercial TV elsewhere.
|
| The BBC microcomputer project is arguably the origin of ARM
| CPU's.
|
| Initially the license fee was for radios, I can't find a
| reference but I remember being told as a child that politicians
| saw the risks of radio propaganda and legislated to mandate
| broadcast media to be politically unbiased .
|
| It's interesting seeing suggestions on the recent threads about
| EU funding for a WhatsApp alternative - perhaps the license fee
| could also fund the infrastructure for something like signal.
|
| What is absolutely clear from history is commercial media outlets
| fuel political bias, and it seems to be increasingly damaging to
| society.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_...
| api wrote:
| On advertising and consumerism: we may be seeing that come back
| around. My kids have only watched Amazon Prime, Netflix, etc.
| and have barely ever seen an ad. We've banned YouTube for
| multiple reasons.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| The ads just moved directly into the shows and storylines for
| Amazon Prime and Netflix (and most everyone else).
| criddell wrote:
| Has anything really changed? There have always been kids
| programming that was primarily about selling toys. I'm
| thinking of Care Bears, GI Joe, Transforms, Voltron, etc...
|
| When shows like that move to Netflix or Amazon Prime the
| native ads remain, but the interstitials are gone.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That's true. I guess as an adult, I feel like I notice it
| more when the writing / photography blatantly and
| inorganically bring logos and certain products to the
| forefront.
|
| A family member's kids were watching a Christmas movie on
| Netflix, and while I wasn't watching it, something
| jarring hit my ears. In the middle of the movie, Santa
| names the brand and model of a car, and then starts
| listing its specs as he gets into a car chase and praises
| its features. A literal car ad built right into the
| movie.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| Pay for placement is common in the USA and in films also
| why you don't often see baddies using apple products.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| There's placement, and then there's altering the
| storyline and photography of a scene to achieve the goal
| of advertising a product.
|
| For example, there's a difference in someone drinking a
| can of Coke, versus someone spending 30 seconds talking
| about how they love Coke, and adjusting the camera angles
| so that the Coke logo is always front and center.
|
| It's possible to do product placement that doesn't take
| you out of the story. But recent stuff beats you over the
| head with it in ways that are inconsistent with normal
| behavior and it's jarring, takes you out of the moment,
| and I have no idea how people tolerate it.
| Silhouette wrote:
| I always laugh when lots of the US cop shows we get here
| in the UK have the good guys prominently using Microsoft
| equipment... to GOSUB their subroutine, or some similarly
| authentic "tech speak". With the new AI powered by
| Product Placement Of The Week, they can enhance the image
| and miraculously read the plate on the bad guys' vehicle!
| flower-giraffe wrote:
| > Has anything really changed? There have always been
| kids programming that was primarily about selling toys
|
| Not on the BBC, that's my point.
|
| I'm sure there are plenty of people here that remember
| Blue Peter and sticky-back plastic (unobtanium in my
| childhood) along with empty washing up liquid bottles
| with logo redacted (presumably with stick-back plastic)
| richardARPANET wrote:
| The BBC is a propaganda arm of the state, IMO they should be
| defunded significantly.
| Spivak wrote:
| Would you say that about all state funded news or is the BBC
| uniquely worse?
| laurent92 wrote:
| > What is absolutely clear from history is commercial media
| outlets fuel political bias, and it seems to be increasingly
| damaging to society.
|
| Public broadcasting fuels political division a lot. The most
| worrying is that you don't notice it.
|
| It is increasingly worrying because when people are exposed to
| the other side, they immediately << catch fire >>, wonder why
| they have been lied to, and never trust public broadcasting
| anymore. With luck, they may smoothen their beliefs a bit later
| in life, for the most centrist ones.
|
| To me, public TV, especially BBC, shouldn't be one-sided as it
| is now.
| afavour wrote:
| I regularly see the BBC criticised by both sides for being
| one sided. I'm not saying that's a get out of jail free card
| but from your comment I genuinely don't know which side you
| come down on, which surely says something.
|
| I don't mean to dismiss the complaint. Public media news is
| weird: it's funded by the government, but it should criticise
| the government. There's a tension there. But looking at the
| US news landscape I see that for-profit news is just as if
| not more compromised.
| mattmanser wrote:
| I have read across the spectrum for years in the UK, the
| BBC is not especially biased, maybe a little liberal and it
| ignores poorer people, but almost all media does that in
| the UK. But the histrionics frim the Tories and Momentum
| about the BBC is wildly misplaced.
|
| In comparison I never really watched the US "news" until
| the recent US election, occasionally watching a bit of
| CNN/ABC/Fox News. But I've been watching it these last few
| months, a mix of CNN, Fox and CNBC.
|
| I was shocked at how CNN and Fox both present their often
| extremely partisan and biased opinions as news. They
| "report" on a story, but just constantly throwing in their
| own slant, not reporting the facts, but spinning it. CNN is
| not quite as bad as Fox, but it's still really, really bad.
|
| That's not news to me.
|
| The BBC does not do that. They don't have reporters sit
| their and rant about stuff, or label huge swathes of the
| population as X, Y or Z.
|
| While there is bias by omission, or by the order in which
| they present the news, it's nothing like the 'news' I see
| coming from America.
| flower-giraffe wrote:
| > To me, public TV, especially BBC, shouldn't be one-sided as
| it is now.
|
| I don't think it is, and it's certainly not meant to be. The
| law in the UK is quite clear and there is a framework and
| regulatory body to enforce it.
|
| From https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-
| demand/broadcast-co...
|
| "To ensure that news, in whatever form, is reported with due
| accuracy and presented with due impartiality."
|
| Personally I occasionally find that the BBC news website
| misses the mark, more often on quality than bias but they
| have a very transparent and available complaints process
| online that I suggest you use if you have noticed specific
| instances of bias.
| Silhouette wrote:
| The thing with the BBC is that people on both sides of the
| political spectrum claim it's biased towards the other guys.
| That at least suggests that its overall balance is relatively
| neutral, even if specific individual programmes it broadcasts
| may not be.
|
| I do feel that in recent times, the BBC's big name current
| affairs programmes have often given politicians of all
| parties an easy time in interviews, which I think is more
| worrying as a trend. I think the BBC should still challenge
| government representatives to explain and if necessary defend
| their policies, and should also still challenge the
| Opposition and smaller parties when their own representatives
| make dubious claims even if they're not currently in power to
| implement them.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| I think BBC is biased towards the establishment, not left
| or right.
| Theodores wrote:
| Correct answer.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| >It is increasingly worrying because when people are exposed
| to the other side, they immediately << catch fire >>, wonder
| why they have been lied to, and never trust public
| broadcasting anymore.
|
| Compare this to people who watch commercial TV, see an
| opposing view, and immediately wonder why they're _currently_
| being lied to, and go back to trusting their single source of
| commercial programming.
| permo-w wrote:
| The BBC also essentially invented online TV streaming services.
| Netflix credits BBC iPlayer as being their inspiration to move
| online like they did
| cheph wrote:
| > perhaps the license fee could also fund the infrastructure
| for something like signal
|
| Why like signal? Signal has no protections to avoid the same
| abuse as WhatsApp.
|
| While I would agree with the sentiment, I think that if EU
| funds anything it will just as likely be much worse than
| WhatsApp than better than it given their track record (e.g.
| stupid popups on every damn website that makes life just that
| extra bit worse).
|
| But there is some hope in that both the french and German
| governments have adopted Matrix. The benefit of this manner of
| funding (through adoption and payment for actual services) is
| that there is actually a customer/provider relationship - and
| the potential for more direct feedback. That way if it totally
| sucks you don't end up with a situation where the people
| authorizing payment/funding are not affected by how badly it
| sucks.
| flower-giraffe wrote:
| > Why like signal? Signal has no protections to avoid the
| same abuse as WhatsApp.
|
| I think something like signal could reasonably have
| sufficient protections from both a technical and legislative
| perspective. And for that matter matrix too.
|
| I was not intending to highlight signal as the only
| possibility, by like signal I guess I meant a small a capable
| organisation with a clear non profit agenda.
| cheph wrote:
| Signal is centralized by design. If they redesign it sure,
| it can be something that is not centralized by design, but
| the problem is then it is hardly an open standard, because
| it is entirely up to whoever is running Signal.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I wonder if people will ever notice how socially and
| psychologically toxic is advertisement business and regulate it
| stringently.
| Zelphyr wrote:
| I've been wondering this myself. Related to this; I was
| wondering the other day why the seemingly sudden rise of
| people who buy into conspiracy theories like Q-Anon? One
| possible answer could be that people are feeling like they
| are "less-than", purposeless, or not wanted. So then my next
| question was, why is that?
|
| It occurred to me that with the rise of consumerism
| (apparently skyrocketing starting in the 90's) we've had more
| and more advertising telling us, "If you just buy this
| product or service you will [be loved | get more sex | be
| prettier | get more sex]"
|
| When it was just TV and billboards advertising to you it was
| bad enough but at least you could look away and/or turn off
| the TV. With the rise of the Internet there was obviously
| another increasingly pervasive channel through which
| advertisers could reach you. But then came the smartphone and
| now it's like we're carrying a TV with us 24x7, flooding us
| with messages convincing us we're not good enough. Couple
| that with ad-supported apps that purposely try to be
| addictive and we are bombarded even more because we can't
| just be still anymore. Our constant need to be stimulated has
| become piggy-backed with messages telling us how inferior we
| are.
| eplanit wrote:
| Less toxic than law enforcement knocking on my door to see if
| I have a damn television. I'd rather reign in
| authoritarianism.
| afavour wrote:
| "reign in authoritarianism"?!?
|
| It's not dissimilar to a tax audit. Heaven forbid we could
| all be a little less hysterical.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Driving door to door is insane for me. They'd be much
| better off if they funded BBC from tax directly. People
| should pay for it to exist whether they have TV or not
| becuse everybody benefits(?) from culture creatd by BBC.
| faceplanted wrote:
| They're not law enforcement
| eplanit wrote:
| So one can just tell them to f--- off and go away?
| mnw21cam wrote:
| Yes, you can. Please do. It would be a net benefit to
| humanity if everyone did that. Capita only use the
| bullying tactics because they think that it will get them
| an increased return. However, they are technically
| nothing more than very pushy sales agents trying to sell
| you something. If everyone told them to get stuffed,
| there's an extremely slim chance that they might choose a
| more pleasant tactic. I wouldn't hold one's breath
| though.
|
| You can also write to Capita and tell them that they are
| not welcome on your property, and then they can't even
| walk up to your front door. If you have a sticker on your
| front door rejecting cold callers and door-to-door sales,
| then they are trespassing as soon as they knock. Call the
| police if they don't leave. I have heard enough stories
| of Capita agents doing misdeeds once inside that you
| should not trust them, regardless of how many threats
| they make. The only circumstances under which you should
| ever let them in is if they are accompanied by police
| with a search warrant.
|
| You can also write to them and tell them that you view
| their threatening letters as harassment, and that they
| must stop sending them. You don't need to tell them your
| name - just your address.
| eplanit wrote:
| Good to know, and you're right. Glad to know it's not as
| dystopian as it sounds.
| vaduz wrote:
| Unless they come with an actual search warrant (which is
| rare, but can happen [0] as I wrote in a cousin thread,
| sometimes with the police assist), yes, you can.
| Capital/TVL have no inherent power to enter your premises
| unless invited - but you can't just throw them out after
| inviting them in.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25835140
| faceplanted wrote:
| People have clearly noticed the social and political issues
| with advertising for a very long time now. The issue is that
| it's hard to rally against one of the most lucrative
| businesses ever to exist that inherently has an extreme
| amount of messaging power to defend itself.
| ballenf wrote:
| It's also worth noting that advertising is nearly a
| necessity in an industrialized society. Production of goods
| has high capital upfront costs and marginal costs that
| become negligible at scale. You can't get that scale
| without advertising or a government-mandated monopoly. Or,
| at least, you can't get that scale quickly enough.
| scotty79 wrote:
| For me economy is like a forest.
|
| Trees (companies) compete for sunlight (purchases) and
| adverisements are their trunks.
|
| They 'waste' enormous amount of energy on trunks not
| because longer trunks increase the amount of sunlight.
| They just lower the probability of being overshadowed by
| the others.
|
| If somehow trees could agree on how high the trunk should
| be at most they could limit this waste.
|
| Instead they literally grow trunks as long as the
| physical laws allow.
|
| Instead of tons of in your face advertising everywhere
| you could have just one goverment manager directory of
| stuff and services. Where companies could register their
| products, services, pricing.
|
| Of coure there would be law breakers and positive
| publications about brands paid for under the table but I
| think overt ban would lead to economy wasting much less
| money on advertising to outcompete itself.
|
| I don't think such a drastic change will ever happen.
| Large percentage of our culture is created directly for
| the purposes of advertising. So advert free society would
| be different in so many ways. But I would bet it wouldn't
| be worse. And if it was, we could just lift the ban and
| see trunks grow back.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _Instead they literally grow trunks as long as the
| physical laws allow._
|
| In some cases this was literally true, as fast food
| franchises would keep raising their logo signs higher and
| higher until municipalities set height limits.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Have they defended themselves by appealing to public?
|
| People mostly hate advertisements. I think they rather
| fight using money not public.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I think the issue is people really like watching TV and
| movies, and continuing to watch the content shows they are
| OK with all the ads. Never have people had more access to
| other content, or other ways of entertaining themselves.
|
| I have no idea how people put up with the NFL in the US.
| staplers wrote:
| During the early days of sports streaming (sometimes
| still) you'd find a stream with a live feed of the
| stadium broadcast without the ads. During the commercial
| breaks you'd be able to watch what was on the megatron
| (camera panning crowd, in-stadium entertainment).
|
| I would pay a massive premium to have access to that feed
| for every sports broadcast. Gabe Newell said it best
| about piracy offering the best experience.
| afavour wrote:
| Strongly agreed. Having lived in the US for a good number of
| years now I can see how the idea of vans roaming looking for TV
| viewers is baffling, but the public TV offering by the BBC,
| while definitely not perfect, is miles ahead of both the public
| and network offerings on US TV (though credit to the likes of
| PBS and NPR for doing miraculous work with a fraction of the
| budget!). I even got my start in computing from the BBC Micro
| machines at school.
| YinglingLight wrote:
| Oy open up! Do you have a licence for that telly?
| ouid wrote:
| Then pay for it with taxes on sales of television sets
| themselves.
| afavour wrote:
| Pay for a recurring service via a one-off payment? What
| could go wrong?!
|
| Aside from that, a TV license is PS157 a year. Let's say a
| TV lasts three years (which feels conservative, pretty sure
| I had my last TV for eight), you'd need to get the buyer to
| pay an extra PS471 when they purchase their TV. How is
| front-loading such a payment in the interests of the
| viewer? Not to mention you don't have to pay the fee if
| you're only watching streaming services like Netflix.
| mandelbrotwurst wrote:
| You can set the rate of the tax to account for the time
| value of money, charging less up front than you would for
| the sum total of the subscription over the life of the
| device.
|
| You could argue that increasing the up front cost is a
| regressive tax, but you should be able to more than make
| up for that by not needing to pay fleets of trucks to
| drive around all day looking to find TV tax scofflaws.
| VonGuard wrote:
| This.
| willtim wrote:
| While I think that having some publicly funded radio/TV is a
| really good thing, the idea of the UK TV license and the
| subsequent enforcement is not. My friends elderly mother does
| not have or want a TV. She is constantly harassed and
| threatened by UK license enforcement. Her son has invited them
| into her home on numerous occasions, hoping that the legal
| threats and visits would cease, but to this day they have not.
| I object to having my license fee money spent on such abuse of
| vulnerable people.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Yeah. My father in law had the same experience. He once took
| an enforcement person into his house and insisted they go
| through the house together and conduct an exhaustive search
| of all the places a TV could be. "Perhaps it's in the cistern
| of the toilet? Let's look!...Not there? Perhaps it's in the
| bread bin..." etc etc
|
| It is really bad the way they do this, and having seen the
| threatening letters they send out they could be very
| frightening. The letters were on the lines of "Our detectors
| have found that you have a TV and you have to pay the license
| fee or we'll send bailiffs around, take you to court etc",
| and the one I received once (when i too didn't have a TV) was
| printed on red paper.
| jeofken wrote:
| The state not punishing you for publishing is free speech.
|
| The state forcing you to pay for their publishing is forced
| speech.
|
| Working for a company like the BBC can not be ethical, if ethics
| are universal.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| Your argument only works under the assumption that
| money=speech, a belief that doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
|
| AFAIK, it's perfectly legal to speak in support of, say, an
| active terrorist organization. I doubt it is legal in many
| places to donate money to support an active terrorist
| organization.
|
| If you believe that money=speech, the law is inconsistent in
| this matter. Assuming you want the law to be consistent, there
| are really only two ways to resolve the inconsistency:
|
| 1. Speaking in support of terrorist organizations should be
| illegal, or 2. Donating money to terrorist organizations should
| be legal.
|
| I disagree with both these statements, so to me, money /=
| speech.
| jeofken wrote:
| That's a fair point!
|
| The example should be voluntarily paying a writer to write
| what I deem truth worthy, vs the state threatening with
| violence if I refuse to pay for what they want me to pay for.
|
| In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and
| paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced to
| fund them.
|
| I encourage Americans here to cherish not having to have
| that.
| ookdatnog wrote:
| > In my country Sweden the state media is very biased and
| paints my points of views in a bad light - but I am forced
| to fund them.
|
| I understand that that's frustrating for you, my objection
| with your post is merely your claim that this constitutes
| forced speech. It does not, unless you believe that
| money=speech. Some people hold that belief, but I suspect
| very few of them will be consistent about accepting the
| logical consequences of that belief (therefore they don't
| really hold the belief, they just reasoned backwards to
| justify a belief they _do_ hold).
|
| There's nothing in the belief that speech should be free
| and unforced that prohibits state-owned media (as long as
| other speech is not suppressed), or even outright state
| propaganda. That doesn't mean you can't be against these
| things, merely that being against these things doesn't
| automatically follow from believing in that free and
| unforced speech is a fundamental right.
|
| If you want to make the case that state-owned media are
| immoral (which, just to be clear, I don't currently
| believe), you need to refer to different rights. I've heard
| some people on the internet make the claim, for instance,
| that all taxes constitute theft, and that taxes are
| fundamentally immoral. I don't believe this at all, but
| that would give you a moral basis to renounce state media.
|
| But really, sometimes the state is just going to do
| something that you don't like, perhaps even hate with a
| passion, without violating a fundamental right. I know I'd
| be furious if the state broadcaster started propagandizing
| a religion, for instance, but as long as they don't
| infringe on my freedom to believe what I want, they're not
| violating any of my rights (I could, at most, argue that
| it's a slippery slope to violating my rights, which may be
| a convincing argument by itself).
| bloak wrote:
| Proof that old-fashioned television sets transmit:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54239180
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for
| requiring those households which view broadcast television to
| purchase a licence for the privilege
|
| Not really, we have that in Slovenia too.
|
| In the past, you could avoid it by claiming you had no tv (and a
| grey-legal area of letting them verify). Then they expanded and
| added the "radio" part, where you paid less if you have a radio
| (and no tv), including car radio.
|
| Then they added internet streaming, and expanded the definition
| of "tv" to "any device, capable of viewing streamed content" (pc,
| smartphone), so if you have a smartphone, you have to pay for tv,
| just because you have a device capable of watching a stream.
|
| There have been many calls to just encrypt the over-the-air
| broadcasts, and create usernames and passwords for paying
| customers for streaming, but they prefer the "catch-all"
| definitions of "tv", so they can collect monthly subscriptions
| from pretty much every household in the country.
|
| Our private tv stations are not much better... the most viewed
| one, did a nasty deal with the cable/iptv operators, wanting
| either a lot of money for their tv channels as a searate option,
| or less money if their tv stations are put into
| "basic"(=cheapest, smaller) cable packages, so they forced a
| price increase for every cable/iptv subscriber and there's no way
| to cancel just their channels.
| 0xfaded wrote:
| I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But for
| heaven's sake, call a tax a tax.
|
| There are so many little things, whether its TV licenses,
| overpriced interactions with the DNV equivalent, overpriced
| tolls that were promised to be eliminated. The list goes on.
|
| Fortunately most European countries have an awesome statistics
| office that gives visibility into government wastage.
| Unfortunately, the the social democracies historically(?)
| stuffed their public sectors in lieu of full employment
| policies, and bureaucracy is an existential threat over here.
| antibuddy wrote:
| A tax would be fairer than the actual system is. You have to
| pay a fixed amount regardless of your income. (At least in
| Germany and the UK)
| OJFord wrote:
| That's not really 'fairer' in any absolute sense, and a tax
| needn't be a rate, nevermind one w.r.t. income, but it
| could be, or even progressive.
|
| I'd probably argue 'fair' would be per usage, or per
| television. The latter would even be easier to implement -
| just slap a duty on _sales_ as with alcohol and tobacco.
|
| (Actually, that would be great, the defining characteristic
| would presumably be the presence of a tuner (or network in
| today's age?), so it would create a market for television-
| like panels without tuners or consequently without being
| 'smart', I'd hope.)
| jontutcher wrote:
| > I live in Europe now, and I'm fine with high taxation. But
| for heaven's sake, call a tax a tax.
|
| The BBC is license-fee funded rather than tax funded so that
| (in theory at least) they don't have to rely directly on the
| government for funding - private citizens directly fund the
| corporation.
|
| This goes some way to ensuring more independence, and fairer
| news output.
|
| In reality, the government holds the BBC to ransom every
| eight years when the royal charter they operate under is re-
| written. There will always be claims of political bias on
| both sides.
| hwestiii wrote:
| I think this is the basis of the "Cat Detector Van" skit on Monty
| Python's Flying Circus
| gyulai wrote:
| Many people here are commenting on the fact that public
| broadcasters tend to do documentaries and educational programming
| which wouldn't be able to survive at that level of quality under
| a free market system, which seems to be a cause that almost
| everyone can get behind and an argument frequently being used for
| defending this system.
