Talk:Television Licence/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Television Licence

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It's not obvious to me from the article whether a separate license is required for every set in a household or rather just a single license for each household possessing one or more sets. Can anyone please edit accordingly? Also, what about computers with a tv card? I assume they would be considered TV sets. What about streaming tv programming via internet? Would that be a statutory tv set for purposes of licensure? Thanks.

I had an edit conflict and then noticed you took my US$ approximation out of the page. Do you think a Euro approximation would be more internationally known? --Chuck Smith

Just an oversight on my part. There was a 3-way edit conflict, and I missed the $values when merging them. -- User:GWO

1 United States section is NOT correct.
2 the great nation of the United States of America
3 Americas
- 3.1 Clarification
4 Licence vs License Vs tax
5 € = suffix or prefix?
6 Split article
7 POV Galore!
8 Rules about television licencing

United States section is NOT correct.

Okay, just a friendly little tip: Use colons to indent your responses. It just looks nicer. But anyway, it doesn't say that TV licensing was ever considered. It merely says that it was shown to be unneccessary. As for how it clashes with the constitution, I'm not an american, and cannot verify that this is true myself. The entry does say now that americans would be opposed to such a thing. Isn't that enough? His Ryanness 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologize for this being long but I want to say a few words. I deleted our previous discussions because it was getting long, you have my permission to do the same when/if you reply.

"presumably proved to the American government" implies that it was considered and a decision was made not to do it. Really it should say "In the United States, a TV license would most likely be illegal under the Constitution" or something to that effect. You don't have to be American; unlike England, our Constitution is written down. Observe, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html and http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Most Americans can recite their rights under the Constitution. Speech, religion, privacy, a fair trial by jury of one's peers, etc.

Also, as to the part saying that Americans would be opposed to it, I do obviously agree that we would be opposed, but I don't agree that there is confusion as to what "license" means. Askoxford.com is a service from the same people (Oxford University Press I belive?) who publish the Oxford English Dictionary and hence is quite authoritative; setting it to the UK view, looking up license yields the following:

"licence

(US license)

 • noun 1 a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade. 2 a writer’s or artist’s conventional freedom to deviate from facts or accepted rules. 3 freedom to behave without restraint.

 — ORIGIN Latin licentia ‘freedom, licentiousness’, from licere ‘be lawful or permitted’."

So, now we look at the wikipedia entry for TV license and find the following "A television licence (or more correctly broadcast receiver licence, as it usually also pays for public radio) is an official licence required in many countries for all owners of television and radio receivers." So, clearly, under the above Oxford definition of license, a TV license is just that. It's not a "service fee" because if you don't want to watch the BBC you still have to pay Her Majesty for permission to use said device. In other words, if I am not mistaken, there is no legal way to own and operate a television set in Britain without permission of Her Majesty, for which said monarch charges a fee (yes, I know that in practice Her Majesty delegates this stuff to the Parliament, but the authority dervies from her so my language is correct). This whole pretense is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States.

Let me explain: It's your property, on your land, it cannot interfere with the rights of others, therefore, under the US Constitution, the government has no authority to grant or deny you permission to use it. You ALREADY have permission. You were BORN with the right to do it. This should be reflected in the wikipedia article. It's not because we disagree about what a license is. It is that Americans do not believe the government has the right to do it, and our Constitution supports this belief.

This would also fall under Amendment 10 (all these parts of the Constitution are equally the Supreme Law of the Land), "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, in America, if the Constitution doesn't say you don't have the right, and no other law which does not conflict with the constitution prevents it, you probably do have it. There was no law preventing Scaled Composites from putting a man into space, so they automatically had permission, in America, to do so. There was no law preventing NBC from transmitting television waves, so they automatically had permisison. Not like this silliness in Britain where only the BBC was allowed to transmit for some time. In America, until the government regulates a given act, it is assumed to be legal under the 10th amendment. Maybe that's where the confusion is coming from in foreign countries.

