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

411–420 of 562 posts

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#411

Post by Bayart »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #221
xorcist wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just any private business. Compare with social insurance fees that must also be paid, it is not something you can opt out of while being part of the society. The fact that it is not a state owned organization is a feature, not a bug. In Germany specifically it is not a revolving door between public broadcasting and politics, and there is clearly journalistic pride in taking down corrupt politicians, so while…

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's good that the TV tax is levied by the government like social insurance fees but instead of it going directly to the government like social insurance fees, it goes to an "independent" organization and that's the "feature"? LOL, what?! Do you really think that money is no strings attached? Ideally it would be and I guess that's the idea on paper but in practice, the public br…

That's entirely dependent on the country and political culture. At the very least I can guaranty that in Britain, France and Germany public networks and new agencies are far more neutral and independent than private ones. And that's a result of political parties being unable to co-opt the administrative machinery of the government system. So they end up co-opting businessmen, who themselves control private media for influence.

In a well designed democracy nobody is strong enough for long enough to take over public media, the school system, the judiciary, the army etc.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#412

Post by sdunwoody »

callamdelaney wrote: post #373
sdunwoody wrote: post #341

Not read the article, but as a political aside, the licence fee is a big subject of debate here at the moment. It was designed so that the BBC essentially had independence from the government, and as such, they could more easily be politically neutral (if they were funded directly by the government, there would be more pressure for them to cover the government favourably in news programs etc.). Problem is that these…

The solution is to let people who want to watch and consume bbc content pay for it, and let everybody else not pay for it. It's very simple.

The BBC would face significant cuts if that was the case. It would likely end up at a point where the quantity and quality of content was reduced due to less revenue, which then would cause additional people to cancel subscriptions.

This would be quite damaging for the UK as the BBC is a great way of projecting soft power, plus it provides quite a lot of great resources (as has been pointed out in other comments).

I'd be more in favour of a system like Germany has to be honest.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#413

Post by caspper69 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #405
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be simpler to just use a part of the taxes already collected to go to BBC. That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it from political interference.

That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people to pay a “TV license” and legislation forcing people to pay more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC is effectively the same thing. Except the latter is more efficient.

Despite your feelings on the issue, the difference is quite stark. Relying on allocations in yearly budgets, subject to the political whims of lawmakers, is clearly a different animal altogether.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#415

Post by RobertKerans »

programLyrique wrote: post #292
glandium wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can add France and Japan to the list. In France, they don't go door to door, though, it's only a check box on some tax returns forms. In Japan they do come door to door. I've never heard about "detection vans" in either, though.

They might not come, but they will send you a letter to ask you if really, really, you don't have a TV.

Yeah, this is the same as how it worked in UK (still works? I dunno). I didn't have a TV growing up, bought one when I was about 14 thinking I was being sneaky about it, address was taken when I was buying it and obviously some box got checked on some system somewhere and my parents got bombarded with letters.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#416

Post by denton-scratch »

joking wrote: post #242
mytailorisrich wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a political issue and political issues are debated in Parliament in any case, and that includes the budget. It's no more easy to cut funding if it comes from the general budget rather than from a ring-fenced dedicated tax, and ultimately people will decide what they want when it's elections time (and I can tell you that the majority of people in the UK are very attached to the BBC). This applies for the UK bu…

there are a pretty way of saying your country have less income / business benefits tax, but then you fund your tv with a dedicated fee, your roads with tolls, your medical system with copays or private insurance... at the expense of having more inefficiencies and costs for the people having to manage those payments. Those payments are also less regressive, as usually you pay the same regardless your income opposed to…

"Less regresssive"?

LMFTFY. A flat-rate tax is regressive, because poor people pay the same as rich people. A sales tax (such as VAT) is regressive, because poor people buy more stuff as a proportion of their income.

An income tax is progressive, because you pay more if you earn more.

Several people have claimed that the Beeb is some kind of "public good". I don't happen to agree; but if it's true, then clearly it should be paid for out of general taxation.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#417

Post by Mauricebranagh »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #402
criddell wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anything really changed? There have always been kids programming that was primarily about selling toys. I'm thinking of Care Bears, GI Joe, Transforms, Voltron, etc... When shows like that move to Netflix or Amazon Prime the native ads remain, but the interstitials are gone.

That’s true. I guess as an adult, I feel like I notice it more when the writing / photography blatantly and inorganically bring logos and certain products to the forefront. A family member’s kids were watching a Christmas movie on Netflix, and while I wasn’t watching it, something jarring hit my ears. In the middle of the movie, Santa names the brand and model of a car, and then starts listing its specs as he gets in…

Pay for placement is common in the USA and in films also why you don't often see baddies using apple products.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#418

Post by afarrell »

caspper69 wrote: post #413
lotsofpulp wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That just sounds like paperwork. Legislation forcing people to pay a “TV license” and legislation forcing people to pay more tax and then transferring those tax funds to the BBC is effectively the same thing. Except the latter is more efficient.

Despite your feelings on the issue, the difference is quite stark. Relying on allocations in yearly budgets, subject to the political whims of lawmakers, is clearly a different animal altogether.

This is the reason why court fees and PACER fees exist in the US.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#419

Post by Mauricebranagh »

doctorfoo wrote: post #360
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…

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.

A lot of people say that but it is "not readily believable" to use a Civil Service Circumlocution.

In that case why are you and those others not using a monitor.

Re: TV detector vans once prowled the streets of England

#420

Post by cortic »

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

The idea is to make the poor and working classes pay for it, being regressive everyone pays the same, taxes are progressive, the more you earn the more you pay.

Government set the licence fee and legislation around it every 5 or 6 years. The last renewal put government appointed editors into the BBC in exchange for a change in Law from 'watch live BBC channels = you have to pay' to 'watch live non-BBC channels = you have to pay'. So now, even if you are just watching BBC competitors,you have to pay the BBC.. what a great business model.

Post reply on HN