Spending Review: TV licence frozen for six years

chattychappy

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Certainly nothing to get wound up by, on any level.

Well.. looks like we're stuck with it for at least another 6 years and most people seem to like the system anyway.

I have a home in the UK but also spend long periods overseas. So I pay taxes (and TV licence fee) in the UK.

As for the left wing/right wing bias thing - I can't say I really notice or care. I'm probably fascist by most people's standards anyway. But I do think there has been a real dumbing down. It may come as news to people in the UK, but the BBC is not the envy of the world. Sure the World Service (the radio version) is well respected as is some of the news reporting.

If we are to have a state broadcaster then it should be in to "better stuff" - ie quality news (I don't mean drum rolls and Fiona Bruce and awful dramatic facial expressions of horror/surprise etc as she reads out stories) and educational stuff. I'm in Taiwan now - the state broadcaster here has short foreign language teaching programmes (English, Japanese), maths stuff etc. Yep they may not get the highest ratings, but it's there for people who want it.

chattychappy

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_licence#Television_licences_around_the_world

You fail.

No - none of the countries I have lived in have TV licenses. That is what I stated. The claim was:

rapido wrote: »

Complete rubbish.

Most of the rest of the world have a tv licensing system.

Looking that list, most don't unless you have a very euro-centric view of the world.

Dazfx

tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees check this article out very interesting, sorry had to take the start of the url away, would not let me post it

rapido

teddyco wrote: »

In the USA, they did away with all their TV aerials back in the early 80's when every house was supplied with coaxial cable.

Again, more rubbish and misinformation from posters on this forum.

Terrestrial television is alive and well in the USA, altho' it's arguably not to the same universal standard as that in the UK.

"Every house" is not supplied with a coaxial cable. It's just that 80% of households in the USA prefer to have a large choice of channels, and don't mind paying for it. Also Americans watch much more tv than most people in the UK. Those who live in houses that can't get cable will probably get satellite.

My cousin in the States ONLY receives her television with an aerial (or "antenna" as they call them). Why? Because cable costs $30 a month, it's not free. And she doesn't watch enough tv or earn enough to justify the cost.

Or can you prove that terrestrial tv doesn't exist in the USA, and that every single household has cable? I would like to see that.

My American friends think we are living in the dark ages when I tell them that the UK is still using the old TV aerials.

Your American friends sound like real snobs to me.

I expect they would look down on my cousin.

Along with 20% of their own countrymen.

-rapido

rapido

chattychappy wrote: »

Looking that list, most don't unless you have a very euro-centric view of the world.

I didn't post "that list". Looking at it, it also excludes the vast majority of the world, as no information has been added to say that tv licences do or do not exist in that country.

For Africa, it only gives information about 5 countries, 4 that have a licensing system, and 1 that doesn't. However Africa has over 50 countries.

Probably because it's English language Wikipedia, and is more likely to have information on English speaking countries or places where English is a understood by a large proportion of the population.

-rapido

BLT_2

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

The Radio One argument is interesting in my view. On the face of it, it is very easy to say "the private sector can do what Radio One does" but if you look more closely, R1 actually does a lot of important programming that the commercial sector either can't or won't do.

Which commercial stations, for example, do something like the live lounge, the Sunday Surgery, extended news bulletins, alternative music programming, new music programming? All important parts of R1s schedule that would be sorely missed in my view. No commercial rival does any of that.

Bring on the commercials and stop the inane chat from the moronic presenters who spend more time laughing at their own drivel than they do playing music. Thank god Radio 1 is not the only choice, that dumb !!! bi*ch Sara whatever the f*ck her name is needs a good bi*ch slapping

patman99

The only reason you need to give your name and address when buying a new TV is because LCD/Plasma sets can't be detected by any kind of equipment currently available.

If you pay by cash, there is nothing stopping you giving a name/address picked from a phone book.

With Freeview, you get 30+ channels for your license fee, had it not been for the BBC picking-up the pieces after Granada/Carlton liquidated Ondigital to prevent the Premiership getting their money, we would need to pay Sky for multi-channel TV.

Channel4 is a public broadcaster (owned by the govt., just like the Beeb), but it is entirely commercial-funded. This year they almost went bust.