|
| What riles me up personally: the ludicrous sums of money that
| these broadcasters pay for rights to broadcast the olympics and
| other major sports events. I really don't understand why I should
| be forced to give money to corrupt organizations like FIFA and
| the IOC to hold sports events that I don't watch and otherwise
| don't have a stake in, just because I happen to live in Germany,
| to make this stuff more affordable for other Germans.
|
| Another thing that I find infuriating about the German system:
| You have to pay even if you don't watch and don't even own a
| television and even non-residential addresses and addresses used
| solely for business purposes have to pay. The only exception is
| that a home office within a residential premise doesn't have to
| pay twice. But in some cases you might actually have to. For
| example if you have a residential home and run a car repair shop
| out of your garage, then you have to pay a second set of fees for
| the shop on top of the fees that you already pay for the
| residential home, even if there is no programming ever being
| consumed in either of the two.
|
| I also find the collection tactics highly questionable: When you
| register your business, they send you an invoice for paying that
| second set of fees for the business and never advise you of the
| home office exemption. It was only because of how infuriated I
| was that I did some legal research and then managed to claim the
| exemption after exchanging some letters with them. I bet most
| people don't do that and just pay up, which adds to the
| unfairness of the system.
| audunw wrote:
| > I really don't understand why I should be forced to give
| money to corrupt organizations like FIFA and the IOC to hold
| sports events that I don't watch and otherwise don't have a
| stake in,
|
| State media has to broadcast some content that's actually
| popular, that most people want to watch, otherwise they'd soon
| lose political support. I hate it too, but fact is that these
| events are extremely popular, especially among people watching
| a lot of live TV. So I think it's a necessary evil
| unfortunately.
| gyulai wrote:
| > So I think it's a necessary evil unfortunately.
|
| I don't think its necessary at all. Why is it necessary? It's
| just something we have grown accustomed to in Europe, because
| of our big government way of doing things, where group A
| wants wealth transfers from group B, and if group A is a
| majority, they get their way.
|
| There are a lot of things where that makes sense:
|
| Group A, healthy and rich individuals, pay for health care
| for group B, sick individuals who can't afford health care.
| I'm on board because it would feel cruel and heartless to me
| to let them suffer.
|
| Group A, rich people regardless of whether they have
| children, pay for the education of children from group B,
| poor people with children, so that all children regardless of
| their background get to have a good education. I'm on board
| because I think that everyone should have access to the
| opportunities that come with a good education.
|
| Group A, everybody regardless of whether they use public
| roads, pay for road maintenance so that they can be used by
| group B, people who make a lot of use of public roads. I'm on
| board, because I think it would be bad for the country if it
| had regions that are only poorly accessible.
|
| ...in each of those cases, you can make counter-arguments.
| Those are just my opinions.
|
| Group A, everybody regardless of whether they like football,
| pay for group B, people who do like football, so that they
| can watch football. Hold on a sec... What the... What did I
| just say? ...that makes no sense! Why would I be on board
| with that? Now, as a taxpayer-licensepayer I'm just paying so
| that other people can get the things they like. That's
| clearly going too far. I just don't understand how so many
| people in Europe are no longer even weirded out by this
| stuff.
| account42 wrote:
| That's just admitting that the majority does not want the
| "independent" content of that state media.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| State media must focus on content that is useful to the
| society, not what is popular. Otherwise, why do you even need
| the state interference?
| SllX wrote:
| You don't, and it is a choice.
|
| State media does have some interesting trade offs for
| Europe specifically though. If a country doesn't have that
| large of an addressable media market you might not get a
| lot of local language options without the state media.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I have two companies registered at my home address. In both
| cases I got, a coupe of weeks after incorporation, a letter
| with a form form the GEZ covering stuff like number of
| employees and so on. But having the same address, it was enough
| to provide them the registry number under which the residential
| fees were already paid. Than I got a letter confirming I don't
| have to pay any fees. That happened in 2019 and 2020, so it
| could have been different. The GEZ was known for some less than
| clean practices in the past. I never got directly an invoice
| from them so tight of the bat.
| lqet wrote:
| > The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for
| requiring those households which view broadcast television to
| purchase a licence for the privilege.
|
| I know at least three countries (Germany, Austria and
| Switzerland) which do the same (edit: according the Wikipedia
| [0], such a fee exists in basically every European country,
| Japan, Israel, South Korea and Namibia). In Germany, the
| situation changed a few years ago, every household has to pay
| now, even if they don't own a television or radio. When I was a
| freshman student 10 years ago, things were a little bit
| different: an inspector (the "GEZ man") came by my apartment a
| few months after I moved in. He wanted to have a look inside. I
| declined. He came back a few times, but I didn't open the door. I
| never paid the fee (and I didn't have to, because I received
| BAfoG [1]). Even if I would have had to, there was just no way
| for them to prove I was actually owning a television. Here, those
| "detector vans" have been an urban legend for 60 years. I am
| pretty sure I read somewhere that they never existed and where
| basically "created" to fear people into paying the fees.
|
| [0] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rundfunkabgabe
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesausbildungsf%C3%B6rderun...
| Fnoord wrote:
| In The Netherlands the fee got abandoned and replaced by a tax
| increase (on BTW, an equivalent to VAT).
| RajuVarghese wrote:
| Yes, Switzerland also had roving vans with equipment with which
| they could detect a switched on TV. I know because I got caught
| about 40 years back and had to pay a fine. The person that came
| to the door could tell us exactly where the TV was in the
| living room. So, those vans - or something like it - did exist!
| ohazi wrote:
| > no way for them to prove I was actually _owning a television_
|
| (Emphasis mine)
|
| This "playing fast and loose with language" that they do (and
| that you inadvertently did too, just now) makes me so
| irrationally angry.
|
| Why would the burden of proof be that low? They need ( _should_
| need?) to prove that you _received broadcast television_ , not
| that you simply owned a TV.
|
| We hear these stories about TV detector vans as if finding a TV
| set was _ever_ sufficient evidence.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > We hear these stories about TV detector vans as if finding
| a TV set was ever sufficient evidence.
|
| The vans would be detecting radio activity; there's nothing
| to detect if the TV is off.
| spuz wrote:
| In the UK, you must pay if you are capable of receiving live
| TV, not only if you do receive live TV. Even if it was never
| switch on, a TV that is plugged into an aerial qualifies as
| meeting that requirement.
| ohazi wrote:
| I own a pile of antennas for ham radio, I own a bunch of TV
| tuners, because they're usable as software controlled ham
| radio receivers, I own a television, and I own a laptop
| that sometimes gets plugged into that television.
|
| That might make me _look_ pretty guilty, but my TV isn 't
| connected to an antenna, and I don't watch broadcast TV.
|
| The bar for evidence of a violation needs to be higher.
| It's possible to own all of the equipment without ever
| having violated the BBC's licensing rule.
| gambiting wrote:
| That is absolutely 1000000% not true. You only have to pay
| the TV Licence if you ever watch live TV, not if you merely
| have a televion set. I've never paid the fee because I
| don't watch live TV, ever, and when you go on the TV
| licence page to fill out the form why you don't need a
| licence, one of the options on the form is "I only use my
| TV for games consoles, netflix, dvd players etc".
|
| So it's not some "clever hack" - the law specifically
| allows for not paying the licence fee if you own a TV set
| but don't watch live TV.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| It's unhelpful to disagree with someone on a point of
| fact and to decline to provide a decent source. The
| result is that you've given the reader no reason to take
| your word over the other person's.
|
| From what I can tell, your account of things is accurate.
| On the website [0][1][2] the requirements aren't
| concerned at all with what equipment you own or with how
| it's set up, only with the act of watching or recording
| live television broadcasts over _any_ technology,
| including over the Internet. I imagine it still wouldn 't
| hurt to disconnect your TV from the means to show live
| broadcasts, for the tiny off-chance things end up in
| court.
|
| I think spuz's account may have been accurate in pre-
| Internet days, but this seems harder to verify.
|
| [0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
| one/topics/L...
|
| [1] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ99
|
| [2] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-
| policy-A...
| nailer wrote:
| > Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's
| being shown on TV or live on an online TV service.
|
| I find the wording here fascinating. Is watching a live
| stream over the YouTube app on my TV 'live TV'? Is
| watching a UFC event on the UFC app? What about the
| website?
|
| What _is_ TV? Is a monitor? A monitor with an aerial?
| Video content transmitted over certain bands?
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >I find the wording here fascinating. Is watching a live
| stream over the YouTube app on my TV 'live TV'? Is
| watching a UFC event on the UFC app? What about the
| website?
|
| If it's broadcast simultaneously by other means (e.g.
| satellite, cable, terrestrial transmitter etc.) it counts
| as "live TV".
| nailer wrote:
| What if an event is on YouTube but also shown by
| satellite, cable, terrestrial transmitter etc?
|
| Does that mean I owe a license fee for YouTube? Am I
| obliged to check before every video?
|
| (Obviously these are ridiculous hypothetical questions,
| and I don't expect answers, but the policy itself is
| ridiculous)
| gambiting wrote:
| Yep, it technically does. If there is a live channel on
| Youtube showing say a football match, then yes,
| technically you have to pay a TV licence for watching it,
| since the same match is broadcast on a TV channel.
|
| I don't think the policy is _that_ ridiculous, it 's just
| that it's one of these where certain edge cases like this
| one can be safely ignored. You _will_ be tracked and
| found if you use the BBC iPlayer without having paid the
| licence, you will _not_ be found out for watching some
| random live youtube channel. It 's an imperfect rule for
| a complex world.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > If there is a live channel on Youtube showing say a
| football match, then yes, technically you have to pay a
| TV licence for watching it
|
| Sky offer a streaming service in the UK called _NowTV_
| which includes live TV streaming of their channels, as
| well as Netflix-style on-demand streaming from their
| library. They 're very upfront that a TV licence is
| needed if you wish you watch their live channels over
| NowTV, [0] but one is not required for on-demand
| streaming.
|
| [0] https://help.nowtv.com/article/do-i-need-a-tv-
| licence-to-wat...
| spuz wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. It's possible that what I
| said used to be true but looks like it is no longer the
| case. It's also possible that in the pre-internet days,
| the fact that you had your TV connected to an aerial was
| used as strong circumstantial evidence that you actually
| watched live TV but it was never actually used as the
| sole basis to fine you.
| lozf wrote:
| You're right except a few years ago the law was amended
| to include the licence requirement for watching anything
| on BBC iPlayer whether live or not. Other streaming
| services remain free.
| imprecision wrote:
| You can have and use TV and not pay, so long as you can
| reasonably show you are not receiving live broadcasts (if
| it ever came to a warrant being issued). Not having it
| plugged into an aerial and the channel presets not tuned is
| considered proof enough.
|
| I'd guess with more and more watching via the internet they
| probably have far more success catching people watch live
| broadcasts via IP addresses and ISP logs these days though.
| _ph_ wrote:
| I don't know whether these vans were ever used here in Germany
| to detect TV watchers which don't pay, but these vans certainly
| existed. Their official, and I do think main purpose, was to
| detect signals which could interfere with TV and radio
| reception coming from defective electric devices or even
| illegal transmission sources.
| GoblinSlayer wrote:
| The TV fee exists everywhere, but usually if you have the
| cable, you pay; if you don't pay, you are cut off and that's
| the end of story.
| saberdancer wrote:
| This is not a fee for the cable provider. This is a fee you
| pay regardless of whether you consume public channels or not.
|
| In some countries, the mere existence of a TV or radio in
| your household means you have to pay. These are publicly
| broadcast channels.
| cpach wrote:
| Sweden also had this system until recently.
| gerikson wrote:
| Worth noting that the license fee is now paid as part of the
| regular tax payment. So the tax authority manages the
| collection, as opposed to previously when it was a separate
| agency.
| progre wrote:
| Also, alledgely, using scanners to catch cheaters. Though I
| got a visit from a man checking for unlicensed TV sets once
| and he didn't have a scanner, just a long list of people that
| didn't have a TV license.
| aysterberi wrote:
| There was also the funny scare tactics commercials where
| they said you would get a snail on the eye if you didn't
| pay.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J03eeYQ72Y0
| progre wrote:
| Apparently, they actually had scanners, but never used them
|
| https://sverigesradio.se/artikel/7113883 (swedish)
| jamesrr39 wrote:
| I bought a new TV and got a phone call from Radiotjanst a
| couple of weeks later, asking where they should send the
| bill for the TV license. Busted!
|
| Now that the fee is discontinued, and it comes out of tax
| money instead, I sure don't miss getting those invoices.
| progre wrote:
| The electronics stores had a reporting duty as I
| remember.
| whizzter wrote:
| Yeah, it was some law iirc. Regarding being busted, i was
| zapping one day when the bell rang so i opened the door
| to the inspector with the remote in my hand and the TV
| blaring, THAT'D i call getting busted :D
| glandium wrote:
| You can add France and Japan to the list. In France, they don't
| go door to door, though, it's only a check box on some tax
| returns forms. In Japan they do come door to door. I've never
| heard about "detection vans" in either, though.
| programLyrique wrote:
| They might not come, but they will send you a letter to ask
| you if really, really, you don't have a TV.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| Yeah, this is the same as how it worked in UK (still works?
| I dunno). I didn't have a TV growing up, bought one when I
| was about 14 thinking I was being sneaky about it, address
| was taken when I was buying it and obviously some box got
| checked on some system somewhere and my parents got
| bombarded with letters.
| ohgodplsno wrote:
| They actually can go door to door in France! And the fine for
| having lied is quite unpleasant.
|
| Not that they have time to anymore since almost every single
| public service got their budgets slashed.
| tripa wrote:
| They do come for a surprise visit if you tick the box in
| France. Used to, at least, circa 2009.
| ssmiler wrote:
| Also sellers must declare to tax administration to whom they
| sold TV sets. The administration sets the checkbox for you
| automatically ;)
| tjpnz wrote:
| No detection vans in Japan but the door knockers are
| persistent as hell and not beyond making people feel unsafe
| in their homes.
| benrbray wrote:
| The worst part is the intercom systems which are standard
| in every home. Not only do you hear the doorbell and the
| knock, but they get to broadcast their face directly into
| your private space! (I have since disabled the camera /
| audio feed but it spooked me more than a few times!)
| aldanor wrote:
| +Ireland
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I am pretty sure I read somewhere that they never existed and
| where basically "created" to fear people into paying the fees.
|
| We actually do have detector vans - they belonged to the RegTP,
| now Bundesnetzagentur, and are used to pinpoint pirate radios,
| malfunctioning equipment, and check if private point-to-point
| radios requiring licenses actually have licenses:
| https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/Telekommunik...
|
| In 2019, the BNetzA was out in 4.700 cases of radio
| interference - mostly it was WiFi routers using bands that are
| not allowed in Germany, but there were also 1.200 cases where
| interference hit sensitive communications like police radio or
| airplane communications:
| https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadgets/bundesnetzagentur-be...
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| German public broadcasters in particular used to justify gross
| per-household fees by arguing free-to-air TV can be received by
| everyone, and pushed FTA DVB2 over antenna a couple years ago
| with spotty reception, and only in metropolitan areas, years
| ago. That argument is as comically out-of-date as it ever was,
| with CI/CAM devices (for SmartCard readers) being installed on
| every Smart TV and set-top box since the SD/DVB1 times. Even
| though they argue they act in accordance with the majority,
| they know quite well that they'd loose a large percentage of
| their audience out of inertia alone when they'd be doing the
| decent thing and require SmartCards for those who actually want
| to watch their TV programs which, as far as entertainment goes,
| is mostly bottom-of-the-barrel palliative-care crime series
| plus expensive programs for corrupt sports (the good stuff is
| mostly on radio IMO).
|
| But public broadcasters also have expansive web/IP presence,
| and even use Facebook for public communication (ZDF), when in
| their news/opinion pieces they rant against social media LOL.
|
| Public broadcasters today seem just to create a self-serving
| and self-referential media presence for politicians, in these
| times of Coronavirus more than ever. Tonight, they're going to
| push for even stronger measures including curfews (!) even
| though infections are going down; needless to say, without
| parliamentary participation. The whole thing is getting out of
| hands with irrationality fast right now.
| [deleted]
| wojciii wrote:
| Also same kind of system is in use in Denmark. :)
|
| The law is such that the inspector can look into your home from
| public areas but you don't have to open your door to them or
| talk to them. They are unable to determine if you own any
| device which can be used to watch state TV. This is quite
| silly. People actually fear this and gladly pay up.
| sleavey wrote:
| > In Germany, the situation changed a few years ago, every
| household has to pay now, even if they don't own a television
| or radio.
|
| This was literally the first piece of mail I got when I moved
| to Germany: a letter demanding I pay for the TV networks I
| don't watch. I didn't even own a TV by that point, nor would
| have understood much of what was being said! A German explained
| to me once that the forced payment by non-watchers is justified
| as it benefits society as a whole. I must say, I've now found
| some of the programming on the publicly funded TV stations is
| actually pretty good.
| dsnr wrote:
| > A German explained to me once that the forced payment by
| non-watchers is justified as it benefits society as a whole.
|
| Do they really believe these things? This is the Kool-Aid you
| have to drink as a society, in order not to go crazy when you
| pay for things you never use and benefit from.
|
| If you ever move out, make sure to let them know, otherwise
| they will keep hunting you for ever.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > Do they really believe these things? This is the Kool-Aid
| you have to drink as a society, in order not to go crazy
| when you pay for things you never use and benefit from.
|
| It's the same argument for taxes, isn't it?
| _ph_ wrote:
| I firmly believe this, especially in recent times. Those
| mandatory fees finance the "public" radio and TV stations,
| which have a set budget and can freely operate within the
| budget. They are not depending on advertisement revenue
| (they have a limited amount of that too) and are not
| working to create a profit. As a consequence, they do have
| a certain degree of independence and overall can afford
| into a lot of good quality content. Of course, they have
| their share of low quality content too, but overall they do
| offer an environment where good journalism still can
| happen. Meanwhile even the most reputable newspapers, which
| traditionally were a place for quality journalism, are
| struggling a lot and it is not clear how long they can
| afford to present quality content.
| lultimouomo wrote:
| If a state wants to fund public radio and TV stations, it
| doesn't need to do it through a mandatory, regardless of
| use flat fee. I would argue that that is the worse
| possible way to do it:
|
| * Increased bureaucracy (why not add a 0.1% to an
| existing tax?)
|
| * Regressive taxation (you pay the same amount regardless
| of your income; if you used the income tax, you would
| distribute it more fairly)
|
| * No market shaping (you could instead fund it with a tax
| on, say, TV ads for high-calories sodas, or whatever as a
| society you decide should not be forbidden but
| discouraged)
| _ph_ wrote:
| The point of having a fee vs. a tax is, that the
| government has no direct control of it. So they can't
| just adjust it at will. The fee is set for several years
| in advance and increased from time to time to adjust for
| inflation etc. But it is an independant entitiy deciding
| about this.
| msla wrote:
| Parliament can pass any law it wants. That's central to
| the system the UK has.
|
| The BBC is dependent on a fee collected by the
| government, as regulated by laws the government has
| passed and the government enforces. Insisting it's not
| government funded is trying to invent a distinction where
| none exists.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > So they can't just adjust it at will. The fee is set
| for several years in advance and increased from time to
| time to adjust for inflation etc.
|
| What stops legislators from adjusting the fee at will?
| There's legislation enacting the fee, defining the fee,
| enforcing the fee. Surely, there can be legislation to
| modify the fee and remove the fee. Same as any other tax.
| _ph_ wrote:
| No, the fee is not decided by the legislators. Of course
| they can remove the whole system or pass new laws for its
| mechanics, but the fee itself is not under direct
| government control. The effect is, that they can just
| sneakily shave off the budget by 10% for the next year
| like with budgets under government control. They would
| have to fundamentally change the system first, which
| would create a lot of opposition, as a result, so far no
| government hasn't done that.
| zelos wrote:
| Could you have the same independent entity decide the
| total funding for the BBC and then have the government
| pay for that out of general taxation?
| diath wrote:
| In my personal experience public funded TV stations are
| just a propaganda machine for the current ruling party.
| ValentinPearce wrote:
| I've always mostly known public funded radios to be
| actually quite critical of the current ruling party. I do
| not watch much televison but I would expect a similar
| behaviour.
|
| Howerver I guess it depends on the country you're from.
| hef19898 wrote:
| A ssome else pinted out, by funding public braodcasting
| directly they can afford to be critical. Were the fundid
| by a tax, collected by the gevernment, and handed out by
| the government this independance goes right out of the
| window. One of the lessons Germany learned from the Nazi
| regime with government controlled media.
| joking wrote:
| there is no difference if is in the government power to
| increase or decrease that tax.
| _ph_ wrote:
| In Germany, the government has no direct control about
| the TV fees. There is a complex mechanism for deciding
| about increases, which involves independent entities.
| Especially, the government can't just cut the fees to
| influence the media.
| hef19898 wrote:
| In order to increase the fee for public braodcasters, not
| a tax (small bt crucial difference), both chambers of
| parliament have to agree. The bundestag is directly
| elected, the bundesrat represents the indivdual states.
| This means, in order to change the fee, every state and
| the bundestag have to agree. For the states, that means
| one single state not voting for a fee change prevent any
| fee change. Just happened, one state government feared
| backlash from the AfD and the right wing from the CDU
| (Merkels party) and voted against an increase.
|
| So in order to change the fee, it is not just one
| govnment that can do something, but a grand total of 17
| (federal plus 16 states). Usually they all agreed, but
| with different ruling coalitions in each state, this mix
| of left and right having to agree in itself prevents the
| public bradcasters from becoming a tool for government
| propaganda. They do represent the establishment, so.
| Populists hate this.
|
| EDIT: To be really accurate, the legislative branch sets
| the fees, not the executive on. The legislative consists
| of two houses, Bundestag and Bundesrat. The Bundesrat is
| controlled by the state governments, which are composed
| of local arms of the parties present in the Bundestag
| (kind of like congress) and regional parties, mostly
| those state and federal governments are coalitions of
| multiple parties. It is the party line thing where it
| gets blurred between executive and legislative bodies.
|
| EDIT: I fell for a common misconception, as an other user
| pointed out. It s not the Bundestag and Bundesrat
| deciding these fees, but rather a compact of the 16
| states. The same states make up the Bundesrat, the
| compact is not the same body, so. Which further decreases
| the influence the federal executive, and even
| legaslative, branches have o public broadcasting.
