Talk:Television licence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] TBD

There should perhaps be something about U.S. views added to the "Opinions of television licensing systems" section, but it needs to be sourced, not based on someone's half-baked theory of American exceptionalism. I can well imagine that many Americans are amazed to learn that televisions must be licensed in most of Europe. It would be even more interesting to note whether there is anyone arguing for a reintroduction in those countries where the licence has been abolished. I was surprised to read that some Eastern European governments are considering introducing a TV licence; I would have thought licences were simply an anachronism from the age when TV was a luxury, which persists because of a ratchet effect.

There should also be more added about the history of radio/TV licences. While it may (or may not!) be the case that that licence fees are now used to fund public broadcasters, this was not always the case. In the UK, radio licences were introduced in 1904 at the behest of the Armed Forces, which wanted to maintain control of the new technology. The BBC was not government-funded (or even created) till the 1920s. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (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] Notes on the US Section

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".

ok, the USA section has been improved, but you guys are still not acknowledging the fact that a TV license would be a violation of the US Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment which the Supreme Court has interpreted as specifying a right to privacy. In the USA we have a fundamentally different philosophy of government. You see, in Europe, where they used to have strong monarchies, there is a philosophy that The King Will Take Care of Us, and that the King gives people rights. In the USA, We the People are the Sovereign, we automatically have rights without having to get the from a monarch, and it is We the People that give the government permission to do things. So, if you are on your own land, and you have a device that only receives waves, and cannot affect others, the government is viewed as not having any right to tell you not to use said device. THAT is the reason why we don't have TV licenses in the USA. *not* because it would somehow be "infeasible" or "unnecessary". And I defy any foreigner who claims otherwise to show me where the FCC or any other entity of the US Government ever considered a TV license. It is fundamentally antithetical to American philosophy on BOTH the left wing and the right wing. Anyone born and raised on US soil would know what I'm talking about here. It's a fundamentally different culture from Europe.71.116.85.218 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

if you are on your own land, and you have a device that only receives waves, and cannot affect others, the government is viewed as not having any right to tell you not to use said device. Incorrect. See scanner (radio). Some spectrum is free, some is not. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Jnestorius: no, you are incorrect. I personally own a scanner, bought it at Radio Shack, a well known US retailer of electronics. I don't have any kind of license for it, and I certainly have never been told not to use it by any government agency. I use it to monitor police and fire department transmissions for entertainment purposes, as well as informational purposes in emergencies such as earthquakes etc. Now, if I were to use said scanner to gain information to make it easier to commit a crime, that would be illegal. But owning the scanner itself, in my own home, is not illegal. Some states do require a license for a scanner if mobile, for those reasons. But not a home scanner. 4th amendment. --Brian (same guy as 71.116.85.218 above)71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Okay if the reason is because of the 4th Amendment can you provide a credible source that says so? Surely if that's the case there must have been some investigation of this - here in the UK the licence fee is particularly unpopular amongst the "We worship you oh US" elements on the right (IMHO this is really because of perceived BBC bias rather than any consistent ideological basis although there are exceptions) and surely there must be at least one paper explaining why the US has not gone down this route and why it is so great? Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to timrollpickering: Why it's so great??? Freedom. Sweet Liberty. "Give me liberty or give me death" as Patrick Henry said. The Americans would never give up our sovereignty to a monarch. In any case, why did the USA go that route, you say? It is assumed by the Constitution that we would go that route. The burden would be on the President (who would defend the law if passed) to prove to the Supreme Court that such a law would not violate the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment says that the government cannot violate a resident's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without just cause. So if I have a receiver device on my own property, which does not affect the rights or safety of others, the government has no right to tell me not to operate it. In Britain, the Queen grants you rights (within the Magna Carta). In the USA, it is the right of the government that is restricted, not We the People. This is a fundamentally different view, one that changed the world. I don't need a credible source other than the 4th amendment, it plainly states right there that the government is assumed not to have a right to tell me what to do in my own "house".71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but the 4th amendment is not enough. Where's a reliable source indicating that this is the considered interpretation of that amendment that bars it? And the UK system is not based on the Queen granting rights. The British system assumes everyone is free unless the law says otherwise and adds restrictions. You're thinking of a continental system and applying a blinkered view. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And is the outrage amongst Americans about the idea of a TV licence because of the 4th Amendment or because it would be charging for something that's currently available for free? As for comparisons between blinkered views of political systems, let's leave that to one side - all I can say is you just confirm the stereotypes of ignorance in the US. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to timrollpickering: "blinkered" views of political systems, eh? Does wikipedia not give the system of government in Britain as "constitutional monarchy"? Do members of Parliament not swear allegiance to the Queen personally? Does the oath of enlistment in Britain not refer to a monarch? (when I joined the US Navy, I swore loyalty the USA herself, not Bill Clinton personally. I did swear to follow the legal orders of the current President, but again, not him personally, but his office and his position) Are criminal cases in Britain not brought by "the Crown", as opposed to the USA where they are brought by "the People of the United States of America?" I don't think my view is blinkered at all, sir. It is supported by centuries of legal precedent in Britain. The world knows that the United States of America is the oldest republic. There are far older countries, but none that have been have a republic continuously since July 4th, 1776. Yes, in practice, the Queen does not often exercise her considerable power, but as Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "because the King does not USE a certain power does not mean that he does not HAVE it." When they wrote the US Constitution, the King of England had not vetoed legislation from Parliament for some 70+ years, yet we still limited the ability of the US President to veto a law. With 2/3 majority in Congress, the President's veto does nothing and the law is passed. Unfortunately, we do not have 2/3 majority in Congress opposing the war in Iraq or we would have left long ago. Congress has the power to remove funding for the war; if 2/3 wanted to, the President could not do anything about it. In Britain, 98% of the Parliament could vote in favor of a bill, and if Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II refuses to approve it, the bill would not become law. See

