Talk:Television licence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Mast
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and help with the to do list.
Portal:BBC
 BBC Portal
BBC To do:

Talk:Television Licence/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] List of Things To Do

[edit] Opinions of TV Licecning

A proper dicussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using a TV Licence. Perhaps comparing this to other methods of funding public television. User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countries with TV Licences

[edit] Countries to Add

When adding Czech Rep, which I was sure had a licence fee, did some digging on Other nations. Problem is a lot of public broadcasters dont have English versions of websites. However I have found two reports that may be of use. HOWEVER, these are 2000 figures, of course these will have undoubtly changed, in some cases nations may have scrapped their licences. So we need to get uptodate figures!:

1. According to http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/service_public.html the following countries also have a TV licence:

  • Belgium €189 (But abolished in the Flemish community)
  • Hungary €28 (Abolished 2002)
  • Iceland €236 (€338 inc Radio)
  • Macedonia€49
  • Poland €35
  • Portugal - No TV Licence (abolished) but it appears to have a €16 "radio licence" instead. http://www.ero.dk/documentation/docs/doc98/official/pdf/ECCREP084.PDF says a combined radio/tv licence of €19.56
  • Romania €13
  • Slovenia €126
  • Slovakia €20

2. Another Document written in 2000 (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en states that:

  • Bulgaria: 1998 Broadcasting Act instituted a TV licence but this wasnt due to start until 2003. The fee was fixed at 0.6 of the minimum wage and collected by the National Electricity Company under the presumption that everyone has a TV. Waived for deaf and blind. [1] appears to suggest it is still not active.
  • Poland:Waived for over 75s.

Also:

http://www.mediasouthasia.org/Colomboworkshopforwebsite010604.htm

  • Lesotho Abolished 2003 [13]
  • Cameroon [14] CRTV is funded by a 1% tax on the income of all in employment.
  • MalawiSection 56 of The Malawi Communications Act 1998 [15] allows for a licence fee to be levied. Cant find any thing to say the amount or if it ever started.
  • Mauritius Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation is funded by a licence fee on the electricity bill of all homes own a television fee. The Licence fee makes up 60% of MBC's funding [16]
  • Swaziland Used to fund the Swaziland Television Authority [17]
  • Uganda Introduced to fund Uganda Broadcasting Corporation in the "Uganda Broadcasting Corporation Act, 2004". Collection started but was halted by President Yoweri Museveni. There is pressure to reinstate them to maintain UBC's independence from government.

[18]


User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All coutries listed

  • How much is it? Either rate or percentage?
  • What discounts are available?
  • Is licence charged on per dwelling/household/tv basis
  • What is it applicable to eg Internet, Radio etc,
  • What does it fund?
  • What proportion of public broadcasting funding does it represent?
  • How is enforcement accomplished?

User:Pit-yacker 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North America

I have commented out this section for now. Does it really warrant inclusion looking at why 2 nations in particular (out of very many) dont have a TV Licence.

User:Pit-yacker 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Put it in with countries that never had a TV Licence User:Pit-yacker 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The image is not working

... when including all these legends (at least in FireFox). I'm not sure what to do about it. --Manscher 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Note added: It works it iónly one {{legend}}--Manscher 12:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes on the US Section

[edit] Version Pre 6 Sept 06

which presumably proved to the American government that it did not need any sort of scheme such as a licence fee to force the end user to pay for the services he or she was listening to or watching.

But the next sentence says they saw the need to create public broadcasting paid for from taxation. If the licence is looked at as purely a way of funding public broadcasting, the two sentences contradict each other.


An additional factor is the somewhat different meaning of the term license (licence) in the USA. A license is a form of regulation, not taxation, i.e. a (usually inexpensive) document that says the holder is allowed to do something. Actions that can potentially harm others (such as driving on the public roads, or operating a television transmitter) are licensed. Actions that do not infringe on the rights of others (such as operating a television receiver) are not. Most Americans would be outraged at the thought of needing a license, i.e. government permission, to watch TV or listen to the radio. Because of this different meaning of the word license, the "television license" of Europe and the UK would probably be referred to as a "television tax" or "user fee" if it were proposed in the USA.

AFAICT, this isnt really relevant? At the end of the day the "televison licence" is the name of a hypothecated tax for funding public broadcasting. In the same way that the article on hypothecated taxes says that fuel tax is used on roads in the US. So even if it was called "user fee" at the end of the day it is the same thing. In other words its like saying the French "Redevance audiovisuelle" isnt a licence fee because they dont call it "licence fee". In that context, the phrase "Most Americans would be outraged..." is an opinion of the writer. It would depend how well the government of the day sold the new "tax".

[edit] Version 6 sept 06

Privately-owned radio and television stations do in fact have to apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for licences, but they are a form of regulation, not taxation, i.e. a (usually inexpensive) document that says the holder is allowed to do something.

As they do in Europe.