| eecc wrote:
| He he, you're woke man... you pay for health insurance?
|
| /s
| hef19898 wrote:
| Do we believe that the "household-fee" serves the greater
| good? No, I'd say not really. It was, IMHO, public
| broadcasts solution to the icreasing number of people
| preferring streaming and the internet over traditional
| television. And more importantly the decreasing revenue.
|
| Are these fees generally speaking a good thing? I'd say
| yes, because you get a non-add dependant news source. Is
| the implementation, especially in germany, perfect? Of
| course not. It still has a place, so.
|
| EDIT: If you move, you declare you address change to the
| authorities anyway. Everything depending on your address,
| government-wise and some other stuff, is then done
| automatically. Not relevant here, but that includes
| ballots.
| dsnr wrote:
| If it was just a news source it would have been fine, but
| it's not. The department that manages this tax alone has
| 900 employees. Then each of the two big channels has
| thousands of employees. How is that an efficiently run
| news source?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Did I say it is efficient? It pretty much is not. It is
| stil godd to have a news source that does not depend on
| add revenue, and by law they have to be neutral in
| Germany. In praxis, they are obviously not, and not all
| their news formats are good, neither is their
| entertainment. But for the society as a whole, they are
| important. And with everyone deriding their entertainment
| as being geared for the old, well, our older citzens have
| every right to whatch what they want and have someone
| develop content for them as well. It's not like I watch
| all the stuff amazon or Netflix are pushig out, and yet I
| pay for crap lke Tiger King and all these pseudo-true-
| crime sh*.
|
| If I have an issue with publc braodcasting in germany,
| it's te sometimes blatant nespotism at higher positions,
| the abusively high salaries, especially when compared to
| private media outlets and the degree of party influence.
| Overall so, these public media outlets definetly have
| their place. They could be cheaper, so. But that ai't
| gonna happen anytime soon I guess.
| entropyie wrote:
| As an Irish person, I firmly believe this. While our our
| public broadcaster, RTE, is far from perfect (and sometimes
| mediocre), they are financed / run at arms length from
| government. They often run exposes on government mess ups
| and criticise their actions. On a more practical level, who
| else is going to make quality non sensationalist content
| specific to Ireland? One of the downsides of being a small
| native English speaking country is the onslaught of
| American (and to a lesser degree British) content that
| drowns anything local. It also drowns out most European
| content as people are not used to subtitled or dubbed
| content.
|
| Having spent plenty of time in the USA, I can't fathom how
| a system with so many ads and skewed "news" could be
| better. Why would you trust an unelected private
| corporation with no motivation or mandate for transparency
| more than a non profit org that is at least in theory
| answerable to the people? If nothing else it provides a
| common reference to reality that allows a real conversation
| to happen. The lack of this has proven in the last few
| months to be a real problem.
|
| Most people don't question paying for socialised defence,
| education, roads etc... many services they may not use
| personally on a daily basis, because they understand the
| value of having a cohesive society as a whole.
| agent008t wrote:
| TG4 is class!
|
| Problem is, BBC (and to a lesser extent RTE) are not
| these unbiased services simply presenting facts. Their
| staff have certain views on political issues and they
| present stories in a way that is biased to those views.
| They effectively tell their viewers the range of
| acceptable opinions they are supposed to have.
|
| A lot of their entertainment shows are junk too and I do
| not see why they should be funded through a license fee -
| if there is a demand for them, they could be funded
| privately. The BBC website is full of tabloid-like news -
| that is unacceptable.
|
| If we are to have publicly funded media, it _should_ be
| boring, i.e. serious. Host 2-hour long in depth debates
| on highly controversial issues between the most prominent
| people that oppose each other, carefully moderated
| (arguably it would actually be better to do this in print
| rather than tv format). Do cultural shows that promote
| "high culture" that people otherwise might not have
| engaged with. Counter the natural tendencies to look up
| to sports and entertainment personalities with a focus on
| scientists and engineers.
| vidarh wrote:
| The perpetual problem here is that while BBC is required
| to "be boring" in many respects, if it loses too many
| viewers its value is questioned. So they have an ongoing
| struggle that they're told off if they focus too much on
| doing things that is or _becomes_ popular with commercial
| broadcasters, while at the same time they face threats of
| cuts in funding if they don 't bring in the viewers.
| entropyie wrote:
| I take your point 100%. I also love TG4's style of
| programming, but the problem with your approach is that
| you will be accused of "elitism" and being "out of touch
| with ordinary people" . I agree that a lot of the content
| on RTE and even BBC is a bit gimmicky or even trashy, but
| it is a difficult balancing act. Economy of scale is a
| huge issue for Ireland. We could never hope to cover even
| what the BBC does. I feel the answer ia more funding, not
| less. As for news bias, I agree that it is somewhat
| biased, but it is at least a common starting point for a
| discussion, as everyone sees the same message at least.
| The bias is more nieve, being towards centre left "good
| Irish morals" than some sinister government plot...
| varvar wrote:
| The funny thing is that as long as you render any kind of
| services on any level, they are inevitably to society, you're
| already benefitting it. Society has exploited your skill, and
| you have benefitted its members with your services, and for
| that you get paid.
|
| Nobody owes "society" past that point, but it's extremely
| profitable in the West, specifically, to double tax people
| with guilt trips into having artificial indebtedness to
| "society".
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Note that you pay for much more than just the TV networks;
| international / English offers such as dw.com are also funded
| by this.
| germanier wrote:
| DW is financed by the budget of the federal government, not
| the broadcast fee like the other public stations.
| realityking wrote:
| There are so many misconceptions about public broadcasters.
|
| Deutsche Welle (which operates dw.com) is 100% funded by
| federal taxes as it is aimed at foreign markets.
|
| https://www.dw.com/de/wer-finanziert-die-dw/a-279073
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification. Still, the fee covers much
| more than many people believe, and I think many of those
| services are quite valuable to have.
| Tomte wrote:
| The trick is to watch the smaller "third programmes" or the
| programmes with special focus, not the big two (ARD and ZDF).
|
| Then you'll see a plethora of really well-made documentations
| about regions in Germany, regions in the world, culture,
| archeology etc.
|
| The third programmes are also where new comedians, hosts and
| artists are given a chance to refine their show concepts and
| prove themselves.
| matthiasv wrote:
| > The trick is to watch the smaller "third programmes" or
| the programmes with special focus, not the big two (ARD and
| ZDF).
|
| To be fair, The Big One is actually just all "third
| programmes" with some additional programming such as news.
| Tomte wrote:
| I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
| Take a look at the first column of
| https://www.tvinfo.de/tv-programm/ard
|
| Pretty much nothing in there is also shown at any third
| programme. The programmes are almost completely distinct.
|
| Evening news are actually the one part where the third
| programmes show the same as the ARD.
| matthiasv wrote:
| I am talking about the fact that the ARD itself is the
| collective group of all regional broadcasters (look up
| the name) and any programme is produced either by one of
| the regional broadcasters or by the shared production
| company Degeto. And of course is also shown in the
| "thirds". Take "Rote Rosen" (with questionable quality)
| and you will see it is also shown on rbb, hr, NDR and
| MDR.
| Tomte wrote:
| > I am talking about the fact that the ARD itself is the
| collective group of all regional broadcasters (look up
| the name)
|
| I know that. But it's utterly offtopic in this subthread.
| We're not talking about organisational structures, we're
| talking about "what can I watch".
| matthiasv wrote:
| The organisational structure causes what you can watch
| where and I am arguing that garbage produced by the
| "Thirds" is not only dumped to Das Erste but shown
| elsewhere as well. You gave me the current programme, I
| gave you "Rote Rosen" but that did not convince you. Here
| is more: "Sturm der Liebe" shown on BR, hr, MDR, NDR and
| rbb, "Bristant" shown on MDR, "WaPo Bodensee" shown on
| SWR, hr, NDR and BR ... that is not "pretty much
| nothing".
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| If every household has to pay then it makes sense to abolish
| the tax and to fund it through the general budget instead,
| not least if the argument is that this is something that
| benefits society as a whole.
|
| Taxes are not free to manage and collect so this also
| provides cost savings.
|
| We have this debate periodically in the UK. The argument
| against abolishing the TV licence is usually that a dedicated
| tax ensures a larger independence of the BBC, which is not
| "at the mercy" of the government for funding, but I think
| this is a rather weak argument because the government already
| ultimately decides the amount of the TV licence fee, which is
| a tax.
|
| Edit following the "reactions": By the way, in the UK it is
| not allowed to criticise anything related to the BBC (and the
| NHS) as you can see. Is it the same in Germany? :(
| bipson wrote:
| Hm, at least in Austria and Germany the government cannot
| simply change the TV license fee "just because". Of course
| they ultimately can, but it is not that easy.
|
| It still makes a _huge_ difference if money is distributed
| through the hands of the government, or dedicated 1:1.
| zajio1am wrote:
| > It still makes a huge difference if money is
| distributed through the hands of the government, or
| dedicated 1:1.
|
| Not really. You can make it mandatory government expense
| by law, so it is not controlled by the government and its
| change would require changing the law, which is similar
| to changing the TV fee (which is also limited by law).
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This is a political issue and political issues are
| debated in Parliament in any case, and that includes the
| budget. It's no more easy to cut funding if it comes from
| the general budget rather than from a ring-fenced
| dedicated tax, and ultimately people will decide what
| they want when it's elections time (and I can tell you
| that the majority of people in the UK are very attached
| to the BBC). This applies for the UK but also I'm sure
| also for Germany and Austria.
|
| IMHO, TV licences are anachronisms at this point (in the
| UK we still even have TV licence discounts for black and
| white TVs...) and it's right to at least debate if they
| are best suited well into the 21st century.
| bipson wrote:
| Oh, you haven't been following Austrian politics in the
| last 10 years it seems.
|
| - Parties says x in elections, that doesn't mean they
| will do x.
|
| - Some parties/politicians will use _every possible way_
| to force public stations to suit their needs - regardless
| of what people think. Most people will never know - they
| just consume TV, radio or tabloids and believe everything
| they hear /read.
|
| - If you don't institutionalize independence, it is
| _gone_.
|
| - People in Germany and even more so in Austria have no
| idea how valuable public stations are. In Austria in
| particular it is a growing trend to criticize and even
| _ridicule_ public stations - and this sentiment was
| gladly picked up and fueled by populists. They regularly
| demand that ORF is defunded - simply because they cannot
| control their unfavorable reporting on them - and they
| would like to. They were in the last government and they
| put "their guys" in every possible position to ensure
| control. They are still there and undermining the
| principles from within, trying to slowly destroy the ORF
| as a whole - either from incompetence or malice, who
| knows?
| flir wrote:
| In the UK Richard Sharp, the new chairman of the BBC's
| board of directors, has in the past donated PS400k to the
| Conservative Party.
|
| Turns out keeping the license fee out of the general fund
| didn't do much to institutionalize independence after
| all.
| joking wrote:
| there are a pretty way of saying your country have less
| income / business benefits tax, but then you fund your tv
| with a dedicated fee, your roads with tolls, your medical
| system with copays or private insurance... at the expense
| of having more inefficiencies and costs for the people
| having to manage those payments.
|
| Those payments are also less regressive, as usually you
| pay the same regardless your income opposed to the income
| tax, so the system is less fair for the low class.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| "Less regresssive"?
|
| LMFTFY. A flat-rate tax is regressive, because poor
| people pay the same as rich people. A sales tax (such as
| VAT) is regressive, because poor people buy more stuff as
| a proportion of their income.
|
| An income tax is progressive, because you pay more if you
| earn more.
|
| Several people have claimed that the Beeb is some kind of
| "public good". I don't happen to agree; but if it's true,
| then clearly it should be paid for out of general
| taxation.
| kwanbix wrote:
| IIRC in Germany Netflix EUR14, Disney+ EUR7, Amazon Prime
| Video EUR6. And all 3 I can watch whenever I travel. The
| TV/Radio Tax is about EUR18!!! and I can only "enjoy" it in
| Germany!!! Not only that, the quality of programming quite
| bad, and to make it even worse, I am forced to pay for it
| when I don't even watch it. When I moved to Germany it just
| blown my mind.
| germanier wrote:
| Most of their content is streamable worldwide. Exception
| being licensed content for which they only acquire the
| rights for streaming to Germany. Why would they buy
| worldwide licenses? Netflix and the others also don't do
| that - they only get licenses for the local market (of
| which they have much more of course), travelers are just a
| byproduct.
| flurdy wrote:
| NRK, the national broadcaster in Norway, let you watch
| geo-licensed content anywhere in Europe if you are logged
| in and authenticated with BankId [1][2]. Which is very
| handy, as before I had to go via VPN which was ok but
| more of a faff.
|
| * [1] https://nrkbeta.no/2019/12/19/na-kan-du-ta-med-nrk-
| tv-pa-fer...
|
| * [2] https://www.bankid.no/en/company/
| kwanbix wrote:
| You cannot access it from abroad. That is what I was told
| at least since I don't watch German TV. If what you say
| is right, I doubt, my bad. Still, I am forced to pay
| something that I have absolutely no use. Is like if I was
| forced to pay for slaughterhouses if I am vegan (I am
| not).
| matthiasv wrote:
| Are you also complaining about other parts of societal
| funding that does not benefit everyone? You could argue
| about so many things that might not affect you directly
| (schools, police, roads, ...) but at the end of the day you
| may also profit indirectly from those as well (more
| educated people, fewer crimes, proper goods distribution,
| ...).
| kwanbix wrote:
| Schools? Police? Roads? Seriously? You gave probably the
| worst examples you could have. You only missed firemen
| and hospitals.
|
| But even then, why so expensive? It is a lot of money.
| Germany has 80 million people, assuming 4 persons per
| house, that is 20 million homes times 18 times 12 is 4
| billion euros per year to pay for shitty tv shows.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| How could you possible live in Germany and not benefit in
| someway from the roads? And everyone pretty much relies
| on the existence of the police/hospitals, even if they
| rarely need their services.
|
| A million miles from what is mostly a luxury good with
| lots of competition.
| kwanbix wrote:
| Exactly my point, but I was downvoted.
| philwelch wrote:
| At that point, why don't they just have the government fund
| the television networks from tax revenue rather than
| effectively levying a poll tax earmarked for broadcasters?
| hashmush wrote:
| Sweden made the switch in 2019 I believe. It was the
| availability of computers and streaming that forced them to
| change things. Since people with computers could now watch
| the programming everything became more complicated.
| matthiasv wrote:
| As written down below: to prevent the government from
| controlling the public television which they easily could
| if that fee was just another expense in the yearly tax
| spending budget.
| CodesInChaos wrote:
| So they can pretend their state TV is independent from the
| state.
| LeanderK wrote:
| The german state TV is independent, neutral and does very
| good journalistic job. I don't know how on earth they
| could be criticised to be a propaganda outlet for the
| state. I personally know someone who works for the
| journalistic side of the state TV and I can assure you
| that he has all the journalistic freedom he needs.
|
| That being said, i fell like the state TV is the
| opposite. Only neutral news, facts without much of an
| opinion. For me it's not enough to follow the news since
| I can't be an expert in everything. I need voices from a
| certain my political spectrum that write what they feel
| about laws and processes. Environmental activists
| commenting environmental laws etc. Thats why I read the
| newspaper additionally. It's certainly not unbiased, but
| still independent.
| stkdump wrote:
| How does the state exert power over the broadcasters if
| their income doesn't come from the government?
|
| Edit: When I say 'how' I don't mean 'why', I mean 'by
| what means'.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Because the government is the one who gave them the
| authority to levy the fees from you and the people
| running the public broadcasters are all directly or
| indirectly politically connected to the major parties.
|
| Which other independent private business can just
| straight up charge you without you signing up for their
| service beforehand?
|
| In Germany and I guess, in most countries, the public
| broadcasters are basically low-key propaganda arms of the
| government. The whole separate tax thing is a
| intermediate smokescreen to give the public the illusion
| of independence.
| xorcist wrote:
| It's not just any private business. Compare with social
| insurance fees that must also be paid, it is not
| something you can opt out of while being part of the
| society. The fact that it is not a state owned
| organization is a feature, not a bug.
|
| In Germany specifically it is not a revolving door
| between public broadcasting and politics, and there is
| clearly journalistic pride in taking down corrupt
| politicians, so while it is always good to be suspicious
| of media calling it a propaganda arm is overstating it.
| Media isn't always neutral but privately financed isn't
| more neutral than others.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| You're contradicting yourself. You say it's good that the
| TV tax is levied by the government like social insurance
| fees but instead of it going directly to the government
| like social insurance fees, it goes to an "independent"
| organization and that's the "feature"? LOL, what?!
|
| Do you really think that money is no strings attached?
| Ideally it would be and I guess that's the idea on paper
| but in practice, the public broadcasters almost never
| criticize the ruling coalition on the "don't bite the
| hand that feeds you" rule.
|
| IIRC during the 2015 migrant crisis, no public debate was
| allowed on public TV over the decisions made to open the
| borders and the only opinion allowed on TV was that "it's
| good for everyone" with any argument against mass
| immigration (not immigrants themselves) heavily
| _verboten_.
| xorcist wrote:
| Yes, that is indeed how things work. It is not part of
| the budget and the ruling coalition has no mandate to
| bargain with it. I believe most European countries have
| similar checks and balances in place. I do not understand
| what the contradiction is, but if there is one it must be
| widespread.
|
| We pay for many things we can not use, roads where we
| don't live, schools we can not attend and health care for
| the opposite sex. That does not mean public funding is
| good in itself, only that the grey area between what is
| public and what is private is large and politicized and
| settled over time. I disagree with many of them but that
| is no reason to get counterfactual.
|
| There was a loud public debate about the migration
| crisis, both at the time and for a long time afterwards.
| It is important to recognize these things even if we
| don't personally agree with the outcome. That's part of
| living in a democracy.
| galvin wrote:
| Democracy requires an informed electorate and publicly
| funded broadcasters are a means to achieve that. The
| government must have as little control as possible over
| their funding to ensure their journalistic independence.
|
| That's the guiding theory at resulted in most European
| countries having some variation of a public broadcaster
| funded by TV (formally radio) licences.
|
| There are many implementation differences between
| countries and none of them are perfect but I would argue
| that those I'm familiar with serve their purpose.
| Bayart wrote:
| That's entirely dependent on the country and political
| culture. At the very least I can guaranty that in
| Britain, France and Germany public networks and new
| agencies are far more neutral and independent than
| private ones. And that's a result of political parties
| being unable to co-opt the administrative machinery of
| the government system. So they end up co-opting
| businessmen, who themselves control private media for
| influence.
|
| In a well designed democracy nobody is strong enough for
| long enough to take over public media, the school system,
| the judiciary, the army etc.
| hef19898 wrote:
| That money has no strings attached, unless the amunt is
| about to be changed. An changes to the fee have to be
| agreed upon by both chambers, Bundestag and Bundesrat.
| The Bundesat, representing the individual states, means
| state parliaments have to agree first. That's the reason
| why the last fee increase fell through after one state
| feared backlash from the AfD leaning members of the CDU
| (Merkals party) and voted against it.
|
| Once the fee is agreed upon, it cannot be changed either
| way with out every parliamnt agreeing to do so. The money
| cannot be held back by te "government" (we have
| coalitions, and those change regularly every 10 years or
| so). Neither can it be held back for state broadcasters
| (third programms) by the local governments or
| parliaments. Sounds pretty tempering free to me.
|
| And the debate did happen in 2015, or didn't you see the
| same panel discussions I saw? It also happened in print
| and the public broacasters reported aboutthat debate in
| their news segments. The nature of these news segments
| being to report facts and not to debate.
|
| It just turned out that only one party really opposed the
| opening of boarders, along with the right wings of the
| cnservative parties CDU and CSU. Thos are not the
| majority but rather a very very loud minority.
| realityking wrote:
| Nitpicking but this is a common misconception:
|
| > An changes to the fee have to be agreed upon by both
| chambers, Bundestag and Bundesrat.
|
| The federal government, and thus Bundestag and Bundesrat,
| have no say in the funding or operation of Germany's
| public broadcasters. The exception being Deutsche Welle
| which is not available in Germany and has an "external"
| audience.
|
| The funding on operation of public broadcasters is
| instead determined by a compact between the 16 states.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Ah thanks for the clarification! I always had the
| impression it was the Bundesrat\Tag. The compact things
| confused me. But that makes this whole thing even more
| robust it seems.
| dash2 wrote:
| >In Germany and I guess, in most countries, the public
| broadcasters are basically low-key propaganda arms of the
| government. The whole separate tax thing is a
| intermediate smokescreen to give the public the illusion
| of independence.
|
| This claim elides the difference between e.g. the BBC or
| Deutsche Welle and RT. It would be naive to think that
| the BBC is wholly independent of politicians. But it
| would be equally naive to think that they're no better
| than a state propaganda outlet.
| flir wrote:
| I can't speak to Germany, but I view the BBC as the voice
| of the Establishment. That's a subtly different thing
| from being the voice of the government of the day. That's
| why they look right-biased if you're looking at their
| news output, and left-biased if you're looking at their
| drama/comedy output: they're just reflecting the
| Established status quo.
| mattlutze wrote:
| The public broadcasters in Germany aren't propaganda arms
| of the government and are generally respected across
| political affiliation, except perhaps by the sort of
| folks that think AfD has the right approach. They may
| exhibit some editorial lean
| (https://www.dw.com/en/a-dual-broadcasting-
| system/a-435426), but from everything I've seen not even
| to the level that folks in the US complain about CNBC or
| Fox News.
|
| Germany, in fact, comes in with one of the highest press
| freedom scores from Reporters without Borders:
|
| https://rsf.org/en/germany ,
| https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/germany-media-profile/
|
| National public Radio and the Public Broadcast Company in
| the US, in further illustration, hasn't been Donald
| Trump's megaphone.
|
| Just generally, independent journalism is important and
| can be subverted whether the sources are public or
| private. Open pluralistic oversight is most important to
| maintaining balance and Germany seems to get it right,
| while also making sure the media can be accessible to any
| resident.