btw I talk to this British guy who is living and working in Florida on the internet. He says he is glad not to have to pay a TV license for permission to watch his TV, and likes to brag about it to his friends back in England. I would never want to live in Red State Florida, though, where they voted for Bush in 2004...--Brian71.116.106.31 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

the great nation of the United States of America

What I wrote in that section is NOT nonsense. It is the TRUTH. We don't have tv licenses because we are not a socialist nation where the government is allowed to control everything. What was written there before was the nonsense. The absense of TV licenses is not because it has been "proven to the government" that they are not necessary, but rather because IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF OUR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION for the government to require them. As I said it would be a violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments, not to mention the 14th, to try to force people to pay a fee to own a television. Furthermore, Americans would NEVER stand for that, as we proved in 1776 when we threw Britain out of our country by force. So no, I didn't put nonsense, I *CORRECTED* the nonsense that was there.--Brian71.116.106.31 21:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The 4th amendment reads thus:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

THAT is the reason why we don't have TV licenses. It would be illegal. The communist, anti-American bias on Wikipedia is really stupid and is the reason why wikipedia will never be as credible as a real encyclopedia like The Columbia Encyclopedia or Encyclopedia Britannica. The reason one reads an encyclopedia is because of the editors. That's why you pay for it. It's worth money. Oh no I advocated CAPITALISM!!! I must be evil. btw I voted for John Kerry.

--Brian (Same brian as above)71.116.106.31 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:NPOV, etc, etc, etc. Please take your ranting elsewhere. --Kiand 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While you may believe that, wikipedia requires that you write from a neutral perspective. i.e. No opinions/biases. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, or even that I agree with you. But I would suggest that you look over the contribution guidelines: . His Ryanness 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiand, take your communist/anti-American bias elsewhere if you want wikipedia to be taken seriously. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I told you to read some Wikipedia policies, which are in fact what specifies the content of the Wikipedia and hence any possibility of it being "taken seriously". None of that can amount to anti-americanism or communism. If you want to go on a communist witchhunt, a discussion on the television licence, which you don't have and aren't going to have and hence should be entirely irrelevant to you, is not the place to do it. --Kiand 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

His Ryanness, do you mean to imply that what was written in the United States section before I edited it, which was highly offensive to Americans, was without bias??? The unbiased truth is that we don't have tv licenses because they would be a violation of our Constitution. Not to mention that Americans would vote out every Congressman who voted for such a law, as well as the President if he didn't try to veto. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite any reliable sources for your point about the television licences in relation to the constitution? What I mean is, has is been reported or written about anywhere? If so, where? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not imply anything of the sort, Brian. In fact, I believe that the entry does require some tweaking. However, you're only trying to replace one bias with an even bigger one. His Ryanness 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I should also probably add that while we've been talking about this, I believe the necessary tweaking has been done. His Ryanness 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Americas

The article currently says that licenses are less common in the Americas but faills to show anywhere in the Americas that they are required. Is there anywhere or should this read "common in Europe...but not used in the Americas."? Rmhermen 18:50, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

It would be incorrect to say "not used in the Americas" because of the French territories (St. Pierre and Miquelon and Guadeloupe being the ones I can remember). Does anyone know whether the Netherlands Antilles use a similar scheme? 18.26.0.18 14:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt the Dutch Antilles have a TV licence as the Netherlands had abolished the TV licence in 2000. St. Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe, Martinique & Guyane have the TV licence as they are an integral part of France.

The British territories is a little confusing with Bermuda, Turks and Caicos Islands & Cayman Islands don't have a TV licence as they have commercial broadcasters. I think Gibraltar has a TV licence for the local broadcaster GBC. The Falkland Islands watch the BFBS, thus they are unlikely to pay a TV licence. Montserrat is currently inhabitable, so no TV licence. British Indian Ocean Territory is under American forces, so, I doubt a TV licence. I am not sure about the rest; Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Saint Helena, Pitcairn Islands, , South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.159753 07:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clarification

The British overseas territories are regarded by the UK as separate countries, entirely responsible for broadcasting in those jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, those of them in North America, follow the North American model - Bermuda's three channels are affiliated with the three main US networks. I suspect that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are much the same, as their relationship with the Netherlands is much looser than that of the French Overseas Departments with France.