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm

(continuing my reply to timrollpickering) for the current powers of the Queen of England (exercised in practice by the PM, but nonetheless available to the Queen herself should she choose to use them). In any case, I maintain that the American political system is in fact alien relative to Europe, and the BBC/tv license is a classic example. "The King will take care of us", so we approve of a tv license, having to ask the King for permission to operate a television set. In America this would be an outrageous statement. One might as well propose a "newspaper license", to fund a Department of Newspapers, whereby the quality of journalism in the USA is assured: no one is allowed to have a newspaper present in one's home without getting permission from the President. Nonsense. In the USA, We the People give the government permission to do things, not the other way around. We the People are The Sovereign. That, my dear sir, is the American Revolution. The world has never been the same since. As a result of the American Revolution, we have the Internet, computers, telephones, people who have walked on the Moon, and many other wondrous things.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you're trying to be a parody of the steretypical Red State redneck you're doing very well. Yes the UK is a constitutional monarchy but much of what you cite is down to historic tradition - oathes are given to the Queen as it's the monarchy that forged and bound the nation. Ditto criminal cases may be brought in the name of The Crown because no-one's ever got round to updating the wording indicating that the case is brought on behalf of the state. (Most British people would be horrified at the idea that the government can prosecute openly in the name of the people.) And most rationalists in the UK agree that if the monarch did start trying to exercise her powers arbitarily then we'd become a republic almost immediately because people would not stand for it. The Queen's powers act as a reserve in case of an emergency such as an illegitimate government and prevent things from going bad. Plus having a head of state detached from government, whether that's a constitutional monarch or elected President as in the Republic of Ireland, is a much better way to command respect and authority than an executive President like Dubya. And Parliament can remove the funding for war as well and there's nothing a monarch or government could do about it.
You're focusing heavily on the idea that the television licence is permission to watch, when it is regarded as a subscription fee. Technology in the 1920s was such that it had to work this way round rather than through subscription cards. (Remember also the British economy didn't have the 1920s boom that America did, so initially radios and television sets would initially remain luxury items primarily owned by members of a class where in your face advertising was considered vulgar. So the potential for raising income through commercial advertising was limited for many years.) You are not asking the Queen for permission to operate a set - anyone can buy a TV licence and there is no vetting process. That's a different thing from permission to drive (something that can still get taken away in America) etc... And many of the technological developments you admire are the product of scientists internationally and the pressure of war, not some silly document like the US Constitution. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As for the term "licence" it does have a similar "permission to do so" meaning in much of the UK - my driver's licence gives me permission to drive, James Bond's "Licence to Kill" is universally understood as a permit to kill in the line of duty and so forth. However this isn't always how the TV licence is regarded because that's always been seen as a means to fund the BBC (and indeed the anti-licence fee lobby regard it as a tax not some crap about "government permissions" - people in this country do not lie awake in the middle of the night, with a gun close at hand, lest the government comes to get them). If anything it's regarded a service charge or subscription, albeit one on a different basis from only paying for the channels you want. And watching without paying would, under the current system, harm others as the collective effect of non payment would deny the BBC income. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to timrollpickering: indeed, in Britain, personal ownership of weapons is denied, because the King wants to be able to lay down the law, that is to say, to be able to force the people to do things. In the USA, it is We the People who would lay down the law against the government, hence the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a gun, and never have, but I am qualified on 9 mm pistol, 12 ga shotgun, M-14 and M-16 through navy training, as I stood watch with those weapons topside on submarines. In any event, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is part of what insures that We the People will retain our sovereignty. The people of Britain need not fear a return of monarchy because monarchy never left that country. Denying the BBC income would not harm others, it would inhibit the Queen from transmitting her opinion, and the right of We the People to transmit our opinion is more important. In any case, the USA funds our equivalent of the BBC through the general tax fund, and there is no reason Britain cannot do the same. Having only 5 broadcast TV stations available, however, I would suggest to the Brits that you should eliminate BBC television, so that the people of Britain can transmit on the channels that currently belong to the Queen. Richard Branson has a greater right to voice his opinion than the government, or that's how it should work, and that's how it does work in the USA.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Gun ownership is restricted in this country not because of some monarchical desire but because parliament, elected by the people, voted to restrict it in response to public demand for protection because they felt safer if it is harder for killers to access guns. We had nasty school massacres and the people wanted an end to them. Unfortunately for Americans too many people think their right to be alive is less important than the right to kill.
The BBC losing income does harm others if it means the BBC has less money to produce programmes, the same way that if half the copies of a sold magazine are taken without paying it overall reduces the quality and quantity for those who do pay. And the Queen only transmits once a year for ten minutes and does so on the main commercial channel as well so it's got nothing to do with that silliness. As for only five analogue channels, this is because of limits on the frequencies available - and the introduction of Channel 5 was chaotic because it broadcast on a frequency used by most VCRs, requiring mass retuning. But with digital television taking off that's irrelevant - I have dozens and dozens on just the basic Freeview package.
And the BBC is frankly more of a voice for the masses than commercial television. The BBC gives ordinary people the chance to express their views, not just the super rich.
Do you also campaign for PBS to be abolished? And I note from the article that in some parts of the US there are broadcast translator taxes - what is this if not a licence fee by any other name? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
71.116.101.119, veering dangerously off-topic, but to expand on one point TRP made, your claim that "in Britain, personal ownership of weapons is denied" is demonstrably false, since certain types of shotguns, rifles and even handguns can still be legally owned. That such ownership is so low (<1.4% of the population) is more of a reflection of the lack of interest or perceived need than legislation restricting certain types of firearm. Even at the start of the 20th century, when there were effectively no such controls, ownership was never more than peripheral. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Certain US based editors would do well to go and learn a bit more about how the UK and European state works. Your statements are based on a very bad misunderstanding of how European and the British states work. In the UK there is a technical term for what you are talking - it is bollocks ;).

Many UK posters with an understanding of history would find this "the king will look after us" rubbish highly offensive. Arguably, the ordinary people of the UK have only ever got rights or anything by fighting for them (may I direct you to the likes of the Corn Laws where the land owners (who were the only people in parliament) voted to protect their incomes at the expense of causing the masses to starve and the partially corresponding Peterloo Massacre where the army attacked protestors).

Whilst the British "establishment" has perhaps been cleverer than in other countries such as France where (public opinion snapped and) revoloutions occurred, and released pressure only when strictly necessary, across Europe the working and middle classes (i.e. 90% of the population) being denied the right to vote until the late 19th and early 20th centuries has arguably brought a backlash against the landowning classes that remains even today. In that light the European mainstream is significantly to the left of the US mainstream. That doesnt just rule in broadcasting, it rules all over politics. For example, most people in Europe find it bizarre that around 25% of the population in the world's richest country do not get basic health care.

