Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Please do not write below the line

bbctvlicence.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 337 posts

Re: Please do not write below the line

#81

Post by jaggederest »

Nition wrote: post #55
dijit wrote: post #8

Likeliest situation is all their stationary destined for send outs have the line; and in situations where the line serves no purpose it does no harm to leave it: so there is little use in having additional process around completely blank stock.

They could have told him that though if it's the case, and the mystery would be solved. But there obviously wasn't any desire (or more charitably - time) on their end to really look into the reasoning or even understand the question. ---- Edit: I will share what I think is a nice a little counterpoint story here, from a business that is clearly still interested in understanding. I sent Lego an email a while ago: I'm…

That is an amazingly competent response. Every company should aspire to that kind of depth, if a toy company can manage it.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#82

Post by madeofpalk »

Nition wrote: post #55
dijit wrote: post #8

Likeliest situation is all their stationary destined for send outs have the line; and in situations where the line serves no purpose it does no harm to leave it: so there is little use in having additional process around completely blank stock.

They could have told him that though if it's the case, and the mystery would be solved. But there obviously wasn't any desire (or more charitably - time) on their end to really look into the reasoning or even understand the question. ---- Edit: I will share what I think is a nice a little counterpoint story here, from a business that is clearly still interested in understanding. I sent Lego an email a while ago: I'm…

The problem is there’s no “they”. Just an underpaid government contractor manning the email inbox, asking around “hey why do the letters say this?” and responding with the bare minimum.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#83

Post by DrillShopper »

busterarm wrote: post #70
Rendello wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Japan there was an infamous political party focused on getting rid of the hated TV licence system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZG95grO-vc

In Japan the vast majority of people stopped paying their TV license after a string of NHK scandals and there's no penalty for failing to pay either. It's just not enforced. Also the party platform wasn't to get rid of the license system but to encrypt the broadcast signal so that only willing NHK viewers would pay for the license.

The penalty for not paying the TV license is dealing with their harassment specialists (aka fee collectors)

Re: Please do not write below the line

#84

Post by immibis »

notatoad wrote: post #53
Zak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many European countries are worse about it than the UK; even people who do not own a television are required by law to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

that seems fine to me. whatever they want to call it, if it applies to everybody it's just a tax and they're using tax dollars to fund some TV content and/or infrastrcture. that's all totally normal. the absurd part is restricting that tax to only people who watch TV, and trying to do surveillance and enforcement to determine whether or not somebody is eligible for a TV tax.

Well, first they wanted to tax everyone a bit to pay for the BBC. And then someone said that would let the government easily pressure the BBC by withholding funds. And then someone said let's let the BBC collect it's own tax then. And someone else said that would be illegal to make people pay for the BBC if they aren't actually receiving any services from the BBC. And so here we are. So they wrote in this provision that in practice exempts precisely zero people but everyone tries to chase after anyway, contorting themselves through hoops to make it apply.

"Any services from the BBC" means any. TV broadcast, radio broadcast, or internet streaming. And because the actual intention was to make everyone pay, the law is written so you have to pay if you could receive one. If you have a computer and the Internet, you could receive internet streaming.

And then you have more stupid rules, like even though they're collecting a tax, they're not tax collectors so they don't have any authority to come into your house, so they invent weird ways to detect if you have a TV or not.

Presumably a left wing government would remove all this stuff and just make it a tax.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#86

Post by madeofpalk »

gs17 wrote: post #72
busterarm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the UK is the only country with a license ridiculous enough to offer you a 50% discount _if you're blind_.

It sounds weirder than that to me: > colour TV: £169.50 per year; monochrome TV: £57.00 per year; blind people: 50% discount People who can't see their color TV at all pay more than people who can but have an old black-and-white one?

Do the discounts stack? If you’re blind should you just buy a monochrome tv and pay £28?

Re: Please do not write below the line

#87

Post by lifeisstillgood »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #13

A "TV License" is one of those things I alway assumed people were making up to satirize the claims of over-regulation & bureaucracy in the UK. Finding out it was real was a mixture of hilarious and sobering.

The BBC is prized in the UK, and rightly so. Most national broadcasters have strong public interest provisions but the Beeb has a history and culture of strong independent journalism, incredible childrens and family output and acts as a mainstay anchor to support a creative industry.

There is plenty to criticise but the weird ring fenced tax that we pay is incredible value for money (films, tv, web, journalism for the price of Netflix

Re: Please do not write below the line

#88

Post by DrillShopper »

Retr0id wrote: post #69
Zak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many European countries are worse about it than the UK; even people who do not own a television are required by law to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

As a UK resident and TV owner (who does not need a license), I wouldn't even mind that much if I was required to pay just for TV ownership. It's the "enforcement" system that's utterly broken (although I have no idea how it compares to other countries). We have this ridiculous situation where I'm not required to pay (so I don't), yet the TV licensing people are allowed (required?) to send me junk mail week after week…

What is the reason that you don't have to pay?

Re: Please do not write below the line

#89

Post by metabagel »

ho_schi wrote: post #54
Zak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many European countries are worse about it than the UK; even people who do not own a television are required by law to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

This fee is hot topic in Germany. Our French friends also enjoy ARTE[1] but seem not to suffer anymore from this ridiculous fee. Actually I’m surprised that the Swiss fee is even higher, despite everything in the Swiss is expensive. [1] Big parts of our public television suck. But ARTE is awesome ! * Borgen * Occupied * Mit offenen Karten * Karambolage * … PS: ARTE is watchable outside of France and Germany in a lot…

Occupied is outstanding, and available in the U.S. on Netflix.

Re: Please do not write below the line

#90

Post by ElevenLathe »

Nition wrote: post #55
dijit wrote: post #8

Likeliest situation is all their stationary destined for send outs have the line; and in situations where the line serves no purpose it does no harm to leave it: so there is little use in having additional process around completely blank stock.

They could have told him that though if it's the case, and the mystery would be solved. But there obviously wasn't any desire (or more charitably - time) on their end to really look into the reasoning or even understand the question. ---- Edit: I will share what I think is a nice a little counterpoint story here, from a business that is clearly still interested in understanding. I sent Lego an email a while ago: I'm…

I have a wonderful memory of eating a snickers bar with my Dad as a kid, and deciding to call the comment line (1-800 number) on the wrapper. I was probably about 6 and just wanted to say that I liked their candy bars. The woman was very nice and took our address so they could mail us some coupons for free snickers bars.
Post reply on HN