Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: More British Weirdness | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 23:31:56 11/19/04 Fri In reply to: Admiral Nelson 's message, "Kiss me, Hardy" on 06:52:35 11/19/04 Fri Tell me, are we the only country in the Commonwealth, and indeed the world, where a licence is required to watch television? Moreover, do any other countries pursue unlicensed viewers who surreptitiously watch TV, with sophisticated detector vans, sporting an array of antennas, dishes and oscilloscopes? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Better than having crappy adverts on TV! | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:58:21 11/19/04 Fri The BBC is a respected insitution worldwide, and is one of the few television companies (well, corporation) in existence whose job is to deliver good quiality programmes to viewers, not eyeballs to advertisers. It is currently working on a revolutionary streaming codec, that will allow viewers to watch old TV programmes from its website, whos compression and quality is superior to that of Microsoft and RealOne. The code for this codec has been released under the GPL, meaning that anyone may take it and use it as they wish, even resell it if they so desire. Can any other TV company do this? It develops a range of programmes of its own that are unique in their humour and general content world wide, and yet still turns over a profit from selling these elsewhere. Having a few vans about and paying £10 a month (equivalent) for about 8 channels, BBCi (online, interactive, etc), full of this brilliant content is a small price to pay. I truely will mourn the day if it is ever privatised. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well, if it is sold off or destroyed, not just privatised | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:00:00 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Auntie is not what she was. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:56:15 11/20/04 Sat Who can deny that the BBC's progamming is the best in the world? I certainly don't. Apart from BBC news' manifest inclinations to present the Tories as madmen and not even efficient madmen at that, to imply that invading Iraq was akin to Germany invading Poland, and their implicit suggestion that Tony Blair is a real-life Flash Gordon (who will save every one of us), I have no argument with Auntie. Except... ...The propaganda campaign by the BBC to get people to pay the license is getting more like Big Brother than anything real. "We have a list of everyone without a TV license. Just so you know" emblazoned across London omnibuses, for example. And the vans with satellite dishes and the inordinate fines (£1000? for watching Father Ted without a license? That's about the price of a good suit, for heaven's sake!)... it's a bit authoritarian for my liking. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ABC/BBC | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:16:04 11/20/04 Sat It is interesting that you refer to the BBC as "Auntie" - the same name is given to the ABC here is Australia. The BBC is an institution that you should all be proud of, particulary the BBC World Service. It is far better than our ABC. I regulary listen to the BBC World Service on the radio here and get much of my news from the BBC Website. I also enjoy listening to a few other BBC radio programmes every now and again via the internet. The quality of the ABC is far better than the commercial networks in Australia, however it is well behind the BBC. I wish the Australian government would increase its funding at a faster rate. We should be looking to the BBC as a model. It does seem slightly strange to charge a licence fee for the BBC though, you would think it would be much more efficient to pay for the BBC directly out of people's taxes, as is done in Australia. I realise there are some issues with bias (similar to the ABC here) but it would be sad to see the BBC scaled down or privitised. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Nope | |
|
Author: Silly Billy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:59:07 11/19/04 Fri Belgium required the ownership of a TV licence up until 2 years ago, when they privatised public television. And Ireland certainly still has them - in fact, the prices are about double those paid in Britain because of the ridiculously oversubsidised Irish-language television and radio stations that must be supported. I could not definitively state whether there are other states that operate such licensing systems, but even those that pay for broadcasting through general tax revenue are imposing a kind of licence fee - and one that is harder to avoid paying. This is definitely true of the French (who subsidise their media and culture massively), and I hear that the Germans and the Italians are much the same. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: But what about people in between? | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:51:33 11/20/04 Sat I'm strongly in favour of public service, as you may have noticed. The major problem with private services is not with the poor who cannot ever afford pay for it, but with those who can barely. The people that would have to take a severe hit in their standard of living to enjoy the benefits of health care insurance, TV, education, et cetera. What's more, having two or three 'tiers' of service is particularly unacceptable. People who fall back on the health service should be able to do so witgh confidence that they will recieve a good service. Now, you may argue that the NHS is bad at the moment, but as we all know, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. It really is not bad in comparison to what it would be if those in the upper tax bands weren't 'donating' generously towards it. If they could freely choose a superior service instead of paying tax, then they would. But then the quality of the free service would suffer significantly and we'd end up with the quality of peoples healthcare being soley dependent on how much they earn, and frankly, that is not acceptable in modern Britain. Even Margaret Thatcher didn't dare privatise the NHS. It is another one of our not-so-good-but-we'll-kill-you-if-you-try-to-take-it-away services. Unlike the BBC, it has a lot of work to do before it can be on par or supersede its commericial cousins. But I'm confident, that with the appropriate management and funding, it can be respected world wide. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: the ABC is funded out of normal tax revenue | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:51:48 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:10:12 11/20/04 Sat So would many of our public services be, if were were honest about taxation. "Tax is at 20%," says the government; but that is just income tax, and if you add things like VAT, the BBC license fee, presrcription surcharges, capital gains tax, council tax, inheritance tax (the most iniquitous of our taxes), and all the rest of it, it actually amounts to 42%. And given that many of us pay this and then PAY FOR OUR OWN services in the form of healthcare, school fees, and whatnot, even the figure of 42% is a bit small. Frankly, either the government should adopt the Norwegian policy of charging 50% tax and everything being both free and of good quality, or charging vitually none and letting people pay for services themselves. But I'm a Tory, so you can imagine that I'd go for the latter! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Public Services | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:33:50 11/20/04 Sat I think you have to achieve a balance with public services that ensures quality and fairness. In my view, the government should provide a safety-net for those who are less well-off in society but not pay for public services for those who are better off and encourage those people to provide for themselves. This would allow the government to substantially reduce taxes and give more people choice in their services, it would also help to eliminate the culture of dependency that can often be created. My school education at a government school was completely paid for by the government, despite the fact my family could quite easily have paid for my education privately. The same is the case with my university degree (for which the government pays approximately 75%), it is ludicrous for the government to be contributing so heavily to university education when these people go on to earn more than others. the government providing free (or substantially free) services to everyone does not necessarily constitute fairness. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Paying for TV | |
|
Author: JIm (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:28:57 11/20/04 Sat In Canada, I don't need a TV licence, but I do have to pay a monthly subscription fee for cable channels. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: How is CBC funded? | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:17:25 11/20/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: General tax revenue and commercials... | |
|
Author: Brent (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:23:49 11/21/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: TV | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:04:03 11/21/04 Sun The situation in Canada seems similar to that in Australia, although the ABC is banned from screening advertisments. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |