At 12:32 PM 8/26/02 -0700, Ross wrote:
>Joe wrote:
>>
>> At 09:27 AM 8/26/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> >On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Dave Woodman - dave_at_naffnet.org.uk wrote:
>> >
>> >> Unfortunately, the licence now applies if you have equipment capable of
>> >> receiving TV transmissions, regardless of the purpose for which it used, so
>> >> you can try to convince the authorities all you like...
>> >>
>> >> A monitor, as you used, always avoids the license, so you would still have
>> >> been safe, but even owning a VCR or TV and keeping it in the loft requires a
>> >> license now.
>> >
>> >Ok, now you've got me wondering... I've never heard of anything like that
>> >on this side of the pond. Why exactly do you have to purchase a license
>> >to own a TV? Is it similar for AM/FM radios? ...
>>
>> Why do we have to pay a tax on telephone service? The answer is the same for both questions.
>
>Hmm. Unless something radical has changed in recent years,
>UK television and radio pretty much IS the BBC, which is
>not supported or funded by commercials like US networks are.
>It's funded by the license fees and you can see how they're
>used
>at http://www.bbc.co.uk.
>
>Think of it as PBS on major steroids.
>
>The "tax" model has its drawbacks and advantages. A lot
>fewer
>commercials, some top-notch progamming, but not nearly as
>much variety. On the other hand, if you think TV in the
>US is "Free", you're mistaken. The advertising that funds
>ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. is simply factored into the cost of
>nearly every product you buy at the store.
That's true but most products are still cheaper here than in the UK. Explain that one!
Joe
Received on Mon Aug 26 2002 - 17:46:00 BST