Only Gibraltar has a TV licence fee, for GBC, which used to rebroadcast BBC Prime, with residents needing to get a set top box for the privilege. Most people watch SkyDigital via communal set-ups, including all the UK terrestrial channels, even though they aren't entitled to as Gibraltar is considered as foreign as Spain from the point of view of UK broadcasting rights.

St Helena gets a mix of programming from M-Net in South Africa. Falkland Islanders have cable TV - they're lucky that BFBS doesn't confine its TV signal to the military bases, or scramble it. Montserrat is not uninhabitable, people have moved back there, and watch satellite TV, including BBC World, but pay no licence fee. Hardly anybody lives in Pitcairn , South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, much less has TV. Quiensabe 01:52 UTC

Also the part about the reason why we don't have a TV license in the United States is completely wrong. The reason is the 4th Amendment, part of the Constitution, which is the ruling document of the United States. We do not have a King; we are ruled by Laws, not by nobles, and the government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed", as is stated in the Declaration of Independence. History has proven that the ideas of Hamilton and Jefferson were superior to the idea of a monarchy.

The 4th Amendment is as follows:

The Supreme Court, the judicial branch, being equal in power to the President (executive branch) and Congress (legislative branch), has interpreted the 4th Amendment to mean that men have a right to privacy from the government.

So, as long as what you're doing is done in the privacy of your own land, and does affect anyone else, it is legal. There are vehicle licenses, BUT THEY ARE ONLY NEEDED TO DRIVE A VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC ROAD; if you drive a car on your own land, you don't require jack shit in terms of permission from the government. Same with a TV set. It is used on your own land, in your own home, therefore the government has no right to require a tax in order to use it.

You see, in the United States, the Constitution limits the power OF THE GOVERNMENT, as opposed to limiting the rights of individuals. This notion of a TV license is unmitigated nonsense. Any true patriot of the UK would be opposed to it.

--Brian, proud citizen of the United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world. Also former US Navy submariner. 71.116.106.31 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian, as enchanting as we Brits find it to be spoken to like children by our American cousins, please don't do it. And let's not even get onto the question of an American dictating to the rest of the world what a "true patriot" would or should be/say/think, shall we?

In short, Brian, we know what a constitution is, we have them all over the world, but thank-you for the explanation anyhow.

How does the 4th Ammendment have any effect here anyway? I can see a case under the 1st but even then it can't possibly be unconstitutional to charge for a service even if the service is information-based. Regardless of the 4th Ammendment, laws still apply on private property and if the government levies a charge for a service it provides under statute then anyone receiving that service is entering into an implicit contract to purchase said service. in this case, a TV licence. The non-existance of such a licence in the US is an anomaly mostly caused by the fact that American broadcasting originated as private stations on an entirely commercial basis whereas in the UK and much of the rest of the world it began as a publicly-provided service. Incidentally, unlike in most countries, America's public TV channel is actually RUN by the state whereas Britain's and most others around the world are only state-owned. Esquimo 01:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Esquimo's comments about US public TV and BBC are good to read. The origins of the TV license, and the lack of it in the US, are correct. So far as public TV and radio in the USA go, the majority of staff are paid through a government (e.g. state) budget, although capital and other running costs are generally paid from money received from public donations and "underwriters". Underwriters are most commonly businesses. They are credited on the air by announcements, which are basically commercials (although the commercials are very, very low key and subject to stringent controls over content. No opinions, no hard sell, just facts. Donations from the public are asked for at regular intervals on "fund drives", where different levels of contributions are rewarded with gifts (CD's, videos, tshirts, etc., for donations of amounts far more than the intrinsic value of the goods).