|
| Seems a not-awful approach to trying to ensure a more-
| educated population, which is also good for a democracy.
| account42 wrote:
| > except perhaps by the sort of folks that think AfD has
| the right approach
|
| Ah right, everyone that disagrees must be one of _those_
| people so their opinion doesn 't matter.
|
| > They may exhibit some editorial lean
|
| More than "some".
|
| > CNBC or Fox News
|
| Those are corporations that noone is not forced to fund
| if you disagree with them.
|
| > Just generally, independent journalism is important
|
| Except you can't give certain organizations a unique
| monopoly to collect fees from everyone and then call it
| independent with a straight face.
|
| Also, journalism is only a tiny part of german public TV
| channels. They also throw tons of money on sports
| broadcasting and game shows while promoting gambling. Add
| to that the insanity of having a local channel for every
| state. Even if you agree that public funded news is a
| good thing, the current setup is hardly an efficient way
| to accomplish that.
|
| > Seems a not-awful approach to trying to ensure a more-
| educated population, which is also good for a democracy.
|
| You can call it "education" if you want.
|
| Finally, unlike taxes, the TV fee is not means tested in
| Germany meaning that if you have a low income and don't
| fall into the few groups that are excempt then it is a
| very real burden.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Thanks for the edit. In Germany, the means are to put
| people leaning to certain parties in top positions. Or
| people with the right connections. As a result, the
| bavarian contribution, the BR, is not necessarly known
| for its liberal agenda. Others are more left leaning.
|
| One other way is to have former press and spokes persons
| from a government taking up positions at the
| braodcasters. When the current (?) spokesman of Angela
| Merkal left as a news presenter from the ARD (or ZDF, to
| lazy to loo it up...),that was regarded as a braek from
| customs and more or less a no-no affecting the
| independance of these broadcasters.
|
| TL;DR: Political parties, and not so much the
| "government", use soft power to influence these
| briadcasters. Quite often by having certain people
| selected for certain jobs.
| stkdump wrote:
| Is public broadcasting more prone to these things than
| privately funded broadcasting? If yes, why?
| hef19898 wrote:
| No, if anything I'd say even less. Private broadcasting
| can be influenced by add customers, politics and so on.
| Public briadcasting more or less only by soft political
| influence. Which tends to balance itself out between
| parties anyway. So if anything, basic bias tends to be
| the best reflection of the current center I can think of.
| cncndhJ wrote:
| Because the broadcasters need politicians and courts to
| confirm that the TV protection money is constitutional.
|
| It _is_ protection money: You haven 't ordered any
| service and if you don't pay they'll make you pay and
| ruin your credit score in the process.
|
| In the collection process they pretend to be a government
| institution to avoid going through local courts, which
| sometimes are against them.
|
| EDIT: Also, I'm beginning to wonder why any criticism of
| the German government or especially state TV is being
| downvoted here. Civil servants have a lot of time ...
| hef19898 wrote:
| I think it is downvoted because it ignores the complete
| historical context of this system. It was put in place
| after WW2, and with a lot of things implemented in the
| German Verfassung, it drew curcial lessons from the Nazis
| rise to power and their way of ruling.
|
| Broadcasting, as opposed to the 100% Nazi party controll
| of media before, was thus setup to be independetly funded
| and run. The ZDF, if memory serves well, is allowed to be
| more of a government policy outlet than the ARD and the
| third programms. The goal is to _prevent_ media to become
| government controlled, with the added benefit of being
| independent from add revenue. And that principal is still
| pretty solid.
| realityking wrote:
| > The ZDF, if memory serves well, is allowed to be more
| of a government policy outlet than the ARD and the third
| programms.
|
| This was the original intent: Adenauer wanted a federal
| public broadcaster to compete with ARD which he
| considered too critical of his government. The
| constitutional court shut that down as only the states
| have the right to set up public broadcasters with
| domestic transmissions (Deutsche Welle is focused
| externally). Today ZDF and ARD have the same legal
| framework, they are just organized differently.
| bnlpxg wrote:
| The arguments you make are orthogonal to the discussion
| whether TV fees should be protection money or based on
| actual TV ownership.
|
| The latter has been the status quo in Germany for the
| better part of time since WW2, and arguably people were
| less radicalized on both sides of the political spectrum
| than now.
|
| It is when institutions get overtly greedy that people
| start to complain.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| The lines are blurry, but we can see different cases.
|
| A notable case in 2009 was the contract as Editor in
| Chief of Nikolaus Beendet, which wasn't extended since
| Roland Koch didn't want to and went up to the
| Constitutional Court, which ruled that there was too much
| political influence at ZDF, leading to changed oversight,
| which still is close.
|
| TlRecent case is the "coalition crisis" in Saxony-Anhalt,
| where the parliament blocked the new rates.
|
| But it's complicated as bodies need some form of
| democratic legitimation and with the "Sozialwahl" we have
| one failing experiment of doing extra elections, aside
| from parliament elections ... where nobody knows who the
| candidates are and what they do ...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Lines are blurry in Germany sometimes, sure. But outlets
| like the ARD, and a lesser extent ZDF (there are some
| legal differences between the two, including
| independance) are way more neutral regarding the ruling,
| or major, parties like, say, Fox News and the GOP. And
| they have been, regardless of government coalition. They
| still are as far as their pure news formats are
| concerned, much mre "just the facts" then anything else I
| ever saw in the US. Their more "opinion" heavy pieces are
| different, but still are far cry from opinion pieces in
| the US, e.g. Hannity or O'Donnel. And that by itself is a
| good thing.
|
| Austrians public broadcasters, the ORF, are way better
| than that even. They mutineed against the attempt to
| install pulitical operatives at the head of the
| organisation. They even end interviews with gvernment
| secretaries if they don't get strsaight answers.
| account42 wrote:
| > ARD, and a lesser extent ZDF (there are some legal
| differences between the two, including independance) are
| way more neutral regarding the ruling, or major, parties
| like, say, Fox News and the GOP.
|
| That is hardly a strong endorsement.
| [deleted]
| hef19898 wrote:
| I could have used MSNBC and the Democrats. They have
| George W's former press secretary with her own show, so
| I'd say they are biased against the current GOP, less so
| against conservatives.
|
| As far media and press is concerned, fact based and
| neutral is the strongest endorsement I can think of.
| audunw wrote:
| It's not good for the government to have too much direct
| control over state media. They executive branch should not
| be able to change the budget from year to year on their
| own, since they can "punish" state media if they don't say
| things the government likes. Using tax revenue would
| generally give the executive branch power to set or at
| least propose the budget.
|
| When Norway recently moved to tax funding state media, I
| think they solved this by making it a completely separate
| dedicated tax. At least that's what was discussed, not sure
| about the details of the final implementation. So it can
| only be changed by a vote in parliament, which is more
| visible to the public, can take more time, and requires a
| majority of parties to agree on that specific change.
| philwelch wrote:
| I really don't see how one has anything to do with the
| other. In the US, PBS and NPR are funded through the
| general fund and they still have editorial independence.
| But maybe that's because the US system has a stronger
| separation of the legislative and executive branches.
| nwellnhof wrote:
| In Germany, the budget for public broadcasting is decided
| by a somewhat independent commission. Sounds good in
| theory, but after a few decades, public broadcasters now
| have a budget of more than 8 billion EUR per year. This
| is more than the revenue of all private TV stations
| combined.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Any payment the government forces you to make is a tax,
| in my opinion. And I see no difference in the
| "government" forcing you to pay a TV license versus
| bundling it in tax revenue. As you wrote, the same
| government can just preclude that amount of tax revenue
| from being altered by the "executive branch", if that is
| the goal.
|
| But otherwise, the "government" can always alter the tv
| license fee, or the tax. It's always under their control,
| and changing its label doesn't do anything.
| tallanvor wrote:
| Norway recently switched from a system where you paid a set
| fee if you owned a TV to a system where you pay based on
| your income and it's part of your tax form. The reasoning
| behind the change was that basically everyone either has a
| TV or internet, and since the channels are available
| online, everyone has access.
| 5cents wrote:
| The Monty Python-inspired comedians in KLM made at least
| one story about it https://youtu.be/iaVMO4t_D8c (length
| ~1 minute)
| visarga wrote:
| That was hilarious.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| In the UK I'd say the answer is probably that you can't as
| easily divert funds to a private Tory owned business by
| simply adding TV licence costs to taxes.
|
| IIRC it's Capita who collect the money and keep a
| remarkably high proportion of it. They're also employing
| people to lie and intimidate to try and get access to
| homes.
| haspok wrote:
| At least in the UK there is content on TV worthy of watching (I
| got addicted to snooker while there, also some quite
| interesting shows like "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole"),
| also, when I moved overseas they paid back the licence fee for
| the remaining part of the year, no questions asked.
|
| Now I'm in Austria and the "content" on TV channels is just
| ridiculous. Targeted at 70+ pensioners, but why should I pay
| for their entertainment...
| bergstromm466 wrote:
| > some quite interesting shows like "Benefits Britain: Life
| on the Dole"
|
| The show that demonizes, humiliates and dehumanizes working
| class people by filming them being evicted?
| bb123 wrote:
| > > some quite interesting shows like "Benefits Britain:
| Life on the Dole"
|
| > The show that demonizes, humiliates and dehumanizes
| working class people by filming them being evicted?
|
| The show that highlights, amplifies and prioritises the
| voices of working class people by filming them being
| evicted?
| bergstromm466 wrote:
| > The show that highlights, amplifies and prioritises the
| voices of working class people by filming them being
| evicted?
|
| Thank you for pointing this out. I don't know British TV
| well so I wrongly assumed it was another show, because it
| sounded like it. The show I originally thought OP was
| referring to is called 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!'.
| It is bile. That is what my above comment is really
| responding to.
|
| It's sad to see people actually laughing at others'
| misfortune such as this youtuber, who has made a
| compilation of 'Craziest Freakouts Ever!' with clips from
| 'Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!':
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0kO9TA96h4
| bennyelv wrote:
| While that may be what some people use "Can't pay, we'll
| take it away" for, the programme is presented in quite a
| sympathetic way.
|
| Often the enforcement agents have empathy with the people
| they are enforcing against, particularly when it's clear
| that the person has a struggle that's no fault of their
| own. They're far less sympathetic to wealthier people who
| are just ignoring their responsibilities and trying to
| get away with it.
|
| At least that's how I remember the show, I haven't
| actually watched broadcast TV for at least 2 years now.
| nailer wrote:
| You seem to be implying that the BBC is discriminating
| against working class people by showing people on benefits
| / being evicted.
|
| There are many working class people who are not on benefits
| or being evicted. You may wish to look for evidence of bias
| closer to home.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| That show isn't even a BBC production, it's from Channel
| 5
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| _> Now I 'm in Austria and the "content" on TV channels is
| just ridiculous._
|
| small demography of 9MM, so the only way to differentiate
| themselves against bigger German channels is to produce
| content specifically for that niche. Shows in Austria/CH only
| value-add are a "local dialect" of actors, or setting the
| plot/story within Austria/CH. Other than that it's either a
| poor local copy of German shows (which are often copies of
| international shows).
|
| Having been spoiled by British quality TV for a couple of
| decades I'd say the BBC is an incredible high yardstick,
| impossible to reach not just for Austria, but there is
| nothing like it in DACH.
|
| One of my biggest annoyance by far is the dubbing of OC into
| German. They have only a handful of voice-over actors who
| they rotate for these jobs so the lead-act of every other
| movie has the same voice[0].
|
| As a child I thought one of the reasons Eddie Murphy was so
| funny was because of his incredibly high-pitched voice[1].
| Once people sit through the dubbed content most of the
| meaning and jokes are lost.
|
| While other Europeans grow up watching things like Father
| Ted, Only Fools and Horses and such classics in their
| __original__ language, I have not 1 German-native friend who
| is able to follow English language on TV (even there are
| subs) and they will never get to appreciate other excellent
| shows like Norseman, Gomorrah, Suburra, because it's _" too
| difficult to read the subs"_ and they didn't have to since
| they were kids.
|
| [0] Dennis Schmidt-Foss has given voices to Ryan Reynolds,
| Chris Evans, Eddie Murphy and others. In fact the situation
| with E Murphy was so bad/ridiculous that they decided to give
| him a _new_ voice!! That's right the same person now has a
| different voice and nobody thinks that's odd.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKGAOM0mAOo
| nebolo wrote:
| Austria has FM4, which is an amazing radio station and well
| worth license fee. ORF Sport is also pretty good.
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| BBC is awesome, their news is very good and they produce some
| of the best series in the world. It's a shame that they have
| split up BBC UK and BBC International so strictly and do
| everything they can to lock all BBC UK offerings to citizens
| of the UK. It infuriates me that I'm redirected from
| bbc.co.uk to bbc.com and are being displayed something else
| than people in the UK. If I go to bbc.co.uk, I do that to
| find out what Brits are seeing.
|
| My girlfriend would gladly pay for being able to access BBC
| UK series, but that's apparently impossible. They've made
| some horrible contracts with BBC International that seem to
| prohibit that. It makes no sense that she has to resort to
| illegal streaming even though she'd love to be a paying
| customer.
|
| Another problem is also that BBC International creates and
| distributes US productions that are far below their normal
| standards. So if you're looking for BBC nature documentaries,
| for instance, you have to manually sort out all those trashy
| international productions that are like National Geographic
| commercials. As I've said, it's a shame.
| visarga wrote:
| BBC also sat on their 10 million hour archive of media
| while the internet, social networks, Wikipedia and blogs
| went ahead commenting, sharing, indexing, discussing and
| remixing other sources of content. They cared so much for
| their copyrights that their media became unconnected and
| unused.
| notahacker wrote:
| The BBC and developed the web based on-demand video
| platform that inspired Netflix back in 2005 and operates
| the world's most visited news website. They did this
| despite having fixed funding, charter obligations not to
| advertise around their content and royalty obligations to
| producers.
| billfruit wrote:
| While locking out most of that content for people outside
| the UK..
| jannes wrote:
| Apparently there is a subscription service called BritBox -
| created by BBC and ITV, but it's only available in
| Australia, USA and Canada.
|
| https://www.britbox.com/
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| I expect that will be slowly expanded; the BBC's new
| Director-General wants to increase commercial revenue
| (and immediately before being appointed as DG he was the
| CEO of BBC Studios, the BBC's commercial subsidiary).
| powderpig wrote:
| The new chairman has apparently donated to the Tory
| party.
|
| https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-
| richard-...
|
| The DG was also a former deputy chairman of Hammersmith
| and Fulham Conservative party.
|
| https://inews.co.uk/news/tim-davie-new-bbc-director-
| general-...
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| Should making a donation, campaigning for a candidate, or
| exercising other forms of political speech disqualify one
| from working as a civil servant?
| RobertKerans wrote:
| No, but it just raises valid questions regarding
| motivations. Civil servants are _supposed_ to not be
| biased toward a particular political party. In practice,
| that may well not be the case, but questioning his
| appointment is fair enough. The Tory party has for many
| years attacked the BBC, using those attacks as a
| political tool. So people draw conclusions from the
| appointment of a prominent Tory donor to the post of DG.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| Re BBC nature documentaries
|
| That's interesting what you have to say about international
| vs domestic documentaries. Could you give an example of
| either group?
|
| I mean, I appreciate the BBC documentaries that I've seen
| for their high production quality and photography,
| innovative CGI and all, and I think they inspired and
| pushed the limits and budgets for TV documentaries
| worldwide. But personally, I prefer old-school quiet and
| scientific documentaries having extended interviews with
| leading scientist of a field and generally are about a
| scientific discourse rather than CGI-heavy interpretations
| of historic, cosmic, or paleo events; you know the kind
| where dinosaurs look up to an approaching meteorite in
| sorrow, or idk Alexander the Great is portrayed as a vulgar
| commander yelling at his men, with lots of made-up ethno
| kitsch and sensationalist commentary. But perhaps these
| latter ones are exactly the kind you're not so appreciative
| of.
| visarga wrote:
| ethno kitsch .... mmmm, tasty
| mongol wrote:
| Those old-school documentaries do not seem to be made
| much any more. I also prefer them but they are rare to
| find nowadays. Instead I go looking for lectures on the
| topic on Youtube instead. Or search for podcasts.
|
| The production cost ratio is probably 1-100 or 1-1000, at
| least, between the old school, interview-an-expert type,
| and the dramatized CGI-heavy ones, so it is strange that
| so much money is put into production of documentaries
| with so little factual content value.
| vanilla-almond wrote:
| _" I prefer old-school quiet and scientific
| documentaries"_
|
| I do as well. The BBC actually produces a lot of these
| types of documentaries but they are probably not sold to
| broadcasters outside of the UK. I presume it's because
| they lack the big-budget, glossy look that is attractive
| to bigger audiences (and to international broadcasters).
| Or sometimes documentaries are trimmed or edited for
| international audiences. (I don't know if this is the BBC
| editing the programme or the broadcaster who bought the
| programme.)
|
| A lot of the "old-school quiet" documentaries can be
| found on BBC4 - a specialised channel that shows
| programmes on specialised or niche topics.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| Unfortunately BBC news really isn't that good any more.
| It's been on a long slow decline since about 2005 or so,
| and now the majority of their news programming (with a few
| small but notable exceptions) are primarily cheering on the
| Tory government + ministers of the day.
| andybak wrote:
| It sometimes seems like each side of the UK political
| spectrum is convinced that the BBC is irrevocably biased
| in favour of their opponents. The Tory right want to
| hamstring the BBC ("Bunch of Bloody Communists" used to
| be the witty cry) and jump on it at any opportunity.
| DaedPsyker wrote:
| I did agree with this sentiment for a long time but I
| have seen a shift towards failing to challenge
| conservative policies. I'm also quite critical of the
| number of Conservative members that have been made
| controller. There is a bit too much of revolving door
| between tory communications and BBC at the minute.
| WolfRazu wrote:
| I agree with this sentiment considerably. The BBC seems
| to get equal bashing from both sides of the political
| spectrum. I think therefore it's likely it's doing quite
| well in terms of impartiality.
| cameronh90 wrote:
| For a laugh and good demonstration of this point, check
| out the replies Laura Kuennsberg gets to any vaguely
| controversial tweet.
|
| Usually a solid amount accusing her of towing the party
| line, being friends with Boris, Tory mouthpiece etc then
| another bunch accusing her of being an example of how the
| BBC is full of leftie communists who want to reverse
| brexit. Both equally vitriolic.
|
| The way she draws the hate from both sides is impressive.
| hyperdunc wrote:
| It's partial to the status quo.
| arethuza wrote:
| I'm a huge fan of the BBC but I couldn't help notice that
| during the last Scottish Independence Referendum there
| was definitely a bias - which I did conclude was simply a
| bias towards the current state of things.
| captainbland wrote:
| It seems impossible to imagine the BBC being truly
| unbiased when the government occassionally likes to show
| it has power over the organisation by sabre-rattling over
| continuing to allow the TV license fee.
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/09/boris-
| johns...
|
| Honestly I think it has a general pro-government-of-the-
| day-bias - as you say, 'used to be the witty cry',
| indeed! Under New Labour it was still broadly speaking
| pro-government (generally, it's never totally uncritical,
| just tending towards friendliness relative to the
| opposition of the day), it was just a different
| government with different values.
|
| But people don't notice when something stops being biased
| against them if they've already stopped paying attention
| to it because they were previously put off by their
| perception of its bias, so many of these older
| perceptions of its bias still exist. This creates the
| illusion that there's bias both ways, based on people's
| claims, and that it therefore must be 'balanced'.
| aqsalose wrote:
| I agree with your general thesis. However, this line got
| me thinking:
|
| >It seems impossible to imagine the BBC being truly
| unbiased
|
| Thought example. If there was a truly objective, unbiased
| source of information about political and physical
| reality, wouldn't it be far too valuable to put in charge
| of a news desk. They should be running the government in
| place of the parliament and politicians!
|
| Of course, if you find the idea somehow troubling, this
| is to demonstrate that unbiasedness is actually more
| difficult concept than is sometimes given credit for.
| captainbland wrote:
| Ah, but that wouldn't be enough in a democracy because
| people might choose to vote against it given the right
| conditions. Your best bet in that case might be to
| communicate it to the voters in some sort of news
| programme - taking us back to square one!
|
| But in all seriousness I do accept that unbiased outlets
| basically don't really exist and it is an impossibly high
| bar. The reason I talk about this in the way that I do is
| not as some kind of campaign against the BBC: on the
| contrary, I think public service broadcasting is in
| general a good thing and frequently produces higher
| quality content than the vast majority of privately owned
| outlets, at least in the UK, despite its biases.
|
| It's just that to me, everything has a bias, and it's
| important to understand what any particular outlet's
| biases are before you start accepting information from
| it. I'd say this is the one redeeming feature of our
| print media, despite how much crap they often produce,
| they are at least usually very open about their biases.
|
| You can get a lot of good information out of the BBC news
| and politics programmes, but I'd say you do have to use a
| fairly critical lens to get the most out of it.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| "Truly objective, unbiased source"
|
| It's not possible to be an unbiased news reporter. The
| only thing we can wish for is reporting that wears its
| bias on its sleeve.
|
| What is this "unbiased" reporting anyway? It can only
| mean that I happen to share the bias.
|
| Any reporter who thinks their work is unbiased is a
| reporter who is unaware of their bias; which is much more
| dangerous than a reporter who is biased, and doesn't care
| who knows it.
| vidarh wrote:
| That used to be more of a thing, but the recent
| governments have politicised the control of the BBC in a
| way that was not nearly as overt in the past.
| pjc50 wrote:
| I take this "both sides" argument as a sign that actually
| it's just _bad_ - platforming the most extreme people
| from both sides in order to get the best fight, as if
| this was Jerry Springer without the chair throwing,
| rather than a sincere attempt to get at the truth of the
| matter.
|
| Edit: it's definitely going to get worse.
