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

TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#351

Post by martin_bech »

mhh__ wrote: post #261
saberdancer wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of this license fee in this day and age? Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "t…

I think the idea is to make it harder to fiddle with the BBC budget

Im sure thats true. We had it the same way in Denmark, but have now changed it, to be payed for by taxes.. this had made it very political, and the budget is now decided by whatever party is in control, and the national tv/radio is becoming more and more of a coward because of it..

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#352

Post by vixen99 »

cjrp wrote: post #309
mrsuprawsm wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately BBC news really isn't that good any more. It's been on a long slow decline since about 2005 or so, and now the majority of their news programming (with a few small but notable exceptions) are primarily cheering on the Tory government + ministers of the day.

Their programmes quite often suffer from both-sidesism. They'll have a senior scientist on debating a conspiracy-theory-believing anti-vaxxer, as if they're both on the same level.

What's with this tendency to stick a binary label on every controversial issue? There are peer-reviewed valid concerns about these vaccines. Are the authors lumped into the anti-vaxxers category?

Regularly watching BBC World I've yet to see the both-sideism you describe. As if on the same level? Well in relation to another bete noir, you'll likely get to see an interview with Greta T. (zero academic qualifications) while waiting interminably to hear any (usually edited) counter-position from (for instance, there are many others) Richard Lindzen (with around 200 peer-reviewed papers in atmospheric climatology, MIT emeritus professor) or Judith Curry (https://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html).

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#353

Post by cameronh90 »

WolfRazu wrote: post #285
andybak wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sometimes seems like each side of the UK political spectrum is convinced that the BBC is irrevocably biased in favour of their opponents. The Tory right want to hamstring the BBC ("Bunch of Bloody Communists" used to be the witty cry) and jump on it at any opportunity.

I agree with this sentiment considerably. The BBC seems to get equal bashing from both sides of the political spectrum. I think therefore it's likely it's doing quite well in terms of impartiality.

For a laugh and good demonstration of this point, check out the replies Laura Kuennsberg gets to any vaguely controversial tweet.

Usually a solid amount accusing her of towing the party line, being friends with Boris, Tory mouthpiece etc then another bunch accusing her of being an example of how the BBC is full of leftie communists who want to reverse brexit. Both equally vitriolic.

The way she draws the hate from both sides is impressive.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#354

Post by LeanderK »

CodesInChaos wrote: post #170
philwelch wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At that point, why don’t they just have the government fund the television networks from tax revenue rather than effectively levying a poll tax earmarked for broadcasters?

So they can pretend their state TV is independent from the state.

The german state TV is independent, neutral and does very good journalistic job. I don't know how on earth they could be criticised to be a propaganda outlet for the state. I personally know someone who works for the journalistic side of the state TV and I can assure you that he has all the journalistic freedom he needs.

That being said, i fell like the state TV is the opposite. Only neutral news, facts without much of an opinion. For me it's not enough to follow the news since I can't be an expert in everything. I need voices from a certain my political spectrum that write what they feel about laws and processes. Environmental activists commenting environmental laws etc. Thats why I read the newspaper additionally. It's certainly not unbiased, but still independent.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#355

Post by M2Ys4U »

nailer wrote: post #298
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unhelpful to disagree with someone on a point of fact and to decline to provide a decent source. The result is that you've given the reader no reason to take your word over the other person's. From what I can tell, your account of things is accurate. On the website [0][1][2] the requirements aren't concerned at all with what equipment you own or with how it's set up, only with the act of watching or recording li…

> Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. I find the wording here fascinating. Is watching a live stream over the YouTube app on my TV 'live TV'? Is watching a UFC event on the UFC app? What about the website? What is TV? Is a monitor? A monitor with an aerial? Video content transmitted over certain bands?

>I find the wording here fascinating. Is watching a live stream over the YouTube app on my TV 'live TV'? Is watching a UFC event on the UFC app? What about the website?

If it's broadcast simultaneously by other means (e.g. satellite, cable, terrestrial transmitter etc.) it counts as "live TV".

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#356

Post by flurdy »

germanier wrote: post #326
kwanbix wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC in Germany Netflix €14, Disney+ €7, Amazon Prime Video €6. And all 3 I can watch whenever I travel. The TV/Radio Tax is about €18!!! and I can only "enjoy" it in Germany!!! Not only that, the quality of programming quite bad, and to make it even worse, I am forced to pay for it when I don't even watch it. When I moved to Germany it just blown my mind.

Most of their content is streamable worldwide. Exception being licensed content for which they only acquire the rights for streaming to Germany. Why would they buy worldwide licenses? Netflix and the others also don't do that – they only get licenses for the local market (of which they have much more of course), travelers are just a byproduct.

NRK, the national broadcaster in Norway, let you watch geo-licensed content anywhere in Europe if you are logged in and authenticated with BankId [1][2]. Which is very handy, as before I had to go via VPN which was ok but more of a faff.

* [1] https://nrkbeta.no/2019/12/19/na-kan-du-ta-med-nrk-tv-pa-fer...

* [2] https://www.bankid.no/en/company/

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#357

Post by M2Ys4U »

mprev wrote: post #264
tonyedgecombe wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a lot of those shows because they are cheap to make. In reality the BBC's funding has been squeezed for years, largely for political reasons. The current government would love to kill it completely but they can't do that directly.

If the current government want to kill it completely why have the ruled out decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee? There are pretty strong ethical reasons for why you shouldn't get a criminal record and, possibly, face prison time for not paying for a TV licence, so it would be politically quite easy to pass.

>If the current government want to kill it completely why have the ruled out decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee?

They haven't, yet.

>There are pretty strong ethical reasons for why you shouldn't get a criminal record and, possibly, face prison time for not paying for a TV licence, so it would be politically quite easy to pass.

One doesn't face prison for non-payment of the license fee.

A custodial sentence can only be imposed if one fails to pay the court-ordered fine imposed as a punishment for non-payment of the license fee.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#358

Post by [deleted] »

account42 wrote: post #314
hef19898 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lines are blurry in Germany sometimes, sure. But outlets like the ARD, and a lesser extent ZDF (there are some legal differences between the two, including independance) are way more neutral regarding the ruling, or major, parties like, say, Fox News and the GOP. And they have been, regardless of government coalition. They still are as far as their pure news formats are concerned, much mre "just the facts" then anyth…

> ARD, and a lesser extent ZDF (there are some legal differences between the two, including independance) are way more neutral regarding the ruling, or major, parties like, say, Fox News and the GOP. That is hardly a strong endorsement.

[deleted]

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#359

Post by i_am_proteus »

saberdancer wrote: post #255
boffinism wrote: post #128

The BBC is currently dedicating hours of airtime a day to educational content to match our primary and secondary curricula because the schools are shut and lots of kids can't access online provisions. And still people complain about the licence fee in terms of whether or not they enjoy BBC gameshows...

What is the point of this license fee in this day and age? Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "t…

Not everyone has a TV. Most, perhaps, but not all.

Source: I don't have a TV.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#360

Post by doctorfoo »

saberdancer wrote: post #255
boffinism wrote: post #128

The BBC is currently dedicating hours of airtime a day to educational content to match our primary and secondary curricula because the schools are shut and lots of kids can't access online provisions. And still people complain about the licence fee in terms of whether or not they enjoy BBC gameshows...

What is the point of this license fee in this day and age? Everyone has a TV, so everyone pays the license fee. Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "t…

Not true. I and others I know use a TV only as a screen for videogames and do not watch TV in any form. You explicitly do not need a license just to own a TV.
Post reply on HN