[OT] UK TV Licenses (was Re: These darned old computers)

From: Joe <rigdonj_at_cfl.rr.com>
Date: Mon Aug 26 17:46:00 2002

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
>at http://www.bbc.co.uk.
>Think of it as PBS on major steroids.
>The "tax" model has its drawbacks and advantages. A lot
>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!

Received on Mon Aug 26 2002 - 17:46:00 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:37 BST