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-
| richard-s...
|
| There is no way that _anyone_ with that level of donation
| to _any_ political party can ever pretend that they or
| their organisation is "impartial". Being a Brexiteer
| just makes it even more ludicrous and guarantees that all
| the ongoing problems and losses of Brexit will be hidden
| by the state broadcaster.
| cjrp wrote:
| Their programmes quite often suffer from both-sidesism.
| They'll have a senior scientist on debating a conspiracy-
| theory-believing anti-vaxxer, as if they're both on the
| same level.
| da_big_ghey wrote:
| While that's galling to see, it's targeted to convince
| the anti-vaxxer, or really the person who's on the fence.
| If they just dismiss the ideas, the anti-vaxxer says, "Oh
| look, the mainstream media covering up the truth again.
| Must be paid off by ${EVIL_BILLIONAIRE}." If he's given a
| chance, debates, and loses, that's a much better
| impression.
| vixen99 wrote:
| What's with this tendency to stick a binary label on
| every controversial issue? There are peer-reviewed valid
| concerns about these vaccines. Are the authors lumped
| into the anti-vaxxers category?
|
| Regularly watching BBC World I've yet to see the _both-
| sideism_ you describe. As if on the same level? Well in
| relation to another bete noir, you 'll likely get to see
| an interview with Greta T. (zero academic qualifications)
| while waiting interminably to hear any (usually edited)
| counter-position from (for instance, there are many
| others) Richard Lindzen (with around 200 peer-reviewed
| papers in atmospheric climatology, MIT emeritus
| professor) or Judith Curry
| (https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html).
| Chris2048 wrote:
| That's arguably not "both-sides-ism" so much as "straw-
| man-ism" if one side does not get the best
| representation.
|
| That said, it depends on the demographic you want to
| represent.
| nailer wrote:
| > (the bCC) are primarily cheering on the Tory government
| + ministers of the day.
|
| I was about to say the opposite:
|
| https://order-order.com/2021/01/08/bbc-uses-old-picture-
| to-h...
| overscore wrote:
| BBC News has always been the de facto propaganda arm of
| the British government. It may only be apparent to you
| now, but their reporting has always been overly biased.
| Examples are any reporting on the Troubles (especially
| British crimes there), the Iraq war (especially the lead
| up and the Camp Stephen killings), and anything about
| Brexit.
| arethuza wrote:
| Slightly odd then that one of the names for the BBC used
| by Brexit supporters was the "Brussels Broadcasting
| Company" because they thought it was far too pro-EU.
| overscore wrote:
| As I'm sure you're aware, the British government was pro-
| EU during the Brexit campaign.
| DrBazza wrote:
| > My girlfriend would gladly pay for being able to access
| BBC UK series, but that's apparently impossible.
|
| There's the Britbox streaming service, but I have no idea
| whether it is international. Otherwise, there's limited
| amounts of BBC content on Netflix. But again, that may just
| be the UK version.
| Hard_Space wrote:
| It's not international, and is jealously geo-blocked. As
| a Brit expat, I wish it was available. They are
| effectively refusing my custom, presumably because they
| can make more money from international licensing deals
| for terrestrial stations and higher-reach streaming
| platforms such as Netflix and Amazon.
| philk10 wrote:
| I'm a Brit expat who is very fond of his VPN service and
| wishes he could give the BBC the money instead of them...
| DrBazza wrote:
| Can you use a VPN, and your parents or friends postcode
| in iPlayer?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| They lock content away from UK users too, it's mostly made
| by third party, paid by UK public, and so it's locked from
| international use so those companies can sell rights
| abroad, and locked from UK users so they can buy the
| content again (despite paying for it already).
| rsynnott wrote:
| > Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole
|
| This is by notorious awful tv station Channel 5, and is not
| paid for by the license fee. (In fairness, it's not amongst
| their most terrible content; about half of their programming
| amounts to "Look! Poor people! Haha!", and despite the name
| this isn't really an example of that.)
| pjc50 wrote:
| > "Benefits Britain: Life on the Dole"
|
| This is the kind of TV program that I think has contributed
| to the UK's extreme stinginess and bureaucracy of benefits;
| in aggregate it's probably got people killed. Cherry-picking
| the most lurid stories to make people look bad.
|
| It's also not a BBC show, it's by Channel 5!
|
| I'm with a lot of people that the BBC _can_ produce great
| stuff, but only when it remembers to be Reithian and the
| managers aren 't looking. These days most of the BBC content
| I watch comes from BBC4, plus the output of David
| Attenborough.
|
| (ORF produce exactly one show with an international
| reputation: the New Year's Day concert from Vienna, which is
| lovely)
| hef19898 wrote:
| Back the day, before streaming was a thing, the benfit of
| Austrian TV was to whatch the same movies like on German
| private channels. Without any adds. Was quite nice. For
| obvous reasons, Austrian publc broadcasters lost there
| liscense in ermany one day. With the exception of the border
| regions, they cited technical reasons. Not living in a border
| region, I do rememeber that the Austrian news was quite good
| to get different perspective. Movies, as I said, were nice as
| well.
|
| I do have to agree, so, that the home-grown entertainment
| sucks. In Germany as well. It is funny, so, that german
| public TV is not allowed to create their own streaming
| service and a lot of content has to removed from their online
| offerings after a certain period of time. Which kind of
| sucks. Especially since the rights catalogue of the public
| German networks, ARD and ZDF, used to be quite impressive.
| They just decidded to never show any of it before midnight,
| if at all.
| bipson wrote:
| Unfortunately the only demographic that really kept watching
| Austrian stations is pensioners, and sports fans (the amount
| of skiing tournaments on our main station in winter is
| ridiculous).
|
| Everyone else often had cable or SAT, which gave you all the
| German and also Swiss networks, particularly the private
| ones, where the program is aimed at different demographics
| (also possible because of vastly larger pockets: German ad
| market >> Austrian ad market)
|
| At least ORF tried to modernize its image, but do you want to
| lose your main demographic as well? Can you compete
| (financially) with German private TV and pay TV? Not to
| mention Netflix, Disney+, etc? There is not really a way out.
|
| So were stuck with Skiing, Austrian Soccer, Tatort and Gaming
| show clones. At least there is a lot of cooperation/joint
| shopping with German and Swiss (public) stations.
|
| The self-created German content could be worse though. Tatort
| can be quite nice, it is not aiming to be CSI - and that can
| be a good thing.
| mattlutze wrote:
| Is there an Austrian version of Tatort? I've only seen
| episodes/teams based in German cities.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Yep, Vienna has a team. There is also a Swiss one, I
| think.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Benefits Britain is C5, not BBC, so it's not funded by
| licence fees.
|
| Indeed very few programmes appear to be made by the BBC.
|
| It seems like what happened/happens is that producers form
| their own private company, do the work for the BBC but the
| public don't get to keep the benefit of the work paid for the
| benefit gets locked away to provide private gains.
|
| Long running programmes are now made by third parties when
| they could easily be made by the BBC proper, Gardeners'
| Question Time, say.
|
| In part is to serve 'talent', but BBC's remit is to fill the
| gaps where commercial programmes don't go, to be distinctive,
| so they should never be paying PSmillions for a talk show
| host.
|
| If you're going to use public money then you should be
| benefiting the public as much as possible, not carefully
| twisting it to get private profits.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| That was a political choice to increase competition it also
| means that more PS goes to the talent.
| doikor wrote:
| Here in Finland they just moved the payment into taxes in 2013.
|
| Basically 2.5% starting from income after 14000EUR and maxes
| out at 163EUR collected.
|
| https://www.vero.fi/en/About-us/newsroom/visual_aids_for_pre...
| Yaggo wrote:
| I remember the old times when there were inspectors going
| from door to door, often ex cops. Legally you weren't
| obligated to open your door, but if you did, and they heard a
| voice of TV, an invoice did follow. It was just crazy system.
| Yaggo wrote:
| IMO, YLE actually publishes pretty good content, watchable
| via streaming. Commercial channels are mostly full of shit.
| 163 EUR/year makes ~14 EUR/month, a fair price, if you accept
| that public broadcaster is a tolerable compromise.
| deanclatworthy wrote:
| Which is absurd to pay for if you're a foreigner not speaking
| Finnish, as the public broadcaster basically offers no
| content in English other than (poorly) translated news.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Taxes are mostly a package deal :)
| Hamuko wrote:
| YLE offers news in Finnish, Swedish, Finnish sign language,
| simple Finnish, English
| (https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/ doesn't look that
| poorly translated), Russian, Sami and Karelian. Areena also
| has many English-language programs that are just subtitled
| into Finnish.
| doikor wrote:
| YLE also has some originally English content (and as we
| don't dub adult programs in Finland you can enjoy them
| too). For example the early seasons Game of Thrones were
| shown on YLE in Finland (this was before HBO Nordic
| existed)
| alibarber wrote:
| To be fair it might appear poorly translated to an English
| speaker mainly due to the fact that there isn't much of it,
| in Finnish or otherwise.
|
| Some people in Finland regard this as a feature not a bug,
| although it's taken me a while to get used to.
| comprev wrote:
| Ireland also requires a TV license for each home. If you have any
| device _capable_ of receiving a signal you're required to pay....
| even if you only use the TV for games consoles or Netflix.
| zapdrive wrote:
| Wouldn't it make sense to just add the license fee/tax at the
| source of sale, just like electronic waste recycling fee etc.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| When you bought a new TV or video recorder then you used to
| have to supply your name and address. The selling business
| had to provide that info to the TV Licensing body by law.
| This was the mid-90s so it might have changed.
|
| I remember paying 300 quid for a VCR and giving them a fake
| name and address before leaving with my JVC under my arm.
| new299 wrote:
| Not since 2013 it seems:
|
| https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
| one/business...
| orange_tee wrote:
| No because it should be per household or per person, not per
| device.
| rtkwe wrote:
| Only for one time fees, most TV Licenses style taxes are
| recurring. If you try to base it off an 'expected lifetime'
| you're just guessing how often people will replace the TV and
| either get under or over charged based on how long they keep
| devices.
| sjwright wrote:
| Perhaps you could make it mandatory for a voucher good for
| 1 year of license to be sold alongside every TV. You can
| then credit that voucher to your household account.
|
| (If you bought more than one new TV per year, your TV
| license account would be in perpetual credit. I don't see
| that as a problem.)
| rtkwe wrote:
| That's just a tax with extra steps of dealing with the
| voucher. The average replacement timespan is 7-8 years so
| what's the point of including it in the first year?
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| In the UK, the fee is PS157.50 a year, EUR160 in Ireland. Any
| workaround to try and tie it to the point of sale would make
| buying a TV cost a fortune.
| midasuni wrote:
| You'd just buy the TV from the north of Ireland did it that
| way. If U.K. did it that way you'd buy it in the south. In
| Ireland you could also buy from the rest of the EU.
| azornathogron wrote:
| It might. But currently you pay the license fee each year,
| and it's one license per household. So if it gets bundled in
| the price of the receiver then you're changing the price
| model - now if you buy a TV for a spare room you're paying
| the license fee again, and if you replace your TV earlier
| than the average you lose out, if you keep your TV for longer
| than average you win.
|
| I expect it could be made to work, but I have no doubt people
| would complain about it. And the license fee is not a pure
| private contract - there is government involvement (hence all
| the political arguing about whether the BBC should be allowed
| to increase the fee or get rid of the exemption for senior
| citizens). So if there's a big change that lots of people
| complain about then it might be blocked for political reasons
| even if it actually makes sense over all.
| mejutoco wrote:
| If you share a flat with other people this exact same thing
| happens. In the german form, at least, you can specify that
| somebody is already paying for that flat (and you put their
| details) and they will stop asking.
| secondcoming wrote:
| The UK only requires you to have a TV licence if you watch BBC
| iPlayer, or watch _any_ live TV / stream, even if that content
| is not produced by the BBC. Also, recording something live in
| order to watch it later requires a TV licence.
|
| So, if you watch something live on Amazon Prime or YouTube, you
| need a TV licence. I don't know if the BBC define what 'live'
| actually means, there's always a delay.
|
| I have a TV but don't have a TV licence. I don't own an aerial
| cable and it's been factory reset to detune all the channels (I
| used live in a house that had a TV licence). I use it with a
| Chromecast.
|
| I have one of the 'threatening letters' next to me right now.
| They're all addressed to 'The Legal Occupier'. That's not my
| name. They can go **** themselves.
|
| Live TV is awful.
|
| https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ95
| midasuni wrote:
| Live is something as broadcast by a U.K. licensed
| broadcaster. YouTube lives wouldn't count for example, nor do
| zooms.
| ardourdev wrote:
| Unfortunately that is incorrect. You need a TV license even
| if you only watch foreign broadcasts:
| https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ16
| midasuni wrote:
| Commmunications act 2003 sec 368 specifies it applies to
| television programmes
|
| A Tim Dodd livestream of a spacex launch, or Potato
| McWhisky live-streaming a civ6 session is not a
| television programme.
|
| (If they were they would be subject to various ofcom
| rules)
| Osiris wrote:
| Maybe that's one reason some TV manufactures have started
| removing OTA tuners. My Visio is not actually labeled as a
| Television, I believe it's a home theater display, because it
| has no TV tuner.
| comprev wrote:
| Which model do you have?
| Aachen wrote:
| Same in Germany, or at least it used to be that way and
| somewhat recently they just got rid of the requirement to have
| a TV.
|
| It's just yet another tax. Moving to Germany feels a bit like
| they pretend to keep "tax rates" low by splitting out various
| things and making it "not a tax". In the Netherlands I had
| income tax and that was it, from that the govt just pays
| development aid and old age money (AOW) as needed. Here, you
| have church tax (if your parents signed you up for that party),
| new states support, broadcast fee, pension contribution, and
| probably more I'm forgetting.
| matthiasv wrote:
| While these things feel like taxes they are not because they
| are not managed by the government. Taxes (no matter their
| labelled purpose) are pooled and spent according to the
| yearly budget. Other fees collected by an agency are spent
| just for that purpose maybe propped up by money from the tax
| pool. Besides budgetary reasons, having a separate TV fee
| prevents (in theory) the government from interfering with the
| public media as there is no direct dependency.
| _ph_ wrote:
| The fee not being a tax in Germany is an important
| distinction for a very basic reason: The government has no
| direct control over it. The whole reason for the public TV
| and radio to exist is to create independent media, especially
| also independent from the state. So while the government is
| involved as far as it guarantees the system, it has no
| further control about it. So the government can't threaten to
| cut funds, just because they don't like critical reporting.
| And guess what, the right wing extremists are constantly
| asking for the end of that system.
| llampx wrote:
| Sounds like the options list when you buy a new BMW. Now I
| know where they got their inspiration from.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I've also seen this done on fines; it seems the fine is set
| by legal statute but, (and it's just an impression), they get
| around this here in California by tacking on court fees,
| etc..
| ktpsns wrote:
| The situation was (is) the same in Germany: There is a fee of
| about 20EUR/month per household in order to fund the public
| service broadcasting. And in the last century, these "TV detector
| vans" also have been a thing in Germany.
|
| While the detecting technology can work in theory, it will
| perform poorly in practice. Think of any dense settling, such as
| apartment blocks. It will be kind of impossible to determine the
| exact source of radio signals from the street, at least in the
| frequency domain and signal strength in question.
| jansan wrote:
| They had fee collectors in Germany in the 90s. When I was at
| university it was common knowledge that you do not have to let
| them in if they come to your home. A friend's roommate let them
| in anyways, which cost him 400 DM (that would now be about
| 500EUR).
| hef19898 wrote:
| I assume the 500 Euro includes inflation, doesn't it?
| Oherwise, I have to agree, back the day you didn't have to
| let these guys in. You didn't, you were save. Just another
| reason why the switched to a household fee. Regarding that
| so, not having a TV cable connection at our home, we do watch
| German public TV through their apps for Fire TV, so not
| oaying the fee and still wtching would be kind of using
| "alternative" streaming services, which I did too before
| Amazon prime and Netflix came about.
| IshKebab wrote:
| > To encourage compliance, TV Licencing regularly sends sternly
| worded letters to those who have let their licence lapse or have
| not purchased one.
|
| This is an understatement. It would be fairer to say they
| constantly spam you with scare mail.
|
| > In the event this fails, they may arrange a visit from
| enforcement officers.
|
| That's what they want you to think. In practice it never really
| happens. Too expensive. Hence the spam.
|
| > These officers aren't empowered to forcibly enter homes, so in
| the event a homeowner declines to cooperate with an
| investigation, TV Licencing will apply for a search warrant.
|
| I would be quite surprised if this has actually ever happened.
|
| It's pretty obvious they don't do any fancy detection these days
| (if they ever really did). It's just way too expensive.
| foreigner wrote:
| It happened to me too. I didn't own a TV at the time and
| explained that at the doorstep. I invited them to come inside
| and look around the house to confirm, but they declined.
| switch007 wrote:
| The letters are quite hilarious, e.g. (paraphrased) beginning:
|
| "175678561
|
| This is a case number that has been assigned to your property
| and will be used for all investigations.
|
| An investigation officer may be sent to your property to
| interview you under caution.
|
| ... "
|
| They do send people round though. They probably just hope to
| peek through the window and hope gullible people will let them
| in and sign paperwork.
| Veen wrote:
| > That's what they want you to think. In practice it never
| really happens. Too expensive. Hence the spam.
|
| It happened to me. A very nice man knocked on the door and
| delivered a speech about the licence fee. I told him we just
| use the TV to watch Netflix and Amazon Prime. He filled in a
| form and we haven't had one of those annoying letters since.
| vaduz wrote:
| >> These officers aren't empowered to forcibly enter homes, so
| in the event a homeowner declines to cooperate with an
| investigation, TV Licencing will apply for a search warrant.
|
| > I would be quite surprised if this has actually ever
| happened.
|
| Per the BBC/Capita own data available via FOI [0] (though not
| without them dragging their feet and making a simple process a
| protracted one... not to mention they tried to withdraw the
| documents provided [1]), in FY 2014/2015 there were 351
| enforcement requests made for all of UK, _the Capita /TVL Legal
| made 256 applications to court_ for a warrant, 167 of those
| were granted and 115 were actually executed after being
| granted.
|
| If they think they have grounds they will absolutely try to get
| the warrant - and note that there is a disparity between what
| the "commercial" arm of the enforcement thinks they can push on
| (351) and what the court system thinks is actually suffcient
| (167).
|
| That count does not include the times where Capita/TVL managed
| to get enough without going that fair (the 170k cases they
| managed to get without warranted visits, for instance).
|
| [0] http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/bbc-releases-
| tv-l... [1]
| https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/monthly_performance_p...
| Nextgrid wrote:
| The TV license collection & enforcement is outsourced to a
| terrible consulting company (Capita) which employs goons on
| commission so they have an incentive to lie and misrepresent
| themselves or what they're allowed to do in order to sell a
| license.
|
| This makes me feel bad for the people who actually do need and
| pay for a TV license since a chunk of that money is wasted on
| this scum instead of being used to fund the BBC or whatever the
| license is supposed to fund.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| It's worth noting that the goons are private contractors, and
| have absolutely no rights beyond what the average bloke down
| the street would have. They can't enter your house without
| permission, and they can't force you to sign documents.
|
| In the UK, we have a legal theory called the implied
| invitation, which means that it is implied (because it would
| otherwise be ridiculous) that any member of the public is
| invited to walk on your property up to your front door. This
| allows the postal service to put letters through your letter
| box, and people to knock on your door to say hi. However,
| this right can be revoked. You can write to Capita and state
| that you are withdrawing the implied invitation to all its
| members and agents, and that they are not welcome on your
| property. Then, they are not allowed to enter your property
| and are trespassing if they do, and you can call the police
| straight away without even warning them (because you did warn
| them already by post). Capita (despite its many faults) does
| seem to obey this.
|
| I did this for my property shortly after I moved in. A little
| while later, a group of people did wander down the road. Half
| of them came onto the property and knocked on the door,
| claimed to be from Sky, and asked if we wanted to get
| satellite TV. The other half were wearing a different uniform
| and stayed outside the property. I strongly suspect that half
| was Capita agents who asked some Sky employees to help them
| out. Unfortunately, it was my wife who answered. Although she
| told them to go away, I would have been angry at them,
| because they had made the Sky employees into Capita agents,
| and therefore they were trespassing.
|
| The threatening letters are atrocious. They are scary for
| anyone who doesn't know what they are doing, as they almost
| imply that your door is going to be broken down and you'll be
| hauled off to prison. I called Capita out on this. I wrote to
| them declaring that any further threatening letters from them
| would be classed as harassment, and that the police would be
| involved. They stopped sending them.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Pretty sure this was outted as fake.
|
| The idea of a van watching you is enough for many to change their
| behavior
| joezydeco wrote:
| I've done some work with Buckman Hardy in the UK, they
| developed and sold a handheld detector to the BBC. They're a
| legitimate engineering company, I doubt they would admit to
| being in on the gag if this was fake.
|
| http://www.buckman-hardy.co.uk/portfolio/television-detectio...
| rkachowski wrote:
| I remember as recently as the mid 90s there were intimidating
| advertisements on UK tv about how tv license vans were going to
| find you and kick your doors down if you hadn't paid.
|
| I had assumed it was complete scare tactics, I never once
| thought that they had existed in some previous era.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| I don't believe there has been a single conviction based upon
| evidence gathered by these vans. They're like lie detector
| machines - useful only as a tool to get people to confess. Same
| with the inspectors, they're private citizens with no legal
| authority to enter a property without permission. Their purpose
| is to cultivate fear of prosecution, not to recoup lost
| revenue.
| tosteris wrote:
| > I don't believe there has been a single conviction based
| upon evidence gathered by these vans
|
| According to the article they were not intended for
| convictions but instead to get a search warrant and then
| gather evidence for a conviction.
|
| So who knows how many convictions were started because of the
| vans. Though I agree that the fear factor probably did help
| more than the search warrants.
| slumdev wrote:
| No reason to believe it couldn't work:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_(codename)#Public_rese...
| dtech wrote:
| Yeah, this reminded me of the dutch broadcastings association
| 1969's april fools joke. In which they said to have developed a
| device that detects "zwartkijkers" (blackwatchers), for use by
| mailmen [1].
|
| Funny detail, the reporter asked "Can this devise detect all
| televisions?" to which the fake interviewee answered, "well if
| you wrap your set in aluminum foil no, but otherwise yes". The
| next day aluminum foil was sold out nation-wide.
|
| [1] https://www.facebook.com/AndereTijden/videos/1-aprilgrap-
| jou...
| shatnersbassoon wrote:
| Many but not all :) - Some buddies of mine used to live in a
| student flat in Bristol that overlooked the TV Licensing
| Authority offices. My friends watched them go about their
| business over the top of their unlicensed TV for 2.5 years.
| simonh wrote:
| They were a real thing. When an old style TV amplifies the TV
| signal and feeds it to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the
| boosted signal. I think the rumour that the vans were a fake
| was probably because they only ever had a few and it was mostly
| a propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
|
| Intelligence agencies used receivers to snoop in on CRT
| computer monitor signals and could re-generate the display
| output, I remember watching a TV program where some electrical
| engineers built a home-grown version and demonstrated how it
| worked. It was only effective up to about a dozen metres IIRC
| with their setup, but theoretically could work at longer range
| with better hardware.
|
| I remember chatting with friends about it because we were
| playing an espionage RPG at the time so of course we wanted our
| characters to have access to the tech.
| YeGoblynQueenne wrote:
| >> When an old style TV amplifies the TV signal and feeds it
| to the CRT tube, it leaks a lot of the boosted signal. I
| think the rumour that the vans were a fake was probably
| because they only ever had a few and it was mostly a
| propaganda show, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
|
| Just because the technology exists, doesn't mean the BBC
| actually used it. For one thing, it would have been far
| cheaper to put out the word that the vans are on the streets
| and patrolling, than to actually buy them, equip them and
| staff them with trained personel that could operate the
| devices.
|
| Alternatively, perhaps a few of those vans really did exist
| and the rest was smoke and mirrors- rumours, fake vans
| without any active technology, etc.
|
| Note that the reason I'm finding this likely is that the TV
| Licensing people are known for using psychological warfare
| tactics. For instance, I don't watch TV [1] and yet I
| periodically receive threatening letters from the TV
| licensing authority telling me that if I'm found to watch TV
| without a license I'll be fined, etc. Clearly, they send
| those letters to all addresses in the UK that don't have a
| license, under the assumption that most addresses without a
| license actually need one and that by sending out threatening
| letters en masse they will scare some of those shirkers into
| compliance- regardless of how many people who don't actually
| watch TV they end up threatening in the process. I've also
| seen some really startling public campaigns with posters
| showing bullseyes on houses, creepy slogans about being
| watched and so on.
|
| Their tactics are a veritable nuisance and their mass mailing
| campaigns may or may not have the effect they want, but they
| sure have the effect of bothering random, uninvolved people
| with threatening government spam.
|
| _____________
|
| [1] Er, well. I do occasionally watch TV shows, or rather
| clips thereof- on youtube. But that's not covered by the
| licensing. You need a license if you're watching TV
| programmes as they are being broadcast. So for example, I had
| a TV set for a few years that I used exclusively with a PS2
| and I didn't need a license for it- but I'm pretty sure that
| if I had ever been visited by one of the TV licensing agents,
| I'd have been forced to pay anyway. How exactly do you prove
| that you have a TV set but don't watch TV? Most modern houses
| have aerial plugs - mine sure does. The only thing that
| really stopped me from connecting the TV set I had to the
| aerial was that I basically dislike TV. How do you prove
| _that_ to an agent hell-bent on collecting?