BBC TV and radio are not like that at all. No fund drives, no appeals for money, just programming. Apart from previews of future programs, there are no commercials, not even underwriter announcements. Are recognizable product labels still covered up when they're shown in a program?

Not for nothing are BBC radio and TV programs held up by many Americans as far superior to those produced in the US. The popularity of BBC America is proof of that. Some shows that first aired in the UK thirty or more years ago are shown regularly in the US (Benny Hill, Monty Python, Ab Fab, etc.).

And although Brian's post about US taxes was worth reading, it wasn't free of error.

Yes, there are Vehicle Licenses in the US. Yes, they are required for vehicles that are used off the owner's private property. But..... it is not true to say that nobody pays annual taxes on vehicles which are used only on the owner's private property.

In the US, all vehicles must have a title document. In the UK, it's a registration document. From that point, the two diverge.

In the US, state by state, and down to county by county, taxes are most likely to be assessed at different rates, so it's not a simple thing to detail here. I'll confine myself to a oneliner about the state where I live: NC. NC vehicle owners will commonly have to pay annual taxes on a vehicle even if they do not use it on a public road. Example: a 4wd truck which is only used for off-road work. It must have a tag (nearest UK equivalent is the tax disc), a license plate, and taxes must be paid. If you have a flat trailer that you tow behind a vehicle, you have to pay tax on it and have a license plate.

http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/ has a wealth of information, as well as a 10mb downloadable manual that goes into excruciating detail.

In the UK: Vehicles in general must be taxed if they will be used on the road (the "tax disc" is proof of the payment). The US "tag" is broadly equivalent. There are different rates of vehicle tax ranging from nothing upwards. If you own a vehicle in the UK, but do not use it on a public road, you neither have to have a license plate, or pay the annual vehicle tax (so you won't have a tax disc). If you have a flat trailer that is towed behind a car or truck, you don't have to license it and you don't have to pay tax on it.

So things are not always as clear as they might seem.

Having lived most of my life in the UK and more than a handful of years in the US, some of the differences are astonishing. Interference is not unrestricted in the USA, despite the 4th amendment. There are different ways that operate, that is all. Citizens in the Land of the Free aren't more free than citizens of its old parent.

JS, NC 0247 EST, Jan 31 2006

ok, a driver license and the fee associated with it are only required if you drive your vehicle on a public road. If you have 10 acres of land or whatever ,and you drive a car on it, the government can't require jack s*** because it's your private land. Now if you drive it on the government owned road, that's different. Obviously the government can control who drives on government controlled roads. This is beacuse of the 4th Amendment. Same thing with TV. You're using it on your property, it is not affecting anyone else, so the government can't require a license. The TV license isn't a "service fee". You have to pay the TV license even if you never watch the stupid nonsense broadcast by the BBC. If you only watch SkyTV, and never watch a BBC channel, you still have to pay the fee. It's a license to own a TV. And JS, we are more free than you. We have no monarch. You can tell me the queen has no power, but we both know you guys have Royal Perogative etc. So she does have power, she just chooses not to use it. In America, she has no power whatsoever. The Royal Family comes here and they have diplomatic immunity, but we could still arrest them if they commit a crime, and they would be arrested like any common criminal because in America all men are equal. We would have to send them back to England, however, because of diplomatic immunity, not because of their royal birth. Royal birth means literally nothing on American soil. oh btw it's not just the queen, it's also The House of Lords, who have more power than the queen. We have no equivilent to that; our ENTIRE legislature is ELECTED. In America there are no inherited political positions. That would be a violation of the Constitution as well as against American culture. We believe men have the right to choose their own government. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as long as the men aren't Cuban. Or Chilean, or Grenedan or Nicaraguan, or Venezuelan or Bolivian. Or from Puerto Rico which pays US federal taxes but has no opportunity to influence the election of the President and sends only one non-voting representative to Congress.

For the record, the House of Lords are largely political appointees - the hereditary peers who were not career politicians were got rid of some years ago. The only reason it hasn't been further reformed is because nobody can agree exactly what the Lords should do within the constitution and therefore exactly HOW it should be constituted.