Pit-yacker 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map key

The map key isn't very clear. I presume the labels only apply to the licence-fee receiving broadcaster, but really it needs to say that on the map. --Dtcdthingy 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Properties with multiple occupancy

I have moved this section to Television licensing in the United Kingdom, the level of detail means that it is more suited to that article IMHO. I have also deleted the last sentence as, IMHO its sole purpose was to "weight" opinion, it was also unsourced:

a) I have, personally never come across a student let with indiviual tenancy. IIUC landlords prefer joint tenancy because it moves the risk to the tennants if someone moves out, whereas with individual tenancy the landlord must find a new tennant or lose money. Regardless of personal experience, a statement of fact such as this requires a source that others can check and verify.

b) A source is needed that either "single people" (a broad swathe of people including unmarried young professionals) and students are the poorest in society. Pit-yacker 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"with individual tenancy the landlord must find a new tennant or lose money." This is simply wrong. Tenancy agreements are normally for a fixed term. This is something that is very well known. Having a Single tenancy is almost no different from having a joint tenancy only the liability is obviously shared under the joint tenancy. Sheesh! All the Tenancy agreements I've signed in the last three years (three single tenancies) can be used as joint tenancy agreements if necessary! you just put more names on the contract, the contract is exactly the same, it's more than often an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. The rights of thetenant are limited. You sign up to that contract for a fixed term, you're agreeing to pay the landlord for that fixed term, you can't just leave the property and forgoe all your obligations under the contract which appears to be what you're suggesting.
The Landlord may be in a more difficult situation were this person to leave than had he used a joint tenancy yes but this does not translate to "tenant decides to move out, so the landlord must find a new tenant." The landlord has every right to pursue this person for this remaining rent and often in student housing the tenent is obliged to indemnify the landlord against costs incurred due to obligations to pay council tax under the local government finance act.
My original addition was to draw attention to the fact that in regards to the licence fee, there are distinct disadvantages for people living in HMOs over others. This is an important point. I will verify the information that those living in HMOs are some of the most vulnerable people in society. Hey! did you know that the majority of evictions take place under Assured Shorthold Tenancy agreements? Do you see any HMOs that don't use assured shorthold tenancy agreements? I will have a look for research directly relating to HMOs in this regard, rather than the type of tenancy. However this does kinda err on the side of these people being vulnerable. Again I will cite this at some point.
Do you want me to scan my three tenancy agreements? Does your rader detect that perhaps my having lived under these agreements in three subsequent years suggest that perhaps it's safe to suspect these agreements aren't so uncommon among landlords as you think?
I totally agree that an unsourced statement should be removed until sourced and I should have sourced it. However your reasons for removing it were as you stated, " I'm yet to meet a student landlord offering individual tenancies.". I don't feel you assumed good faith in that what I said was genuine. Anyway Pit-Yacker, I apologise to have taken abit of angry tone with you, it's been a long day.. JHJPDJKDKHI! 19:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok dont worry about it. My point about the difference between Individual and Joint tenancies was that AFAICT with Joint Tenancy there is "Joint and Several Liability", which AFAICT basically means that if one of the other "house-mates" walks out and disappears the landlord can pursue the remaining tennants for the rent owed by the former tennant. At which point it is the responsibility of the tenants to either find a new house-mate or the extra money.
I didnt say that Individual Tenancies dont exist. However, I do remember reading on a student accommodation website that landlords like joint tenancy because it is more secure for them. My experience is that they are rare compared to joint tenancy. Perhaps, this varies in different locations? Or possibly with the rise of private halls of residence this may become more common?
BTW, I hope you are ok with moving this to the UK article? IMHO the detail is a bit to deep to go in the "global" article (which should IMHO have a brief synopsis of the UK article) where there is a more specific UK article.
Pit-yacker 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Disambiguation

Currently, License fee redirects here. I believe that this should be remedied. License fees are not restricted to Television by any stretch of the imagination. Since i have never contributed to this article, i wanted to get some thoughts before i started to make any major changes. What are your thoughts? // Tecmobowl 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Move

Currently, License fee redirects here. In accordance with disambiguation, I believe that this should be remedied. License fees are not restricted to Television by any stretch of the imagination. Since i have never contributed to this article, i wanted to get some thoughts before i started to make any major changes. What are your thoughts? // Tecmobowl 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is another article it may be an idea to set up a disambiguation page at "License fee". However, at least in the UK, the term "License fee"/"Licence fee" is usually used to refer to the Television licence. Whereas even other licences which incur an annual charge go by other names e.g. "Road Fund Licence" (now officially Vehicle excise duty (VED)) is usually known as "Road Tax" or "Car Tax".Pit-yacker 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you labelled this section 'page move'? Perhaps some disambiguation at license fee if you can find enough entries, but there does not appear to be a need for a page move, or indeed any major changes to this article. Any disambiguation of licence/license fee should probably point to Television licensing in the United Kingdom. I don't know how many other countries use this term for a TV licence (my guess is not many), but it is the main definition in the UK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I labeled it this way because i felt it was the easiest way to label the section without writing a long title. Please feel free to adjust it if you see fit. I'm not knowledgeable on this particular topic, but all i can say is, there are a number of other ways to have a license fee. This happens in most any form of media promotion regardless of country. // Tecmobowl 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
ZZuuzz, a quick look at the link to RTE's site from the main page suggests the TV licence is also known to some extent as the licence fee in Ireland as well.Pit-yacker 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So that suggests that the disambiguation page should be at licence fee :) and it should probably point to this article as opposed to the UK-specific one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why is s.america in "asia"

call me silly but i never knew that south america is in asia.. why was in included in the bit with asians who use tv licence?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.175.199 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

Could you point me in the direction of what you are talking about please? If you are reffering to the lack of any mention of South America, this is because AFAICT, South America, with the notable exception of Chile doesnt tend to have public broadcasting at all (See TVN (Chile). Pit-yacker 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TV License Resistance

Please bring the discussion regarding TV Licence Resistance(Find out the truth behind the lies) to this page, and not duke it out in an Edit War please. Thanks. Delbert Grady 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denmark's license

I think it's somewhat misleading to put Denmark in the "Television licence and advertising" category, since the main channels (DR, DR2) are solely license-based and advertising is only present on the license supported regional news which are broadcast on an otherwise commercial channel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.28.62 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/l/Talk%7ETelevision_licence_7a73.html"