In that light the BBC isnt the Queen's broadcasting service, on the contrary it could be viewed as the people's broadcasting service (compare that with the commercial media that is often owned by vast conglomerates and airs the political opinions of its proprietors (who are usually richer than the Queen). This has again developed not by the wish of the government, the monarchy or the land-owning classes it is more to do with the demands of the electorate which led to the likes of the Beveridge Report attempting to tackle poverty (and before someone says - ignorance was identified as a key cause of poverty in this report - which arguably links to two of the BBC's mission goals - to educate and inform). Thats not to say the welfare state hasnt been expediant for the government, one of the precursors to these developments for example was the number of people who where deemed unfit to fight in the Boer War.

As has previously been mentioned, on the contrary to what US posters seem to think, gun control in the UK is largely down to public demand. See for example, the Dunblane Massacre. This perhaps reveals another difference between the US and UK - Public demand after Dunblane brought about gun control so strict that it is not possible for people in professional sport to practice shooting - in the US it would doubtless have brought a visit by Charlton Heston to the scene to tell everyone how gun control needs to be relaxed.

Equally, whilst there are a few constitutional quirks in the UK (the US system isnt perfect either), that should ideally be removed, most of these are smoothed over by those who hold the power knowing that using said power would mean the end of that power annd numerous other benefits faster than you can utter the words Guillotine Motion. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Opinions of TV Licensing Systems Section

I've added a few arguments against TV licensing to balance this section out but to be honest I think the entire thing should be cleaned out, big time. I'd rather just see most of it deleted than have lots of "citation needed" things put in when the statements that are there couldn't be supported by citations anyway. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you added the stuff back about subscription alternatives because the DCMS recognized that voluntary subs would be higher the license fee (and logically it must be because some people would not subcribe).

Re advertisements on commercial channels, it is clear that commercial air-time buyers put a value on the time that a captured audience. The DCMS research clearly shows that advertisements interfere with programme enjoyment and it is surely not unreasonable to think that viewers themselves would put some value on the possibility of sweeping away ads from the screen, being the value viewers' put on the free time "robbed" by the channel operator to deliver advertising. Whether that value is higher or lower than the revenues from licensing is a moot point and as far as I know, not answered by any research.--Tom (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding voluntary subs being more than a license fee based system, well, it's hard to say if it would be more expensive overall, for a couple of reasons. First, you need a TV license before you can get sub-based stuff, and this affects the prices sub services charge. You don't get an accurate idea of what voluntary subs would cost if there wasn't a license fee in the first place. There's no reason sub services necessarily have to be more expensive than the license fee, because for example, if there were sub only services for different types of programming, more people might, theoretically, choose to go for them than one license fee for everything. I'm not saying they would, but they could. It depends on how efficiently the broadcasting corporation is run, too.

Re advertisements- well, yeah you would think that but consider that a third of people in the study said that adverts didn't affect their enjoyment of programs. So it's just a majority opinion that adverts affect enjoyment of programs, not a fact. That said I do find that pretty hard to believe after watching some of the car insurance adverts on British TV.

By the way, opinion studies like this don't necessarily prove what people are enjoying. There's a thing in social psychology called cognitive dissonance, that means that people will change their opinions about stuff to improve their self-esteem. Basically this is why sales people use the tactic called low-balling. They give you a slightly lower price than the retail price, you say yes, then they tell you that actually it's going to be the same price as usual. You still say yes, because you unconsciously come up with reasons to support your decision to say yes in the first place, and thus maintain your self-esteem. In a country that has a TV license, if people have always paid it due to tradition, they may unconsciously change their opinion about how enjoyable it really is, to make themselves feel that they're not the kind of person who would waste money on something that isn't enjoyable. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should Britain be blue, not red, on the map?

Given that Channel 4 is a public-service broadcaster, and one which does carry commercials? 86.132.140.207 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because C4 does not benefit from the UKLF in any substantially meaningful way. The colour coding refers to the operations of the sole/main recipient/s of the LF in each country, not all broadcasters in that country. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All right; thanks. I think my problem (and I doubt I'm the only one) was that, until doing some reading around the subject here and elsewhere, I hadn't really grasped that "public service broadcasters" in a UK context wasn't the same thing as "public broadcasters" in the sense of the map caption. 86.132.140.207 (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)