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| I used to get the letters because I bought a TV for use as
| a monitor for video projects and I was stupid enough to
| give my address when asked to.
|
| They're sent out on a cycle with a bit of randomness. It's
| quite fun to collect the set.
|
| They stopped when I phoned the Bristol office and they
| asked how I'd feel if an inspector came over. I told them
| they were welcome any time, and the drive over would be a
| nice day out. [True]
| IanCal wrote:
| The solution built in R&D (as far as the rumour goes) was
| much simpler. There were only a few channels (typically 4)
| and this would have been all analog broadcast. The much
| simpler signal that TVs "leak" is _light_.
|
| So look at the pattern of changing colours through curtains,
| and compare to a TV in the van with something to diffuse the
| light over the top.
|
| Of course, the even simpler approach is to tell people you
| can do this and just send around / threaten to send around
| random vans.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| They were fake. It would be extremely difficult on most
| streets and impossible in virtually all tower blocks to
| triangulate an exact location to a single house/flat.
|
| And the design was ridiculous. A working detector doesn't
| need to look anything like an aerial stuck on top of a
| minivan.
|
| And the only record of them being used in a prosecution is
| for _optical_ detection of combined RGB. Plus some
| handwaving. Not RF.
|
| So they were pretty much a psy-op.
|
| It's relevant that the license fee collectors - who belong to
| Capita, one of those curious quasi-private-with-state-support
| companies that buzz around the British government like flies
| - rely almost entirely on self-incrimination for
| prosecutions.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Doing it with RF was perfected in the 1950s but the actual
| use was definitely limited if at all.
|
| See Operation RAFTER
| simonh wrote:
| So the linked articles in actual post office electrical
| engineering journals from the time, over several decades,
| including detailed calculations and implementation details
| were also fake?
|
| Plus they managed to somehow infiltrate a fake freedom of
| information request detailing a BBC application for a
| warrant based on TV detection, and internal documents
| detailing the operation of the relevant department and its
| legal basis of operation, into the whatdotheyknow FOI
| requests archive?
|
| It seems unlikely, especially for varied forms of evidence
| over such a long period.
| numlock86 wrote:
| > They were fake.
|
| Thank you. Just last year or so there was an article linked
| on HN that investigated on this. And it turned out to be
| all fake. There was some sort of prototype that actually
| worked, but the range was so limited and localization was
| not possible at all ... it simply wasn't practical for any
| use. As the funding was somewhat public and news picked up
| on that, the myth was spreading and they made these fake
| vans with scary antennas and went on their scare-/psy-ops.
| News picked up on that again and word quickly spread all
| around. IIRC there was even some exhibit linked in the
| article that had various builds of these fake-vans. Of
| course everything was only props. The real deal simply only
| existed in people's heads. Plus there isn't any working
| hardware from that era to be found nowadays anywhere
| anyway. As the conspiracy theory goes on, that's apparently
| because it was all destroyed by BBC after the act. If you
| ask those people about all the other countries that had
| this apparently going on about where the remains of the
| equipment are nowadays you get a -\\_(tsu)_/- at best.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| I'm sure it's entirely feasible to build such a thing, but
| try to find a case prosecuted because of a detector van, or
| results used as evidence. It doesn't appear to have ever
| happened.
|
| And where is the detector van union? Memorial service for the
| driver who crashed? Job postings?
| avh02 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking
|
| when i read that article years ago i went in to a huge rabbit
| hole about side-channel attacks. A lot of the information
| from that reading spree has stuck with me
| simonh wrote:
| That's it, the name rings a bell. I was in 6th form in the
| UK (high school) in 1985 so the timing matches.
| superrad wrote:
| Yeah I thought it was just a scare tactic and something the
| licence 'enforcers' could say (i.e. 'our detector van says you
| have a tv') to try and catch people out.
|
| They surely can't get too much of a return paying people to
| check up on only potential licence 'evaders' so investing in a
| fleet of actual vans with drivers and operators would further
| reduce any return.
| mhh__ wrote:
| > Pretty sure this was outted as fake.
|
| The technology is completely sound, MI5 invented the rough idea
| for hunting spies (Operation RAFTER), but whether it was
| widespread or not? Seems unlikely.
| scrooched_moose wrote:
| I believe the current theory is they simply look for light
| leakage. If they see a "flash - 200ms - flash - 400ms - flash -
| 350ms - flash" pattern leaking through your curtains precisely
| at the moment the same pattern occurs in a live broadcast they
| know you're watching.
| beerandt wrote:
| You say simply, but I think that's much more difficult than
| just detecting the presence of em noise conforming to a
| broadcast standard.
|
| Anyone that's put an AM radio next to a CRT TV knows it emits
| em noise.
|
| The CRT itself is, to over simplify, a high voltage
| capacitor. It's one of the most popular devices used to power
| hobbyist Tesla coils...
|
| I don't know why everyone seems to think that just because
| TVs were "receive-only" devices, that they wouldn't emit any
| sort of easily detectable signal.
|
| Also, when this enforcement began, broadcast was the only
| source of TV content, so the presence of a TV was generally
| proof of watching broadcasts. There wasn't really any need to
| prove the TV was tuned to any particular _content._
|
| Now, whether it is a practical, effective method of
| enforcement that was actually used is another matter.
| scrooched_moose wrote:
| Maybe poor phrasing on my part, but that's the prevalent
| theory I've seen for how they do it today. Various other
| methods of EM leakage _might_ have worked in the past
| (unproven as far as I know), but modern televisions are so
| much better built that visible light leakage is believed to
| be the only effective detection method.
| raverbashing wrote:
| You're thinking too much like an engineer
|
| Here's my TV detection method: look at their windows and
| see if there's a light flickering pattern that looks like a
| TV (if behind curtains) or maybe you can see the TV
| joosters wrote:
| 'TV Light Simulators' are actually a thing:
|
| https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=tv+light+simulator&atb=v
| 172...
| raverbashing wrote:
| Your point?
|
| If you're trying to avoid being suspected of having a tv,
| that sounds as smart as trying to rob a gun store with a
| fake weapon
| [deleted]
| Closi wrote:
| There was another theory (spread by the media and by the
| half-denying-half-encouraging bbc) that the vans can detect
| iPlayer usage across WiFi by looking at the level of network
| traffic, and then to a range of IP addresses in an area
| intentionally changing the amount of data the app received
| up/down to see if network activity changed correspondingly.
|
| https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-
| technology/6976...
|
| It's really all a big scare tactic though. The best way to
| detect iPlayer being used wrongly will be to see who
| registers for an account with an identifiable email address.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| _"Ministry of Ousinge?!"
|
| "Ministry of what?"
|
| "Ousinge. It were spelt like that on t' van"
|
| "Van? What van?"
|
| "The Cat Detector Van."
|
| "... You _are_ a loony."_
| sys_64738 wrote:
| The vans were real. I remember one sitting outside my apt in
| England with the twirling antennae looking for felons who had a
| TV without paying a license fee.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I think the main question is whether the detection technology
| was real and worked as expected or they were just decoys.
| jansan wrote:
| It would be much easier to spot a TV flickering through a
| window. My guess is that's what they did, and then claim that
| they had detected it with their super duper high-tech
| antennas.
| camkego wrote:
| I believe the technology used to detect the signals as
| described in the article was also used during World War II
| to detect radio transmitters of spies and other operatives.
| It's very real technology.
| jansan wrote:
| But transmitting is different from receiving. How do you
| detect a receiver?
| vaduz wrote:
| Rather trivially, as any superheterodyne receiver from
| has an intermediate frequency oscillator that is mixed
| with the signal - and it is hard to not emit RF from
| that.
|
| Modern equipment just tends to be better designed to
| tighter tolerances as both the standards on inadvertent
| emissions and manufacturing have been tightened so it
| emits much less - but still not zero.
| xorcist wrote:
| There is a lot of HF leakage from an analogue TV set up
| close. Not many users put their TV in a Faraday cage.
| midasuni wrote:
| Neither of those would stand up in court. You have to
| actually see the actual program that was live (not a tape
| recording), or get an admission
| steerablesafe wrote:
| I think the idea is that they never went to court.
| teekert wrote:
| In 1969 the Dutch Television broadcasters did an April fools
| joke, they said they could detect people that did not pay for
| watching TV (zwartkijkers) by driving around with a detector [0].
| It could be blocked by wrapping your TV in aluminum foil. The
| next day aluminum foil was sold out in many places...
|
| [0] https://historiek.net/1-april-grappendag/1070/
| unixhero wrote:
| In Norway too.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| Imagine if other corps behaved like this.
|
| If printer companies managed to get legislation written that
| allowed them to send people to knock on you door and check your
| printers are only using authorised ink.
|
| Or Microsoft agents checking your OS licenses are in order.
| forgingahead wrote:
| "Television license fees" are a peculiar concept if you've not
| lived in a country that requires them, but as another commenter
| pointed out, several countries, mainly in Europe but outside as
| well, have this "system" in place.
|
| Quite frankly it's ridiculous - imagine needing to pay a "fee" to
| CNN/Fox News/NYTimes/Yahoo/whatever-well-connected dotcom just
| because you have an internet connection and web browser.
| mrkwse wrote:
| > Quite frankly it's ridiculous - imagine needing to pay a
| "fee" to CNN/Fox News/NYTimes/Yahoo just because you have a
| internet connection and web browser.
|
| This comparison is ridiculous. The license fee is a little
| outdated in certain aspects but it covers more than just
| broadcast news as the orgs you mentioned do.
|
| The BBC has a broad remit to inform, educate, and entertain.
| Not in itself radically different to a lot of other
| broadcasters, and typical for a public service broadcaster, but
| the universal license fee is a key differentiator.
|
| In requiring everyone with a television to contribute, the BBC
| has a duty to serve the entire population of a country,
| regardless of their income or demographic. This enables the BBC
| to produce content that may not be commercially viable for
| privately funded broadcasters that in term can serve
| communities that would otherwise be overlooked. BBC's Three and
| Four channels tend to best exemplify this aspect with content
| that can often be slightly niche and, in the case of Three,
| regularly have casts and production crews that are far more
| diverse than the industry averages.
|
| The license fee is also independent of the state budget. The
| Government does have the power and oversight to adjust funding
| every 5-11 years, but the royal charter ensures that funding is
| separate from typical taxation and avoids the Treasury. This
| also ensures (in theory) that there is more autonomy for
| accurate, fair, and unbiased news reporting.
|
| The BBC has also for most of its existence operated and
| maintained a lot of shared broadcasting infrastructure (which
| admittedly is less key as viewing moves away from terrestrial
| broadcast and towards IP services, and to a lesser extent cable
| and satellite). In the previous charter they also had a
| responsibility to improve broadband infrastructure in rural
| areas.
|
| There's also a final aspect to this in that the BBC performs a
| lot of public service open research into emerging technologies
| as well as the social impact of them and different forms of
| media. Most media organisations don't care about anything other
| than how much of a person's attention they can capture at the
| expense of everything else. More eyes on a media org = more
| advertising sold. The BBC's model means they can actually give
| consideration to what healthy consumption is and how to promote
| digital wellbeing etc., as well as ensuring younger audiences
| are better catered for (there's a great article on how YouTube
| Kids has severely let down its young audiences in the past
| here: https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-
| the-in... )
| forgingahead wrote:
| While you're certainly correct about the _ideals_ of the BBC,
| there are enough people who have decidedly stopped consuming
| their content, either because of the terrible decline in
| quality (I stopped reading BBCNews because of the clickbait
| years ago), or preference not to consume it in general.
| Mandatory license fees, and any enforcement to collect as
| such, is therefore completely ridiculous in this day and age.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| More than 90% of households in the UK watch/listen/read at
| last 1 things on the BBC every week.
|
| A lot of people _say_ "Oh I don't consume anything the BBC
| makes", and often they just don't realise that they do.
| [deleted]
| gadders wrote:
| In the UK, the BBC is a secular religion, much like the NHS.
| bb123 wrote:
| I'm not sure using CNN and Fox News as examples of how the
| system should work is a great counterpoint. The US has a
| massive problem with terrible quality TV and web news sources.
| The licence fee system at least attempts to create an
| alternative to that.
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| I have said this before and I will say it again...Dear BBC,
| please allow the rest of the world to pay for a subscription to
| the iPlayer. Just take my money, really, please?
| robertlagrant wrote:
| It's astonishing this doesn't happen.
| nisa wrote:
| Not really. There are probably ton's of licence boilerplate
| that requires extra money for the possibility that someone
| might watch from a different country.
|
| Even content that appears to be directly from the BBC is
| probably created by some firm that and gave it under some
| licence terms to the BBC.
|
| There was a stalled imitative to end this bullshit at least
| inside the EU but the content-lobby was stronger.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Geniune question: what is on the BBC that you would want to
| watch that you can't get elsewhere?
| mhh__ wrote:
| The BBC's peak output isn't all that different from anywhere
| else, but the professionalism and quality of median BBC show
| exceeds pretty much anywhere else I find - History
| documentaries that aren't about Ancient Aliens (low-hanging
| fruit, but still).
| bitcharmer wrote:
| BBC has awesome content in areas such as nature, science,
| history. For example go check out BBC Earth or BBC knowledge
| series.
| rvz wrote:
| Yes. Their content in BBC 4 and 2, History archives and
| Earth series has some quality there and is probably worth
| looking at.
|
| Everything else on BBC Online (BBC 3, Reels, Entertainment
| section, Politics and Newsbeat) is not worth looking at.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Check out History Hit TV [1] - a lot of stuff by Dan Snow
| who is a great presenter IMHO.
|
| [1] https://tv.historyhit.com/
| bitcharmer wrote:
| This is great; very valuable content. Thanks for sharing!
| petepete wrote:
| The content from BBC4 in general.
|
| Mainly the wide array of in-depth documentaries presented by
| experts.
|
| Yes, there've been loads of TOTP reruns since their budget
| was slashed and there may be some overlap with Sky Arts in
| some areas, but no channel comes close.
|
| Notable excellent non-docs include Screenwipe, Only Connect,
| Detectorists (my favourite sitcom from the last ten years),
| The Thick of It.
|
| I'd pay my licence fee just for BBC4, Radio 4 and BBC News.
| aurea wrote:
| Antiques Roadshow, Gardeners' World, University Challenge,
| Mastermind... yes I'm a British grandpa at heart. I would pay
| for iPlayer to watch these.
| wombatmobile wrote:
| News reporting and current affairs analysis that isn't
| constrained by commercial interests.
| midasuni wrote:
| BBC world is far better than domestic output, and is
| available globally (just not in the U.K.)
| myrandomcomment wrote:
| Between myself and my wife...Dr. Who, University Challenge,
| Only Connect, Death In Paradise, Escape To The Country, Top
| Gear (they have the formula right now after some false
| starts), tons of good mystery shows, lots of great new
| comedies, etc. I can "find" them all elsewhere but I would be
| happy to pay for them as a service.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| Unfortunately this is common across many countries. I'm an
| expat in UK and would love to get (paid) access to content from
| my home country (in UE) but it's simply not possible.
|
| Seems like state TV still has a long way to go.
| midasuni wrote:
| I actually used the pirate bay last year for the first time
| in what feels like decades, because CBS wouldn't give me any
| way to watch Lower Decks.
|
| Netflix and Amazon carry Discovery and Picard, but when it
| came to LD nobody wanted my money because I live in 95% of
| the world.
| londons_explore wrote:
| They think they'll make more money by selling exclusive
| geographic rights to each show to some local TV station or
| streaming site in each country.
|
| It makes a bit of sense - a local outfit probably has far more
| marketing reach, a bigger local audience, can schedule release
| at the optimal moment not during some local sport match, and
| can tailor the content locally (translations, censorship).
| hadrien01 wrote:
| They had a BBC iPlayer subscription for Europe a few years ago,
| but there was far less content (because of rights management,
| obviously).
| mhh__ wrote:
| Britbox is supposed to be that, I think, but I wouldn't be at
| all surprised if the BBC cannot legally sell iPlayer
| subscriptions as easily as you'd think because the BBC's
| copyright library (especially music) is _unbelievable_ [1]
| compared to most other organizations, so they'd have to make
| multiple versions of everything on their books to deal with
| licencing issues. Lots of British shows get their soundtracks
| neutered because of this when they are sold abroad.
|
| [1] Example: Sky Sports F1 is pretty big budget, but they're
| still stuck using [knock-off version of The Chain] rather than
| the real thing, whereas the BBC can break out a really
| expensive song (e.g. Money for nothing by Dire Straits) for a
| throwaway segment.
| jeremycarter wrote:
| Is this because they operate radio stations or some other
| licensing deal?
| rtkwe wrote:
| Benefits of being a quasi-governmental media agency I bet,
| the laws get written to give you access to most things at
| very low or zero cost.
| tobylane wrote:
| I'm surprised to hear that, because my understanding is that
| all the major broadcasters have a blanket licence to play all
| music (from major record labels). They can just stick a top
| 40 hit in the background of a soap without planning for it.
| Maybe that doesn't apply to something as primary as the shows
| theme song.
| soneil wrote:
| I believe that's exactly the problem - that licence is only
| good for the UK.
|
| When shows are exported they'll gut them. Top Gear is the
| best example I know of, on the netflix & bbc america
| versions, most the recognisable songs have been replaced by
| musak.
| ortusdux wrote:
| I would imagine a majority of the issue is music licensing
| rights, as those are usually only purchased for the destination
| country.
| mhh__ wrote:
| As I've mentioned in my bigger comment down the thread, the
| BBC's music (and other material, even things like Album
| Covers) library is genuinely gargantuan.
| mothsonasloth wrote:
| The article fails to point out that today the enforcement vans
| are replaced by harassing enforcement officers.
|
| These are contracted through slimey companies like Serco and
| Capita (Crapita).
|
| I don't normally say it but it really is an example of the nanny
| state.
|
| Check this video out, it's an eye opener
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXcLqvFjMhE&t=608
| lucian1900 wrote:
| It's more of an example of privatisation than anything else.
| supernova87a wrote:
| If you have to have snooping vans prowling the streets to catch
| people listening to what's openly being broadcast over the
| airwaves to make them pay, maybe you've set up your system
| wrong...
| joostdevries wrote:
| In 1969 the national TV news broadcast in the Netherlands
| reported that inspectors would be driving through the streets to
| catch people who hadn't paid their license fee. "Surely people
| won't be wrapping their tvs in aluminium foil. So we'll catch
| them!" Aluminium foil was sold out the next day. The date was
| april 1st.
|
| https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_aprilgrap#Jaren_60
| 867-5309 wrote:
| note to self: print TELEVISION DETECTION on side of wardriving
| car
| gramie wrote:
| I can't believe that no one has made a connection between these
| and Monty Python's cat detector vans
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2maz36_q6Fk)
| sevensor wrote:
| Never seen so many bleeding aerials!
| OJFord wrote:
| ...Didn't Monty Python?
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| With Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+, YouTube, etc. the BBC have a
| hard time justifying the license these days. The only exception
| would be live sporting events, which is something I don't watch.
| Given I only watch about 1 hour of "TV" a day I was very glad to
| stop my license last year. It will not be missed.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Respectfully, you're not just wrong, you're wrongly wrong.
|
| The nature coverage on BBC is an order of magnitude better than
| anything else on TV.
|
| The science coverage on BBC is better than anyone else on TV.
|
| The news coverage on BBC is better than anything else on TV.
|
| And that's just the starters.
|
| The podcast revolution were in right now? Brits have had that
| since the 70s with radio 4 producing great audio programs.
| Everything from science to history to drama to comedy. Their
| programming makes up a big chunk of the best podcasts and
| another chunk are ripoffs of BBC shows.
|
| Streaming? BBC iPlayer was the trailblazer in that space.
|
| And we're still not done.
|
| The UK has a similar problem to US media: its mostly owned by
| crazy right wingers and what isn't spends a lot of time navel
| gazing and sharing cat in tree stories. Not the BBC, they keep
| breaking big stories. They don't care or have to care about the
| editorial line or commercial interests of their advertisers or
| even their viewers prejudices. And educated, informed voters
| are one reason we have maintained (just) decent healthcare and
| a semi working benefit system. They actually force other media
| to be better. That's why we don't have Foxx news and our
| antivaxx movement is smaller than the US or Frances.
|
| I'm not saying they're perfect. I'm not saying they're always
| right or they couldn't do better.
|
| I'm just saying, we need more than just the commercial model,
| be it ads or subscription based. There are 1001 things it
| doesn't do well. It does other things great. But it can't give
| you everything. Why not keep both?
|
| Thanks for reading my rant.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Thanks for your response - feel free to rant.
|
| I agree with what you said, but given there's only so many
| hours in the day, and I only watch TV to "switch my brain
| off", I didn't feel it worth the cost given that Netflix et
| al fills that hole just fine- for far less.
|
| To get my science / nature / news I turn to podcasts.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Thanks for YOUR response! Sorry if mine was too
| confrontational.
|
| I definately know what you mean. I've spent more time
| vegitating in front of Brooklyn Nine-nine than watching
| enriching educational material myself.
|
| May I recommend 2 BBC podcasts for science etc as our ships
| pass in the night?
|
| The life scientific
|
| 40 to 60min interviews with scientists about what they do,
| how they did it, why they ended up in the field. Very
| interesting!
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015sqc7
|
| More or Less
|
| A statistics program. Only about 20m per episode, they take
| a statistical question or a lie or similar and research
| where it came from and what the truth is. There are some
| really good episodes on Covid stats recently as well as a
| few that answer (disprove) articles that have cropped up
| here.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nrss1/episodes/download
| s
|
| Both have RSS feeds.
| UK-Al05 wrote:
| There's tons science courses, maths courses and stats
| courses on the internet where you learn these things in
| depth. Most documentaries are often 'pop' takes at
| things.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I think the BBC are actually really great at avoiding the
| pop trap. They either do it very well or they just don't
| do it. I'd point to a lot of popular podcasts as "pop"
| rip offs of BBC pieces.
|
| "Stuff you should know" is really just "In Our Time" with
| easier topics and no experts for instance. Plus no 500
| episode backlog over several decades.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Will check those out. Thanks again.
|
| Edit: aha it has Professor Jim Al-Khalili in it... He is
| an excellent presenter
| soneil wrote:
| I love the beeb, but I'm happy enough for people to criticise
| them too - just because I think it's great, doesn't mean it
| can't improve.
|
| I used to think the TV licence was oppressive, until I moved
| to the US - and quickly realised I'd happily pay the licence
| if I could.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| It's called a 'TV licence' but know that it also pays for all
| your radio. I don't watch much TV but I do listen to a lot of
| radio every day, like many British people.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| I've not listened to the radio in 10+ years - my audio
| consumption is all from Podcasts, which IMHO blows any radio
| out of the water. It's not live but I don't need it to be.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Podcasts, which IMHO blows any radio out of the water
|
| Can you please share which breathtaking podcasts you're
| listening to, because I've never found anything even close
| to as good as landmark BBC radio shows like Today, PM,
| Today in Parliament, In Our Time, The Moral Maze, Blood,
| Sex, and Money, From Our Own Correspondent, The Essay, and
| Night Tracks.
| anon1385 wrote:
| 'Today' is tabloid bilge and has played a big part in the
| dumbing down of political discourse in the UK. It's hard
| to take any of the rest of your recommendations seriously
| when they start with Today.
|
| Certainly there are other BBC programs that are better,
| and a small number that are very good, but at this point
| I honestly don't think they are enough to make up for how
| awful BBC News is and how much damage it's doing to UK
| society. In the past I would have made excuses for the
| regressive way the BBC is funded, but it's really hard to
| do that now.
| Veen wrote:
| I listen to most of those too, but as podcasts. The BBC
| has a very good selection of Radio 4 podcasts.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > I listen to most of those too, but as podcasts
|
| I don't understand what practical difference you think
| that makes... it's the same shows, made by the same
| people, how you listen to it doesn't make any difference.
| jamienicol wrote:
| Especially since listening to the radio doesn't require a
| TV license anyway, so it's not like only watching catch-
| up TV to avoid needing one.
| Veen wrote:
| You might be confused because you have, for some reason,
| interpreted my comment as an attempt to argue against
| your points.
|
| It was, in fact, a simple statement of information I
| thought might be useful to people who are not aware of
| the BBC's podcasts.
| pm215 wrote:
| I listen to In Our Time as a podcast :-) It's actually
| better than the radio-broadcast version because it
| includes 10-15 minutes of extra time with the guests
| where they have a bit more discussion.
|
| (rss feed:
| https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/b006qykl.rss)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Right but that's still paid for by the 'TV licence' and
| it's made by the same people.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| No idea what any of those shows you listed are. My
| interests are science, history, computing, polictics -
| and there are numerous podcasts covering these subjects.
| To name just a few in case anyone is intersted:
|
| * Dan Snow's History Hits
|
| * Triggernometry
|
| * Lex Fridman Podcast
|
| * Atomic Hobo
|
| * Jason Scott Talks his way out of it
|
| * Darknet Diaries
|
| * Omega Tau
|
| * Rob Reid After On
|
| * Anatomy of Next
|
| * page 94 - Private Eye Podcast
|
| * Command line heroes
|
| * Full Fact
|
| * Guido Talks
|
| * Dan Carlin's Hardcore History
|
| * The Bellingcat Podcast
|
| * On The Metal
|
| Some of these podcasts have won awards (See Bellingcat,
| Page94). My point being that given the shear number of
| high-quality content out there, I felt it wasn't worth
| paying PS120 to the BBC every year.
| Veen wrote:
| > No idea what any of those shows you listed are.
|
| They are almost exclusively BBC Radio 4 programs, many of
| which are available as podcasts. I can heartily recommend
| The Moral Maze and In Our Time.
| Symbiote wrote:
| > No idea what any of those shows you listed are. My
| interests are ..., politics
|
| _Today_ and _PM_ are amongst the most influential media
| in the UK. Not knowing about them is almost wilfully
| ignorant -- other media will report that "on the _Today_
| programme this morning, Minister for Vaccines, Nadhim
| Zahawi, said..."
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Like I said elsewhere, I don't watch much broadcast TV,
| honestly have better things to do with my time. I've been
| successful in life so I don't see why you are insisting I
| need to watch this show.
|
| I get my news and current affairs elsewhere.
|
| Edit: I'd also like to add that no one in my circle has
| ever asked me "hey did you see that thing on the Today
| Programme last night?". In fact very little conversation
| about TV programmes in general. Rather conversation
| involves "have you watched xyz on Netflix yet". Perhaps
| this is a generations thing? (I'm 40.)
| bambataa wrote:
| I think the point people are making is that much of the
| news you read will be a summary of what happened on Today
| that morning. That's where a lot of political interviews
| happen, for example.
|
| Lots of political live blogs etc just repeat it. That
| does of course mean that you don't need to actually
| listen to it, unless you want to hear from the horse's
| mouth.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Like I said elsewhere, I don't watch much broadcast TV
|
| Today is a radio programme - this whole thread is about
| radio. So you won't 'see' anyone on it and it wasn't ever
| on 'last night'.
|
| > In fact very little conversation about TV programmes in
| general.
|
| Again... it's a radio programme. And I'd bet my life on
| the fact that whatever political media you consume
| actually does frequently has conversations about what
| happened on the Today programme.
|
| > honestly have better things to do with my time
|
| I think you're thinking it's an evening chat show? Today
| is essentially the nation's daily standup, and it's in
| the morning. You'll usually get a robust interview with a
| couple of ministers and often the Prime Minister. It's a
| major way we have to interact with the Government daily.
| The Today programme will often be a primary source for
| whatever secondary source political media you are using.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Yes you are right - I was convinced it was a TV show.
| Thanks.
| Symbiote wrote:
| I am not insisting you listen to it. I don't listen to
| it; I prefer to read news rather than listen or watch it.
|
| I do expect anyone who lives in the UK to be aware it
| exists, including people 10 years older than me.
|
| > An almost comedic interview on the Today Programme this
| morning had Home Secretary Priti Patel attempting to
| defend the Government's new rules on 'mingling' ...
|
| https://order-order.com/2020/09/15/mingling-banned-under-
| dra...
|
| > Nigel tells the Today programme "it's been an appalling
| few weeks" for UKIP...
|
| > Radio 4 sources are loudly and widely sharing concerns
| that Sarah Sands is planning big changes at the Today
| programme.
|
| > For the first time Guido can remember, this morning's
| Today programme included "major websites" in its paper
| review
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aorder-
| order.com+%22to...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > No idea what any of those shows you listed are ... My
| interests are science, history, computing, polictics
|
| Well I don't know what to say apart from that absolutely
| astounds me. They're the background noise of many British
| homes and you're severely missing out if these are your
| interests.
|
| For example, In Our Time alone is _900_ 45-minute
| episodes each about an individual topic of science,
| history, maths, politics, art, culture, religion, etc,
| sometimes even computing, with genuine experts coming to
| discuss and debate it starting with a basic introduction
| anyone can follow and then going into the details.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_In_Our_Time_program
| mes
|
| I think literally nobody else in the world produces this
| kind of super-high-quality and enduring intelligent
| spoken-word content. Even the NPR in the US is very poor
| in comparison.
|
| And have you really never heard of the Today Programme or
| are you exaggerating for effect? It really sets the
| national daily political agenda in the UK like nothing
| else. I can't practically understand how you can follow
| politics and never had heard anyone say 'they said on the
| Today Programme...'
|
| > I felt it wasn't worth paying PS120 to the BBC every
| year
|
| ...but you don't have to, for radio.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| In Our Time does indeed sound very good - I'll have to
| check it out - thanks.
|
| > And have you really never heard of the Today Programme
| or are you exaggerating for effect?
|
| I've heard of it - never seen an episode so couldn't say
| what it was about (although the name probably gives it
| away). Traditionally I've not really watched much
| "broadcast" TV, even as a kid. I spent most my childhood
| in front of a computer...
|
| > ...but you don't have to, for radio.
|
| True, but does feel like free-loading a little?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| I would very strongly recommend you invest a day or two
| in trying Radio 4 - just put it on in the background all
| day, and see what you find.
| bambataa wrote:
| Careful though, they might stumble on The Archers or one
| of those terribly over acted radio plays that are on in
| the afternoon.
| timthorn wrote:
| ...and find they get hooked on the goings-on in Ambridge,
| and lose 15 minutes of their life every day?
| alkonaut wrote:
| I think the key benefit of a narrow selection of live
| programming is the idea that a lot of people listen to the
| same things. The discussions that follow a program, between
| people who watched or listened to it (which could be a
| significant chunk of your friends or coworkers) is to me at
| least as important as the content itself.
|
| With podcasts and streaming I often find the discussion
| starts and ends with "yes I listened to an interesting
| podcast about that...". Perhaps that will make someone else
| listen to it the next day, but the window of opportunity
| for discussion is gone.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Yes that's a good point. Although I have met people who
| have listened to the same podcasts as me, so it does
| happen.
| boffinism wrote:
| The BBC is currently dedicating hours of airtime a day to
| educational content to match our primary and secondary curricula
| because the schools are shut and lots of kids can't access online
| provisions. And still people complain about the licence fee in
| terms of whether or not they enjoy BBC gameshows...
| kapuasuite wrote:
| The US has public television - PBS - it's funded by tax
| revenues rather than a "TV license".
| maxerickson wrote:
| Federal funding is only a portion of the support for PBS.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-
| editor/how...
|
| I'm not sure how it all breaks down when you look at funding
| that goes to local stations and various other entities
| involved.
| saberdancer wrote:
| What is the point of this license fee in this day and age?
| Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't
| it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected
| to go to BBC.
|
| My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it
| bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could
| be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today
| everyone has TV so it doesn't really "tax the rich" that it
| probably was intended to do in the early days.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| I don't have a TV, nor do I need one. Would I get a rebate?
| vaduz wrote:
| You can apply for exemption [0] - needs to be reconfirmed
| every 2 years and sometimes more often if TVL/Capita thinks
| there 'might' have been changes you did not report (e.g.
| you subscribed to a service that participates in their
| reporting scheme - NowTV is one of the providers that
| reports their customers). You pay nothing if you qualify
| for one of the four exemption bases.
|
| Note: if the exemption lapses without a new one in place
| (or a license purchase), they will actually send goons to
| 'investigate' after a short period.
|
| [0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
| one/topics/t...
| thebrid wrote:
| The official word from TV Licensing is quite misleading
| (which admittedly is in their interest). You do not
| require any exemption nor to correspond with them at all.
|
| Their "officers" are private individuals employed by a
| private company who have no special rights to enter your
| property. Absent a search warrant, it is almost certainly
| a mistake to allow them to enter your property.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| > Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes
| already collected to go to BBC.
|
| That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its
| revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current
| system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the
| authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it
| from political interference.
| antihero wrote:
| Yet they appoint right-wing Tory donors as their chairmen.
|
| https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-
| richard-...
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people
| to pay a "TV license" and legislation forcing people to pay
| more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC
| is effectively the same thing.
|
| Except the latter is more efficient.
| caspper69 wrote:
| Despite your feelings on the issue, the difference is
| quite stark. Relying on allocations in yearly budgets,
| subject to the political whims of lawmakers, is clearly a
| different animal altogether.
| afarrell wrote:
| This is the reason why court fees and PACER fees exist in
| the US.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Why can't the law be written so that the allocation can't
| be changed (as easily)?
|
| Even right now, the politicians can choose to enact
| legislation to modify or remove the tv license fee.
| SllX wrote:
| During renegotiation, sure Parliament can opt not to
| renew. But for the duration of the charter, the BBC has
| an uninterrupted period of collections beyond the fiscal
| year of the government, which cannot be raided to fund
| the new social program of the day.
| saberdancer wrote:
| Couldn't the Parliament negotiate with BBC to allow them
| funding of XY pounds per citizen. Amount to be
| transferred monthly from the taxes.
|
| It would have the same effect. For the duration of the
| charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without
| interference from the government. Only difference is
| method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of
| collection.
| saberdancer wrote:
| Forcing people to pay a TV license means you need to send
| the bills to people, you need to enforce payment, you
| need to track payment, you need to sue people who do not
| pay.
|
| All just so that you get an illusion of independence from
| political power.
| dehrmann wrote:
| At last from an American perspective, that seems like a
| technicality, and it uses government enforcement tools.
|
| The US funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
| directly, and even under Trump, there wasn't much pressure
| around changing its funding--I guess defunding Sesame
| Street looks bad. Of course, public broadcast stations turn
| into panhandlers once every few months, so it's not without
| its faults.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| It's how the CBC is structured. They receive funding from
| taxes and their own revenue streams: merchandizing,
| advertising, syndication, and so on.
|
| It works. That is, it works until it doesn't.
|
| The CBC is entirely "free" to every Canadian who wants to
| use it, and it is _fantastic_. I wish it were expanded in
| scope.
|
| But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and
| moved from government funding at all costs. Usually, the
| opposition is purely along political lines which is
| disappointing.
|
| So, I suppose the argument against it being tax-funded is
| that it become yet another chip in the political game. An
| argument for tax-funded is that there are no additional
| fees awaiting those who cannot afford them.
|
| Seems like something of a tossup or...yet to be determined.
|
| The added separation from political influence is big
| points, but it's rather moot when one group who've already
| made their mind up will just shout "conspiracy" and then
| the facts don't matter anyway. That happens here in Canada,
| to be sure.
| saberdancer wrote:
| I understand the logic between removing it from taxes,
| but I find it hard to accept that this gave it any degree
| of independence.
|
| If opposition got in power and wanted to dismantle BBC or
| CBC, I'm sure that the fact that they gain their funding
| through a fee rather than tax is not something that would
| stop them. In the end, the fee was specified and allowed
| them to use it by some law that was passed in the
| parliament.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| I've brought this argument forward many times since I moved
| to the UK, and everyone I've talked to hates the idea of
| turning the fee into a general tax. It's a weird refusal that
| I genuinely can't understand as someone not born here.
|
| Everyone seems happy enough with the idea of paying tax for
| public libraries or parks or other social institutions they
| may never use because it benefits society, but bring up the
| tv license and it's like arguing with a brick wall.
| CodeGlitch wrote:
| Have you seen how much BBC bosses and stars are paid? Far
| higher than other public servants, so yes I would be
| against making it compulsory
|
| https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bbc_rich_list_2020_37_5m_
| b...
| xxpor wrote:
| PS148k? That really seems like not that much for any sort
| of executive.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| possible reasons:
|
| 1) concern about the neutrality of the BBC, esp. if you
| don't think they are currently neutral. It also might
| change the incentives of the BBC if funding is either
| guaranteed, or controlled by government.
|
| 2) the principle of general tax without strong reason. The
| government isn't trustable, they already privatised much of
| the railways. consent to general taxation give more power
| to government.
|
| 3) I don't have a television, and more people are choosing
| not to have one. There are shifts happening both wrt to
| media is consumed, as well as how laws are changing to
| adapt (e.g. requiring any device with a screen requiring a
| licence). Would be better for the situation to stabilise
| before deciding if a general tax is a good idea.
|
| 4) The whole TV-Van issue sours the issue. Public Libraries
| (AFAIK) don't send people after you for paying fees. The
| issue of censorship and management of publicly available
| information are also hot topics in libraries, but there is
| (arguably) a greater degree of "self serve" in a library,
| as opposed to planned/programmed broadcast - libraries
| don't generally _create_ the majority of their content.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| They don't trust the government
| carschno wrote:
| No, the idea never was to "tax the rich". The license fees as
| present in many European countries are not taxes because the
| broadcasters are independent from the governments, including
| full control over what they do with _their_ budget. The idea
| is that the governments cannot (threaten to) cut their
| budgets to enforce pro-government reporting on public
| broadcasters.
| [deleted]
| i_am_proteus wrote:
| Not everyone has a TV. Most, perhaps, but not all.
|
| Source: I don't have a TV.
| 4ndr3vv wrote:
| I'm not sure it was meant to be a tax on the rich; It was
| initially introduced in 1923 to cover radio broadcasts, and
| widened to become the television license in 1946.
|
| Also, the appeal of this funding model makes it independent
| of Governmental cuts and the politicisation of programming.
| doctorfoo wrote:
| Not true. I and others I know use a TV only as a screen for
| videogames and do not watch TV in any form. You explicitly do
| not need a license just to own a TV.
| dsego wrote:
| Interesting, in Croatia it's specifically a fee on owning
| any type of radio or tv receiver. Nowadays that applies to
| almost anything, from TVs and car radios to PCs and
| smartphones.
| bonzini wrote:
| In Italy it doesn't apply to PCs and smartphones. It does
| apply to DVB-T dongles though.
|
| It used to be a separate tax, now it's collected as part
| of the electric bill. You have to opt out explicitly
| instead of "opting in" by paying; this makes it much
| worse for people to evade the payment, since they would
| be making a false statement when opting out. So many
| people were evading the fee, that it has since been
| reduced by a third or so.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| A lot of people say that but it is "not readily believable"
| to use a Civil Service Circumlocution.
|
| In that case why are you and those others not using a
| monitor.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| I know you're just engaging in discussion, but non-TV
| monitors are typically more expensive than a similar
| sized TV.
| Silhouette wrote:
| I agree that the licence fee is an anachronism and the BBC
| should have alternative funding instead, perhaps a ring-
| fenced budget paid from general taxation, but not because
| everyone has a TV.
|
| Some people don't watch broadcast TV, and the BBC and its
| agents have been infamous for getting heavy-handed and
| harassing those who choose not to and who perfectly
| legitimately and legally do not have a TV licence. This is
| backed by a controversial law that criminalises the failure
| to have a licence if you do need one, which under any normal
| circumstances would only be a minor civil matter.
|
| Meanwhile, today the BBC is very much a multimedia
| institution, but the licence fee remains tied specifically to
| broadcast television, a historical anomaly that could be
| fixed.
|
| A different funding model that broke that link and removed
| the need for a separate licence fee could fix all of the
| problems with licence evasion and heavy-handed enforcement
| that have been a black mark on the BBC's history, as well as
| providing a fairer system where the public service is funded
| from public funds rather than singling out a particular
| group.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I think the idea is to make it harder to fiddle with the BBC
| budget
| martin_bech wrote:
| Im sure thats true. We had it the same way in Denmark, but
| have now changed it, to be payed for by taxes.. this had
| made it very political, and the budget is now decided by
| whatever party is in control, and the national tv/radio is
| becoming more and more of a coward because of it..
| saberdancer wrote:
| I'm sure that is part of it, but I would love to see the
| breakdown of the costs.
|
| When it was first introduced it made sense to have a fee,
| not many people had a TV so by collecting the fee, you
| didn't tax the people without it. But today everyone has
| it, so this no longer applies.
|
| Independence argument has some merit, but I would expect
| that there can be different methods that would provide the
| same level of independence.
| pydry wrote:
| Independence went with the Hutton enquiry when Parliament
| set up the BBC trust to replace the BBC board of
| governors.
|
| It gradually shifted from being an independent well
| staffed news organization that routinely held the
| government to account to an understaffed RT-like
| propaganda outfit and huffpost-like reprinter of press
| releases.