Broadly speaking, I agree, it seems ridiculous to have a head of state who is there purely because their father did it (!) but under our system there is simply no other alternative that wouldn't leave us worse off than when we started.

Back on topic. The BBC is a service provided for the nation by the state. Just like education and healthcare except that in order to ensure the government doesn't control its purse-strings it is funded directly through a license fee rather than through general taxation. It uses a natural resource that belongs to the nation (the radio spectrum) so the elected government is free to fund it however it sees fit. Again - we've yet to find a better way of funding the BBC than this one. Whether you watch it or not is immaterial (although it is the most-watched broadcaster in the UK) just as whether or not you get sick or have kids is immaterial over whether you pay taxes to fund health and education. Esquimo 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Licence vs License Vs tax

(moved from above section for readabilty) MartinRe 17:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for Brian's irrelevant "go USA!" comments, but as an American I must point out that the term "license" (or "licence" if you prefer) has a different meaning here. In the USA, a license is considered a form of regulation rather than taxation. A license is a (usually inexpensive) document that says you are allowed to do something. Thus radio and television transmitters are licensed, to avoid problems such as multiple transmitters on the same frequency, and so that the owners of transmitters may be identified and held responsible for for the content they broadcast. The same applies to a drivers license - it signifies that the holder is allowed to drive on the public roads, where their actions could put other members of the public at risk. A drivers license has nothing to do with paying for the use of the roads. The price of the license is intended only to cover the cost of issuing it and maintaining the records. (Mine costs about $25 and is good for four years.) Radio and television receivers are not licensed, because a receiver cannot interefere with other people (I suppose you could play it loudly enough to annoy the neighbors), thus there is no reasonable justification to regulate its use. Most Americans would be as outraged as Brian if you were to suggest that they need a license, ie. government permission, to watch TV or listen to the radio. The "television license" as used in the UK and elsewhere would probably be referred to as a "television tax" if it were proposed in the USA. (It would still be extremely unpopular, but that is a different issue.) 63.161.86.254 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The meaning is similar in the UK, and more than a few people have referred to a "tax on televisions". However, a TV licence has a difference from most licences in that there is no concept of refusing a "licence", like there would be for a drivers licence, for example. Plus, even in the UK, the licence is not for owning a TV, but for watching broadcasts. If you compare it to satalite TV, it makes some sort of sense, people who don't pay for satelite shouldn't be "allowed" to receive it for free. Unfortunately, the link between what the lienence pays for, and what you get for it, is mostly broken (see anomolies in UK section)

wrt to the latest edit, I think it's better to remove "Most Americans would be as outraged ..." unless there's a link to a survey/report that backs this up. I'm also a little dubious about "operating a television receiver not infringing on the rights of others", as it's debatable that receiving broadcasts that you didn't pay for (using the satatelite anaology) could be seen as infringing. Likewise with "probably be referred to as a "television tax", unless it was proposed and referred to as that, it's guesswork and crystal ball gazing. Unfortunately, that's most of the paragraph, any suggestions on how to improve it rather than remove it? MartinRe 17:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

wrt to your first paragraph, you are still talking about licenses as "payment", not "regulation". I'm not "allowed" to go to a supermarket and eat food that I haven't paid for, but nobody suggests a "food license". Going to the supermarket is simply an economic transaction. I trade something of value (money) for something else of value (food). The same applies to broadcast television. I trade something of value (my time spent watching advertisements) for something else of value (television programming). I get to choose which shows I watch and "pay" for them by putting up with the adverts. (The fact that most television programming is crap is irrelevant here, I actually watch very little ;-) In the case of satellite or cable television, there is an additional exchange of value, money in exchange for a wider range of channels or better signal quality. Again, the customer is free to sign a cable/satellite contract, or not. Either way, it is an economic transaction, freely entered into, not imposed by government. The term "license" as used in the USA has absolutely nothing to do with such economic transactions. (Another case of two countries separated by a common language.)

