$180 Per Second of BBC Output
nerdr.com
$180 Per Second of BBC Output
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#2I love (nearly all of) the BBC output e.g. BBC4 documentaries, CBeebies and CBBC (two entire kids channels with no adverts), BBC Radio 6, iPlayer, various tech investments like Dirac and Semantic Web for music metadata with Musicbrainz etc. but yes, the licence fee is a terrible regressive tax that should be replaced with something like extra VAT on TV purchases, so that people with multiple expensive TVs pay more and since you couldn't avoid it you'd save on enforcement costs.
But... the tories hate everything the BBC stands for and any political changes to their funding model will result in them taking the opportunity to control and/or destroy the BBC. This leaves me highly conflicted.
On a very slightly brighter note, they've stopped jailing so many young women for non-payment after a rash of suicides a few years ago.
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#3I love (nearly all of) the BBC output e.g. BBC4 documentaries, CBeebies and CBBC (two entire kids channels with no adverts ), BBC Radio 6, iPlayer, various tech investments like Dirac and Semantic Web for music metadata with Musicbrainz etc. but yes, the licence fee is a terrible regressive tax that should be replaced with something like extra VAT on TV purchases, so that people with multiple expensive TVs pay more a…
I didn't realize it was that bad over there! Got a link for those suicides? I'd say, if UK citizens really do support it as they seem to do, then at least a proportional tax would be better. Having read into it a little though, the fact that it's technically a tax on information doesn't sit well with me (meaning if you didn't have a TV 20 years ago you were basically in the dark as far as video footage of world events were concerned).
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#4Let's start with the factual errors.
> That’s for a TV channel and a pretty good website.
No, that's for eight or so TV channels, a similar number of national radio stations, a network of local radio stations, and a pretty good website.
> Well, if you are capable of receiving BBC broadcasts you pay the tax.
TV Licensing would like us all to believe that if we're capable of receiving any UK TV broadcasts (not just the BBC) then we have to pay, but it's not true. You have to pay if you actually receive a UK TV broadcast. Note that watching live TV through iplayer counts as receiving a UK TV broadcast, but watching an earlier programme timeshifted through iplayer does not. The BBC wants this changed, but this hasn't happened yet, I think.
> Every household in the United Kingdom is charged a flat fee
As well as not having to pay if you don't receive UK TV broadcasts, you don't have to pay if one of the householders is aged 75 or above.
Also, pubs/hotels/etc have to pay if they receive TV broadcasts, but it's not on a flat rate basis.
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#5[deleted]
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#6I love (nearly all of) the BBC output e.g. BBC4 documentaries, CBeebies and CBBC (two entire kids channels with no adverts ), BBC Radio 6, iPlayer, various tech investments like Dirac and Semantic Web for music metadata with Musicbrainz etc. but yes, the licence fee is a terrible regressive tax that should be replaced with something like extra VAT on TV purchases, so that people with multiple expensive TVs pay more a…
I didn't realize it was that bad over there! Got a link for those suicides? I'd say, if UK citizens really do support it as they seem to do, then at least a proportional tax would be better. Having read into it a little though, the fact that it's technically a tax on information doesn't sit well with me (meaning if you didn't have a TV 20 years ago you were basically in the dark as far as video footage of world event…
We pay VAT on our phone bills and internet access bills as well. Paper-based newspapers and magazines are exempt though.
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#7I love (nearly all of) the BBC output e.g. BBC4 documentaries, CBeebies and CBBC (two entire kids channels with no adverts ), BBC Radio 6, iPlayer, various tech investments like Dirac and Semantic Web for music metadata with Musicbrainz etc. but yes, the licence fee is a terrible regressive tax that should be replaced with something like extra VAT on TV purchases, so that people with multiple expensive TVs pay more a…
I didn't realize it was that bad over there! Got a link for those suicides? I'd say, if UK citizens really do support it as they seem to do, then at least a proportional tax would be better. Having read into it a little though, the fact that it's technically a tax on information doesn't sit well with me (meaning if you didn't have a TV 20 years ago you were basically in the dark as far as video footage of world event…
Can't find any links to the suicides, I may be conflating the string of female prison suicides at Corton Vale in the 1990s (story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1852047.stm) with the more general pressure from MP's to reduce the number of women (primarily young, poor, single and with dependent children) jailed for licence fee non-payment that occurred at the same time (it dropped as a result from 250 to 50 a year in the middle of the decade, still far too many and possibly still the leading cause of female imprisonment in the UK).
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#8The BBC is a much-loved institution. Whenever politicians propose changes to the BBC, people get hysterical about the supposed damage the supposed wrecking will do. This happens even when the politicians involved aren't Tories.
The BBC is better value for money than the pay TV channels, because the pay TV channels can't force people to pay for their product. If the BBC channels went subscription-only, the price would be higher than it is now.
The BBC doesn't carry advertising. Lots of people like watching TV without being interrupted by adverts. And the free commercial channels like not having the increased competition for TV advertising space.
The licence fee / TV tax is also far from universally admired, but as the alternatives are also flawed and it's the status quo, it endures.
I'd prefer it if it was based on ability to pay, but (a) that would make it more expensive to collect and more time consuming to pay; and (b) there is a danger that if it was collected by the Revenue, that would be a step along the road towards the BBC losing editorial independence.
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#9The BBC is a much-loved institution. Whenever politicians propose changes to the BBC, people get hysterical about the supposed damage the supposed wrecking will do. This happens even when the politicians involved aren't Tories. The BBC is better value for money than the pay TV channels, because the pay TV channels can't force people to pay for their product. If the BBC channels went subscription-only, the price would…
What about a donation system? Like some channels here in the US have. That way, those who do like the service can pay and those who don't are free of the tax. Do you see that system working as an alternative to the BBC License fee?
Re: $180 Per Second of BBC Output
#10The BBC is a much-loved institution. Whenever politicians propose changes to the BBC, people get hysterical about the supposed damage the supposed wrecking will do. This happens even when the politicians involved aren't Tories. The BBC is better value for money than the pay TV channels, because the pay TV channels can't force people to pay for their product. If the BBC channels went subscription-only, the price would…
What about a donation system? Like some channels here in the US have. That way, those who do like the service can pay and those who don't are free of the tax. Do you see that system working as an alternative to the BBC License fee?
Do those channels produce high quality TV?
My instinct is that it wouldn't bring in enough money to maintain quality, and that the incessant appeals for money would be as annoying as adverts.