| vidarh wrote:
| It's ironically gone from being a pretty progressive tax
| (only relatively well off people had TV's) to being a
| very regressive tax ("everyone" has TV's but you pay the
| same amount no matter how much you earn).
|
| The independence argument has largely been destroyed by
| the government itself - the last few governments have
| tightened their control of the management of the BBC
| considerably to a point where budget control matters much
| less.
| cortic wrote:
| The idea is to make the poor and working classes pay for
| it, being regressive everyone pays the same, taxes are
| progressive, the more you earn the more you pay.
|
| Government set the licence fee and legislation around it
| every 5 or 6 years. The last renewal put government
| appointed editors into the BBC in exchange for a change in
| Law from 'watch live BBC channels = you have to pay' to
| 'watch live non-BBC channels = you have to pay'. So now,
| even if you are just watching BBC competitors,you have to
| pay the BBC.. what a great business model.
| nmeofthestate wrote:
| The license fee is fairer than a tax, because if you don't
| watch terrestrial television you don't have to fund it. For
| example, if you just watch Netflix, you don't need to pay for
| a license fee. If the license fee were replaced with a tax I
| would end up paying more than the cost of a license fee for
| something I don't use - not keen.
| saberdancer wrote:
| This depends on the country. In some countries you pay the
| license if you own a car or a computer.
| tomxor wrote:
| I don't have a TV... But that's not the point, it's no longer
| relevant today as made apparent by their threatening letters
| that make it sound as though it's impossible to avoid paying
| them. What is relevant: I don't watch BBC, period. And yet
| every 2 years or every time I move I am threatened again for
| the offense of not wanting to watch the BBC.
|
| I recognize that in the UK at one point this licensing model
| made sense due to combination of funding broadcast equipment,
| and the BBC has given a huge amount of value over the years -
| but I honestly think the quality of their content has
| decreased significantly since then, especially the
| documentaries. The licensing model no longer makes sense in a
| world where they are just one of multiple payed on demand
| services usually delivered over the internet for which we are
| already directly funding. It should be opt-in not opt-out.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| You don't have to watch the Beeb to become liable for the
| licence fee. You become liable if you watch any broadcast
| television channel.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I mean I wasn't against the licence fee until they invaded my
| privacy detecting the purchase of a new TV and started sending
| me threatening letters under the guise of "TV Licencing" which
| is a sub-brand they use to harass people to protect the image
| of the BBC.
|
| I'll never pay it again.
| wackro wrote:
| They might feel personal but I'm fairly sure those letters
| are sent out blanket style. I've had 4 or 5 in the past and
| none have been addressed to me personally.
| bidirectional wrote:
| The whole thing is just horrible and leaves such a poor
| taste in the mouth. Threatening letters with "You are under
| investigation" in bright red capitals and 'inspectors' who
| heavily imply you need to let them in to look at your TV
| despite that not being a legal requirement. The BBC act
| like thugs.
| OJFord wrote:
| It's contracted out to the same sort of scammy thugs as
| parking tickets. It's absolutely designed to seem
| (public) official and threatening, when it's nothing more
| than a private company saying 'please give me money'.
|
| It's just somehow more organised into a whole industry
| than say shops chasing shoplifters (which is an actual
| crime vs. all the innocent/someone else's cock-up parking
| tickets people get).
| vaduz wrote:
| Until the repeal/replacement of Wireless Telegraphy Act of
| 1967 came through in 2013, the TV sellers were obliged by
| law to report any sale of TV equipment to anyone - and
| sooner or later the purchaser would get that impersonal
| note. [0]
|
| Similar cooperation was since established with some
| streaming vendors (Now TV for sure, IIRC Sky as well...) as
| that change is pretty much what the 2013 changes were
| about.
|
| Text of the notice would not be personalised, but it did
| use to come with _specific_ details from the
| purchase/account.
|
| [0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
| one/business...
| ouid wrote:
| Imagine that the police force had robots that took pictures
| through your windows and then employed sophisticated object
| recognition and semantic inference engines to determine what is
| happening inside, matching it agains a database of known crimes.
| Then explain to me how that's different from the police officer
| who looks through your window to establish probable cause for a
| "search warrant".
|
| If your society is principled enough to require warrants to
| execute "searches", then it should be principled enough to
| recognize that this principle, by default, excludes any activity
| which has no measurable impact on society from criminalization.
|
| The first piece of evidence in _any_ investigation should come
| without a search.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| I haven't seen a marked TV detector van for for over 25 years.
| I'd kind of assumed that digitisation of the TV licence records
| some time before that, as as well as migration away from CRTs,
| meant that sending reminders/demands was simply more effective.
|
| And I'm really not sure I believe that they correlate room light
| fluctuations with broadcast programming, or even that this is
| technically/economically feasible. Sounds more like
| disinformation to me.
| technothrasher wrote:
| YVYAN: [looking at watch] Hey! Turn on the telly!
|
| MIKE: Good thinking, Vyv! We need information! [they run to the
| sofa]
|
| VYVYAN: No! I'm just in time for Afternoon Plus! [leaps on couch
| between Mike and Neil. Rick turns on a the TV. We see a test
| picture and soft music.] Well turn it over then! [Rick changes
| the channel. Test picture and soft music]
|
| VYVYAN: Well, you might as well try the other one!
|
| RICK: Alright! Alright! [Rick changes the channel. Test pictue
| and soft music. The boys groan, Rick turns off the TV]
|
| RICK: Absolutely pathetic! There's nothing on at all! Humph!
| Don't know why we bother to pay our license!
|
| MIKE: We don't.
|
| RICK: But, haven't we got a license?
|
| MIKE: No.
|
| RICK: But that makes me a criminal! [thinks about it] Right on!
| Yeah, this will shake them up at the Anarchists Society!
| Occupying the refectories! So what? This is the real stuff! I'm a
| fugitive! A desperado! I'm going to form a new union society,
| right? With me as president! 'People Who Don't Pay Their TV
| Licenses Against the Nazis!' [takes out pad and pen and starts
| writing] This is only the beginning!
| jsiepkes wrote:
| I remember from when I was a kid the government used to broadcast
| commercials (in the Netherlands) about you having to pay up:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPr61na7icE
|
| You don't have to understand Dutch to understand what the
| doorbell and the "uhooo" at the end of the commercial means...
| The whole text of the commercial is a hilarious attempt at
| intimidation. Basically it's about how it's all fun and games
| until somebody gets busted.
| galeos wrote:
| In the late 90's I went for an interview at a Sony store in
| London. At the start of the interview the store manager told me
| that he had been busy preparing the shop's regular report of
| addresses of everyone who had purchased a new TV for TV
| licensing. I imagine these were then cross-referenced against who
| had a TV license for potential follow-up. I struggle to see how
| the idea of TV detector vans were more than 'enforcement
| theatre', although possibly a cheap and effective strategy in the
| past.
| vonzepp wrote:
| BBC also does fantastic children's content including mobile games
| app's. Cbeebies is miles better then anything else. Also, you can
| trust young kids with the BBC. You know there is no targeted
| advertising, or in game purchases. Most shows are also
| educational (often secretly). Licence fee worth that alone for
| me.
| tweetle_beetle wrote:
| It is genuinely excellent and it just goes to show the power of
| marketing to children that parents feel obliged to put on any
| of the other children's channels.
| vanilla-almond wrote:
| Sometimes the kid's shows become hits with the adults too. I'm
| thinking of _Horrible Histories_ - a brilliant, comedic look at
| history equally loved by kids and adults.
| malinens wrote:
| Teletubbies were made on drugs. There is no other explanation
| [deleted]
| gehsty wrote:
| All kids tv is made on drugs. In the night garden is even
| more trippy than teletubbies.
| mhh__ wrote:
| To quote Charlie Brooker talking about Oliver Postgate
| (it's a brilliant piece of TV - watch it, it's on YouTube)
|
| "Saying _what were they on_ is an insult to the
| intelligence of the creators "
|
| Although I agree some kids TV is gloriously mental
| admg wrote:
| The night garden is definitely trippy. For the occasions
| that I lose the battle and let my son have some tv before
| bed, cbeebies actually goes a great wind down job with the
| night garden.
| vidarh wrote:
| If you think that's trippy, you should try turning on
| "Baby TV" around ~3am-5am or so. At least that was
| absolutely crazy when my son was a toddler and waking up
| at 4am. Soothing, but very, very trippy.
| sdunwoody wrote:
| Not read the article, but as a political aside, the licence fee
| is a big subject of debate here at the moment.
|
| It was designed so that the BBC essentially had independence from
| the government, and as such, they could more easily be
| politically neutral (if they were funded directly by the
| government, there would be more pressure for them to cover the
| government favourably in news programs etc.).
|
| Problem is that these days the licence fee is outdated with lots
| of people just watching Netflix/Amazon etc.
|
| A lot of the "right wing" here also think the BBC has a left wing
| bias, which I think is a bit ridiculous really, as a lot of the
| "left wing" also think it has a right wing bias. But the
| consequence of this is that a lot in the current government want
| to decriminalise non-payment of the licence fee. This would
| basically mean that there is no consequence to not paying the
| licence fee, and assuming the government didn't come up with an
| alternative way of funding it, it would amount to death by a
| thousand cuts for the BBC (which a lot of right wingers are
| actually quite open about wanting).
|
| It's quite a tough problem in my opinion. Direct funding from the
| government would solve a lot of problems, but also make political
| impartiality a lot more difficult to achieve. A direct
| subscription like for Netflix would likely result in a
| significant drop in revenue.
|
| Hard to see a good solution here.
| callamdelaney wrote:
| The solution is to let people who want to watch and consume bbc
| content pay for it, and let everybody else not pay for it. It's
| very simple.
| sdunwoody wrote:
| The BBC would face significant cuts if that was the case. It
| would likely end up at a point where the quantity and quality
| of content was reduced due to less revenue, which then would
| cause additional people to cancel subscriptions.
|
| This would be quite damaging for the UK as the BBC is a great
| way of projecting soft power, plus it provides quite a lot of
| great resources (as has been pointed out in other comments).
|
| I'd be more in favour of a system like Germany has to be
| honest.
| gadders wrote:
| I remember when I was doing my engineering degree asking my
| Electrical Engineering lecturer if he thought they could tell the
| difference between black and white and colour TVs. He thought
| not, which saved me a few quid.
|
| Also worth noting that there is a campaign in the UK to get non-
| payment of license fees decriminalised and made into a civil
| offence.
|
| "In 2017 (latest data available), 72 per cent of all prosecutions
| for TV licence-fee evasion were against women.
|
| This figure is so high that licence-fee evasion accounted for 30
| per cent of all prosecutions against women, the single most
| common charge."
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/tv-license-sc...
| nske wrote:
| a) I think BBC produces good content, but not good enough to
| warrant the current cost of a TV license.
|
| b) Even if it did, I still would not pay for a license, as a
| reaction to its overreaching approach, obligatory character and
| dishonest reasoning. They are claiming that you need a license to
| watch any type of content made available in public in real time,
| with Youtube LIVE mentioned explicitly as an example -no
| particular reason this wouldn't include even things like gaming
| video streams a school kid would share for fun.
|
| I don't think BBC should profit from the consumption of content
| it has contributed nothing towards. I'm not sure if that's more
| absurd when that content itself is provided for free by its
| authors, or when it's content you have already paid for.
| mfontani wrote:
| In Italy the TV fee is automatically added to the electricity
| bill, and is IIRC non-optional.
|
| See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_Italy
| tsuru93 wrote:
| Every year (usually in January) you can ask for an exemption if
| you don't own a television.
| blunte wrote:
| I don't know about TV Detector vans, but I know about Cat
| Detector vans...
| DavidSJ wrote:
| Why not just tax TV sales? That's much easier to enforce, and has
| ultimately almost the same effect.
| Glawen wrote:
| In an era where we buy things on Amazon, which is famous for
| not paying all the due taxes, how do you plan to enforce this?
| Also, I live 5km from the german border, I will just buy my TV
| there.
|
| What was/is? existing is that every for every TV sales, you had
| to give your name to the shop, which would transmit it to the
| taxman.
| danparsonson wrote:
| It's not a recurring revenue stream like a subscription though;
| they'd need to apply a lot of tax to recover the same amount of
| money (something like PS10/month IIRC)
| Faaak wrote:
| What if you buy your TV overseas ?
| ChrisRR wrote:
| Because the TV licence is something like 140 quid a year and
| you only buy a new tv every 10 years or so
|
| So you'd have to add an extra 1400 quid onto the price of every
| TV as tax. That'd easily triple the cost of your average TV
| steerablesafe wrote:
| You are allowed to have a TV set if you don't pay for TV
| license. It's just you are not allowed to watch live TV.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Why should I be forced to fund it?
| gpmcadam wrote:
| One of the alternate mechanisms for funding includes the
| proposal of a so-called "Broadband Levy" which would be
| included on all subscriptions in the country and would replace
| the license fee, given the nature of viewing habits have
| significantly changed in the past 10 years.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| A bit off-topic maybe, sorry.
|
| I am not from the UK, but quite a large chunk of things I watch
| on YouTube are british panel shows. I'm just in love with them.
| Which seems funny to me, because as a non-uk twenty year old, I
| don't think that I'm the target demographic for these shows.
|
| "8 out of 9 cats does countdown", "Would I lie to you?" and of
| course my favourite, "Taskmaster". Thanks for all of these great
| shows. "Blackadder", "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" and "Monty Python"
| are great as well...
| ChrisRR wrote:
| Please tell me you watch QI. The king of all panel shows.
| ksec wrote:
| >"8 out of 9 cats does countdown"
|
| Jon Richardson's view on many things is realistic and hilarious
| at the same time.
| KnobbleMcKnees wrote:
| Taskmaster is a fantastic program that everyone should watch at
| some point. The premise, the tasks, the twisted comedy of the
| hosts. It's perfect.
| Engineering-MD wrote:
| Don't forget radio content as well. Radio 4 on bbc iPlayer
| often has some great shows like the unbelievable truth, just a
| minute, among others
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| There is a lot of those shows because they are cheap to make.
| In reality the BBC's funding has been squeezed for years,
| largely for political reasons.
|
| The current government would love to kill it completely but
| they can't do that directly.
| mprev wrote:
| If the current government want to kill it completely why have
| the ruled out decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee?
| There are pretty strong ethical reasons for why you shouldn't
| get a criminal record and, possibly, face prison time for not
| paying for a TV licence, so it would be politically quite
| easy to pass.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >If the current government want to kill it completely why
| have the ruled out decriminalising non-payment of the
| licence fee?
|
| They haven't, yet.
|
| >There are pretty strong ethical reasons for why you
| shouldn't get a criminal record and, possibly, face prison
| time for not paying for a TV licence, so it would be
| politically quite easy to pass.
|
| One doesn't face prison for non-payment of the license fee.
|
| A custodial sentence can only be imposed if one fails to
| pay the court-ordered fine imposed as a punishment for non-
| payment of the license fee.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| A lot of those shows aren't BBC though. Take that list in
| question:
|
| - Taskmaster: Channel 4 (originally Dave. In fact before that
| it was a Edinburgh Fringe Festival show written by "little"
| Alex Horne)
|
| - Would I Lie To You: BBC
|
| - 8 Out of 10 Cats Does Countdown: Channel 4 (interestingly
| it's a spin off of "8 out of 10 Cats" which was C4's sort of
| version of "Have I Got News For You" but C4 did an
| anniversary series of one off comedies one year, including
| bringing back "15 to 1" and a few other quiz shows from the
| channels early years. The "8 out of 10 cats does countdown"
| show was "Countdown" with the cast of "8 Out of 10 Cats"
| (hence the name) and proved so popular it became it's own
| show).
|
| As for the classics in that list. While most were BBC, it's
| also fair to say most wouldn't have been the same low budget
| as Taskmaster et al.
| croon wrote:
| To be fair Channel 4 is kinda sorta BBC too. At least it's
| owned by UK Government Investments.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| That's not fair, no. Channel 4 is a commercial station
| and doesn't receive any licence fee funding. Yes it is
| publicly owned but aside from that it shares no relation
| to the BBC.
|
| It's probably also worth noting that the BBC does also
| have a few subsidiaries like BBC America which are also
| commercial entities and operate independently to BBC
| Television. They are at least owned by the British
| Broadcasting Corporation (albeit sometimes only in part),
| unlike Channel 4.
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| >- Taskmaster: Channel 4 (originally Dave. In fact before
| that it was a Edinburgh Fringe Festival show written by
| "little" Alex Horne)
|
| Dave is owned by BBC Studios, which is the commercial arm
| that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| Dave / UKTV might be owned by the BBC but they're not
| funded by the licence fee and operate independently. Much
| like the BBC America example I cited elsewhere. As you
| said yourself, it's a commercial station. So they
| wouldn't be subject to the same "squeezed" licence fee
| funding that we are discussing.
| smcl wrote:
| I think you're more the target demographic than you think.
| Taskmaster didn't exist when I was still in the UK but the
| first two were popular enough with my age group at the time
| (20-30 year old students). You might also like "Have I Got News
| For You" - it's supposed to have gone a bit downhill recently,
| but at its peak it was stupendous.
| vidarh wrote:
| I have a freesat box for the sole purpose of "Dave" which in
| the evening mostly broadcasts things like Taskmaster and re-
| runs of HIGNFY, Mock the Week and various other very British
| shows (best marketing ever for that channel was to do this so
| consistently that it's now a standing joke on several panel
| shows that it will be seen forever on Dave).
|
| It's nice to just put on if I want something funny in the
| background while doing something else without the annoyance
| of being interrupted by things stopping and having to pick.
| eythian wrote:
| "Mock the Week" if you want a more comedic take on the news.
| rozab wrote:
| Also check out the various Mitchell and Webb sketch shows, as
| well as Bruiser! That's a good rabbit hole.
| hyperbovine wrote:
| Would I Lie To You is my second favorite comedy show of all
| time, the first being Peep Show. I have been trying to score
| tickets to a taping of WILTY for years now. The form requires
| you to specify an address and each time I have to note that
| yes, I really would fly from California to Uxbridge to attend a
| taping. They never get back to me :)
| Jedd wrote:
| WILTY tickets are insanely difficult to get, and even if you
| get them, if you don't have a car, or aren't located very
| close to the studio, then you're not going to have much luck.
| We did get the offer for WILTY tickets, but the logistics
| were simply intractable (living in London at the time).
|
| Most mainstream UK shows are taped within, or nearby, London
| - and that works reasonably well. Arguably the hardest show
| to get into is QI, and we were coaxed into being in audience
| for Pointless in order to bump up our 'score' on the QI queue
| as it were. It's a weird old arrangement over there.
| dsego wrote:
| Check out Red Dwarf.
| Kreotiko wrote:
| > The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for
| requiring those households which view broadcast television to
| purchase a licence for the privilege.
|
| This is actually pretty common and almost everywhere in Europe. I
| will never stop being surprised by how little my fellow British
| people know about other countries.
| [deleted]
| mattbee wrote:
| I haven't seen one here for years but I always assumed they were
| a fake-out! There are definitely criminal penalties to not
| paying, but mostly it's done by sending threatening letters for
| addresses that don't have licenses, and visiting as a last
| resort.
|
| I heard in Japan there isn't any penalty for not paying, and I
| was captivated by a Murakami story of the "NHK man" who raps
| loudly on apartment doors and can only yell at these closed doors
| trying to shame non-payers.
| omginternets wrote:
| >The United Kingdom is somewhat unique in the world for requiring
| those households which view broadcast television to purchase a
| licence for the privilege.
|
| If we ignore the distinction between a license and a tax, France
| still levies a TV tax. I believe other European countries do this
| as well. The van is the unusual part, not the license fee.
| ThePhysicist wrote:
| In Germany, the GEZ (Gebuhreneinzugszentrale, which roughly
| translates as "subscription fee collection agency") also had some
| of these infamous vans with parabolic dishes on them that
| allegedly could detect TVs in homes or offices. I never believed
| this but found it funny to which lengths they would go to get
| people to pay the public subscription fees for their TVs.
|
| Until the mid 2000's they also hired free agents that were paid a
| commission for every "black sheep" they got to register. Of
| course these people regularly overstepped their mandate and found
| creative ways to intrude people's homes, some would e.g. pose as
| TV technicians and ask if they could have a look at the cable as
| the neighbors reported some problems, only to reveal themselves
| as the GEZ guy once they were inside and saw the unregistered TV
| set. Of course all of that was illegal, and in 2007 (I think) the
| system was finally changed so that a given household would pay a
| fixed fee instead of a fee that depended on the number of
| receiving devices they had, which made using the "collection
| mafia" unnecessary. Still, the GEZ is by far the most hated
| agency in Germany and the subscription fees (around 18.5 EUR /
| month) are among the most hated taxes people pay. Some people go
| as far as voting for an ultra right-wing party (AfD) only because
| they promise to do away with this fee should they come into
| power. Personally I don't mind paying for it, though I'd prefer
| to be able to pay more selectively for services I use. Then
| again, less than 20 EUR / month in additional tax for a single
| household isn't anything to really get worked up over.
| RGamma wrote:
| GEZ... schon gezahlt?
|
| Given the sad state of journalism across the big pond (actually
| pretty much everywhere for various reasons), I'm glad there's
| such a system in place (and that there is a large viewership in
| the first place!).
|
| Quality has its price, though I agree, maybe one should be able
| to pay more selectively for journalism and less for football
| licenses. But don't change a running system...
| skc wrote:
| Heh, as late as a decade ago in South Africa the national
| broadcaster used to air scary ads implying these vans roamed the
| neighborhood and would catch you out.
|
| Nobody bought it and they went back to politely pleading with
| people to pay their TV licenses.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| Legend goes that back in the 80's DR (the Danish "version" of
| BBC) would buy ads on top of taxis, placing a funny looking
| widget and text on the side saying "This is a TV detector van" to
| scare people into registering for paying their TV license.
|
| According to the story, DR never had the technology (or new it
| existed) to do an actual TV detection.
|
| I heard the story from an old interview from a retired DR
| manager, who said that they did this. So source wise it is pretty
| weak, but still a funny story none-the-less.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-19 23:02 UTC)