wrt to "Most Americans would be outraged..." - The point I'm trying to make is that for Americans the term "license" relates to permission, not funding. I don't need government permission to watch TV any more than I need government permission to walk down the street, or sit in my back yard, or sing in the shower, or do any number of other everyday activities. I can't cite a survey to support this because the very idea of asking the question "Do you think people should need government permission to watch TV?" is absurd to most Americans. If you phrase the question differently, as "Do you think government should regulate what is broadcast on TV?", you will get a heated debate between free-speech advocates and those who dislike profanity, etc. But that is about regulating transmission, not reception. Any legislator with the nerve to suggest licensing reception would be roundly criticised on all fronts - by liberals on free speech grounds, and by conservatives for interference with free markets. There needs to be a clearly visible need for regulation, in the form of clearly visible harm to someone, before such regulation is tolerated, and even then it is often very controversial (see gun control and seat-belt laws).

wrt to "operating a receiver not infringing on the rights of others", you say that receiving broadcasts without paying for them infringes on others. How? Does one television receiver consume the signal, preventing others from receiving it? Of course not. The entire television license concept has nothing to do with regulation, and everything to do with funding.

Once the "regulation" vs "funding" issue is clear, the only remaining thing to look at is the difference in US and UK funding for public television. In the US, public television is nearly irrelevant, both financially and in viewership terms. In fiscal 2006, the federal government will fund public television to the tune of $484 million, or about $2 per capita. (http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/financials/appropriation/justification_07-09.pdf) Those funds come direct from the general revenue, since collecting such a small sum as a separate tax, license fee, or whatever would be extremely inefficient. Federal funding pays for only about 15% of public television, the majority is from the private sector. "Funding sources include, (for fiscal year 1999) federal (15%), state and local (17%), universities both public and private (11%), and private funders, subscribers (26%) and corporations (15%)" (http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/publictelevisionnowandlater.htm) The public TV channels in the US are also far less popular than their UK equivalents. In 2001 public television in the US has a market share of about 2%, far below the networks. (same source as the funding breakdown). I suspect it is even lower now because of the competition from a bazillion cable channels that address many of the same niche markets that public television addresses.

Summary: In the USA, public (government supported) television amounts to only about $2 per capita, so it is funded from the general fund instead of a dedicated tax, user fee, or "license". The vast majority of the television programs are produced by commercial operations under free market influences, not by government funded entities. Also, in the USA, the term "license" implies governmental control, which is very unpopular unless there is a well demonstrated public interest to be protected.63.161.86.254 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Although this discussion ended a month ago, I can't help adding my thoughts to it. As for the term "licence", I think there are similar examples of usage of the term in the U.S., as you have fishing licences, which are exactly the same thing: payment of a fee to be allowed to get access to something. You have to pay it even if you don't get any fish, and I think a warden seeing you by the water equipped with fishing gear would insist that you pay up, even if you state that you don't intend to fish. The mere fact that you are obviously able to fish, by being there and being properly equipped, would probably force you to choose between paying or leaving. However, in many TV licence countries it actually isn't called "licence" but just "fee" or "charge". The term "licence" was probably coined by the British when it all began, sometime in the 1920's, and when other countries in Europe created their own public service radio companies, most of them copied the British system, including doing a direct translation of the name for the fee. However, many have always used other terms, and others have later changed it to "fee" or "charge". Consequently, a discussion about the actual term is less relevant than discussing the purpose of the fee.

At the time, a radio licence or radio fee made perfect sense in these countries: radio was something new, a kind of luxury gadgets that many people still couldn't afford, and there was only one radio channel to listen to; publicly owned as the new medium was seen as too important and useful to society to be handed over to greedy companies to exploit. Funding it through taxes was regarded unfair to all those who couldn't afford to buy a radio, so charging those who listened was the only reasonable solution, and - using the analogy with the fishing gear - charging for the possession of a radio was a lot easier than trying to charge for actual listening, as you would then have to prove that listening had taken place and you would also risk getting into discussions about lower fees for those who seldom listen. It was also highly plausible that anyone who had bought one of these new expensive gadgets also intended to use it - and they could only use it to listen to that public service broadcast.

Today, the situation is vastly different, as most Europeans have access to a number of different terrestrial TV channels from different broadcasters, whereof many commercial, and through cable or satellite have access to hundreds of channels. However, in spite of this overwhelming choice, the old public service companies in most of these countries still have 50% or more of the viewers and listeners, which shows that the public likes the way these companies make use of the licence fees and appreciate commercial-free television and radio which also has a remit to be neutral and factual in its news reporting. Thomas Blomberg 00:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

€ = suffix or prefix?

As far as I've used to know, only US$ values are marked as prefixes, and € are always "10€" -esque (suffix) here in Finland. --84.249.252.211 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It varies from country to county, possibly based on what the previous currency used, e.g In Ireland, I'd always see and write €10. According to the article Euro symbol the offical recommendation is to have it as a prefix. MartinRe 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Split article

The UK section in this article is growing quite large in relation to all the other sections, any objections to splitting this into its own article and having a brief summary here with a {{main|Television licencing in the United Kingdom}} at the top? MartinRe 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No objection Edward 14:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Good move -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's do it, and move the lengthy UK only discussions with it. Thomas Blomberg 23:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now split the article as suggested - and have moved all discussions directly related to the UK licence issues to Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Thomas Blomberg 00:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

POV Galore!

The biases have gotten pretty ridiculous in here. I started to revert it, only to realise that the thing I was reverting it to was biased in a different way. Particularly, I'm referring to the United States one. I'd sift through and fix it myself, but frankly, the thing gives me a headache, and I leave the task to someone better than I.

(response to above) Yeah no s***. I am the one who wrote the version you're talking about. I wrote that because I was pissed off at how the previous version made it sound as if the United States Constitution would allow TV licenses, and that the American people would tolerate it. We would NOT. Every American I have mentioned the notion of a TV license to is shocked, while most Brits seem to have no problem with it. That's why America has a higher GDP than any other nation: freedom. We love it more than the people of any other country. Yes there are like 25% who support communism and think capitalism is not the best system, but every other American supports freedom. You don't find that kind of passionate patriotism, as opposed to ethnicism, anywhere else in the world. That's because for 200 years we have been a republic, with no monarch. Freedom is in our culture and in our hearts.

As a recent Irish immigrant, now an American citizen, said on one of the local talk radio stations here, "the whole WORLD knows about America and American freedom!" Indeed they do.

I was highly offended by the original version of that section, so I fought back.

That's why it's so stupid to have an "encyclopedia" that doesn't have editors. I hate to break it to the communists who constitute the majority of wikipedia participants, but capitalism is an excellent quality control. If people think your encyclopedia is biased they won't buy it! That's why Encyclopedia Britannica is NOT biased like Wikipedia is.

The whole point of an Encylopedia, and the reason why it is worth money, is the editors. The editors of Encyclopedia Britannica would never have allowed an article claiming that we don't have TV licenses in America because "it has been proven [to the government] that they are not needed". What B.S.!!!! The person who wrote it was an idiot and obviously a communist. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're a recent immigrant to Ireland, I hope you've paid your licence fee here, because I don't want my taxes paying for people like you when you're in prison. --Kiand 22:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiand, I'm an American. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case, you're an Irish EMIGRANT. Big difference. --Kiand 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiand, what? I'm an American, on american soil. I have no Irish heritage; I am English on my mother's side and German/luxembergan on my father's side, although he was adopted and said the original last name was Locke (well I don't know the spelling but my dad pronounces it that way). I'm not in Ireland. The Irish immigrant I was talking about was speaking on American soil. He immigrated here legally from Ireland, and is now an American citizen. Not sure where we got the confusion there, but anyway I was born in the United States and I'm writing this from the United States. If you are the one who wrote the TV license article originally, please refer to my comment about the United States section, because what was written there originally is objectively wrong. --Brian71.116.106.31 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I misread what you said, however, considering how long and over complicated it was, that wasn't unexpectable. --Kiand 22:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If capitalism gives such excellent quality control, how come there's a McDonald's on every corner? In an unrestricted capitalist market there is no incentive to produce high-quality goods or services unless they are economical and make back their production costs. Free markets mean a drive to reduce costs and increase profit to the outer limit of what the consumer will accept. That's why we have the BBC and America has Ricki Lake.Esquimo 17:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Esquimo, uh, because the people who eat at McDonald's agree that that is worth what they pay? If no one thought McDonald's was worth what they charge, they would go out of business, dude. Plain and simple. So acutally there IS incentive to produce high quality goods! It's called, if you don't, people won't buy your stuff! This is what I mean by the communist bias in wikipedia. You just completely ignored a basic concept in Adam Smith's book. So if someone hadn't read it and they had only an article you wrote for information, they would think that capitalism produces no force to encourage product improvement, which is plainly false. Ok, so you have the BBC. So what? You have a government controlled media source. We have Star Trek, The West Wing, ER, Law and Order, Lost, The Amazing Race, Numbers, Invasion, Alias, etc. We also have the world's most popular television show, CSI. I don't particularly care for CSI myself, but the free market has clearly decided that it is worth something. As far as debates, hell, American liberal radio talk show hosts were criticizing the war in Iraq long before the BBC had anything negative to say about it. See www.kgoam810.com. That's because of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Contrast this with what Britain has done: you have limited spectrum on your island to broadcast on without iterference etc., so what decision do you make? You choose to allow only the government to broadcast!!! What kind of B.S. is that? What about freedom of speech? If there is limited spectrum, that is an argument for NOT having a government channel! Wikipedia says this about the BBC, "On 2 March 2005 the Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell published a green paper setting out her proposals for the future of the BBC." Well guess what, President Bush has ZERO authority to give any proposal for the future of NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, or WB. Why? Because they are PRIVATE enterprises! Their transitters are PRIVATE property! The content of their shows is PRIVATE property! besides, Rikki Lake is cute, especially since she lost all that weight, although Oprah Winfrey is much hotter...--Brian71.116.106.31 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the BBC's transmitters are private property too - they're owned by National Grid Wireless and Arqiva broadcast services.

Theres also a large, large proportion of privately held television channels in the UK. On analogue terrestrial, theres the state owned but not state controlled or funded Channel 4, the privately held ITV, and the privately held Five. On digital terrestrial, theres multiple ITV and Channel 4 owned channels (ITV2, ITV3, ITV4, E4, More4, etc), Sky News, ABC1, UKTV History, QVC, TMF UK, etc, etc - owned by such large companies as BSkyB, Disney, NTL/Telewest, Viacom, etc, etc. And this is before you look at whats on cable or satellite. In particular, theres more channels on the UKs single satellite provider than there is on DirectTV/Dish Network/Sky Angel/VOOM put together, as the broadcast market is in fact significantly more open than the US. The BBC is but one broadcaster in the UK.

And CSI is shown on Five. --Kiand 10:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rules about television licencing

It depends on the country, in the UK, a TV licence is required for any dwelling that has a television that can receive broadcasts, no matter how many TVs are in the house. Even TV cards in computers, need a TV licence as they are picking up a television signal or watching British TV online though a the Internet.

In Ireland where you are from, according to RTÉ, it seems to have the same rules as the UK, bar the requirement that you must have a TV licence in the second dwelling even when it is not being used.159753 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In many other countries, such as those in Scandinavia, the license is tied to the household instead of the dwelling, so if a household has two dwellings (let's say a summer house by a lake in addition to the normal dwelling), one license covers all TV sets in both dwellings. Thomas Blomberg 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/l/Talk%7ETelevision_Licence_Archive_1_1bb6.html"

Category: Talk archives