Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

British PC Tax to Replace TV License? 441

Posted by Zonk from the look-for-this-soon-near-you dept.
caffeination writes "Here in Britain, anything capable of receiving live or virtually live broadcasts is considered TV receiving equipment. Because the detector vans can't actually 'catch' people watching such broadcasts on their computers, the BBC is proposing a blanket tax on PCs instead. They received several thousand responses to this green paper, ranging from the insightful to the unprintable."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British PC Tax to Replace TV License? More

British PC Tax to Replace TV License?

Comments Filter:

  • Unprintable (Score:5, Funny)

    by biocute ( 936687 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:27PM (#14701399)
    I don't get it, can't they just download the correct fonts to make it printable?

  • PC tax (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Germany is the next. the start is here in 2007

  • Last year's news, changes a long way away (Score:5, Informative)

    by alanw ( 1822 ) * <alan@wylie.me.uk> on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:30PM (#14701412) Homepage
    The Register article dates back to March last year.

    The "BBC Charter Review" consultation closed in May 2005. The consultation was far wider reaching than the methods of funding, never mind proposed taxes on computers.

    The changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017.

    Who would dare to predict what a "computer" will look like in 10 years time?

    The up-to-date news is the Government Response to the Lords Committee Report on Charter Review [bbccharterreview.org.uk], published on the 31 January 2006.

    This document states:

    132. We recommend that the system of funding the BBC until 2017 should be through a licence fee. We support the Government's decision to conduct an interim review of methods of funding but this should not be conducted until after the completion of analogue switch-off.

    The Government welcomes the Committee's support for the licence fee. It is currently conducting a detailed review to establish the future level of the licence fee. Since technology is advancing rapidly, there will be a further review of methods of funding during the lifetime of the next Charter.

    As stated in the Green Paper, this review is currently envisaged to take place towards the end of switchover to ensure that there is adequate time for planning and implementation should it be decided that changes are desirable. The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation that this review should await completion of digital switchover. It is worth noting that there have also been arguments that the review should happen earlier during the switchover process. The Green Paper makes clear, in any case, that the Government will retain the flexibility to alter this timing if the need arises.

    Also remember this - I once had to take a foreign friend (an American living in Switzerland) who was visiting me to the Accident and Emergency department of the local hospital. All they asked for was her name and my name and address: they never asked for any payment. It's just as strange for someone in the UK to hear that you might be asked to pay in advance for emergency hospital treatment as for an American to hear that you need to pay a tax on televisions.

    • Re:Last year's news, changes a long way away (Score:5, Insightful)

      by c_forq ( 924234 ) <forquerc+slash@gmail.com> on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:44PM (#14701689)
      It's just as strange for someone in the UK to hear that you might be asked to pay in advance for emergency hospital treatment as for an American to hear that you need to pay a tax on televisions

      I've never heard of emergency treatement requiring payment in advance. In my experiance it isn't until after treatement that they start talking about payment (for any planned visits everything is always paid in advance though).

      • Re:Last year's news, changes a long way away (Score:4, Informative)

        by mmzplanet ( 904697 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @07:16PM (#14702111)
        It is illegal for any ER to turn away any patient. EMTALA states that it is illegal to alter treatment decisions or methods based on financial considerations. You can go into any ER (public or private) and not volunteer name/ SSN, address or anything and you MUST be treated same as anyone else. If the hospital does anything to make you feel otherwise they are violating the law. Our hospital will not discuss what your co-pay is until you have been seen by medical staff (at least triaged). Even if you refuse, you are still treated the same as a fully insured/paid patient. You are even admitted if it is required. If you dont have the cash for the prescription... the hospital will provide it. They can only send you to another hospital if you have a condition that is beyond the hospital's capabilities. Even then a doctor on both ends must sign off on a transfer confirming that you are stable enough to be transported and both doctors agree its in the best interest. If it comes down to a transfer situation from an ER... you won't be taking yourself. If you do not have insurance all they can do is bill you later in the mail. I was always able to spot those who knew the system... some frequent fliers always gave a different name and never gave a SSN (or a false one)each visit. Still nothing the hospital can do to stop it.

      • I've never heard of emergency treatement requiring payment in advance. In my experiance it isn't until after treatement that they start talking about payment (for any planned visits everything is always paid in advance though).

        A friend's father died after he turned up at the hospital while having a heart attack, and the hospital insisted on checking out his insurance first, then said they didn't want to deal with that insurance company, and sent him to another hospital. He died trying to drive himself

      • Examine public vs private hospitals in the US.

        A public hospital is required to treat anyone, regardless of insurance/etc details.
        A private hospital is not, although they are required to transport you directly to a public hospital after a basic triage.
    • To clarify UK law.

      You do not need a license for "live or nearly live".

      You need a license for recieving "television programs".

      Looking further up the chain, into the broadcasting legislation, which defines "television programme", it's that broadcast by a "television programme service". http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/1996055.htm [opsi.gov.uk]

      This is not a remote PC, sending you data, whether or not that data is sourced off-air.

      The transcoder would, as I understand it though require a license.

    • Re:Last year's news, changes a long way away (Score:5, Informative)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:47PM (#14701700) Journal
      It is illegal for a hospitals in the USA to refuse to provied emergency services due to the clients inability to pay.

    • But basis needs to be got right.

      I get the impression that the BBC are attempting to tax the whole of Britian 'blindly'; after all it fits with their "Public Service" ethos. The fact that they haven't thought of a broadband tax, but rather one on televisions is indicative of this.

      A computer could after all be disconnected, just as a telly could be from the aerial. I think that those at the BBC consider individuals with such televisions to be exploiting a loophole, and so they're trying to close th

  • Complete PCs or Components (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stuart Gibson ( 544632 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:31PM (#14701416) Homepage
    Are they planning a tax on all PC hardware, peripherals etc too, or just on a complete system? If the latter, the geeks are laughing al the way to the BBC torrent sites :)

    Stuart
    • Pretty much everyone have a TV no matter if they use their computers to watch TV programs or not. Applying a tax on computer too mean that they collect twice from the same people.

      Yeah, geeks might be able to avoid the redundant tax but they aren't the ones laughing all the way to the bank.
    • You already have to pay the licence fee for a tv tuner in any kind of device, be it a tv, a vcr, tv capture card etc.
      • Your supposed to, yeah.

        I didn't pay a licence fee for my tuner when i was at uni. Supposedly in a shared house every room that has a lock on the door needs a seperate TV licence. I was asked for my name and address when I bought the card, didn't understand why at the time but the TV licence people never caught up to me.
    • The Sunday Mail have an article on this subject. Basically, the BBC is pushing for TV licenses to be paid on all electronic devices that can play streamed video (mobile phones, laptops, PC's with TV/satellite reception cards). If you go into a store, you will be asked to fill in a form giving your name and address. This isn't an extended warranty, it's to send to the TV Licensing Authority. Similarly anything ordered online will also forward your address to the TVLA. And with the right software, even a cons
    • Are PC based computers subject to the tax or is it just computers at home? If it is indiscriminate, imagine the surprise bill from the tax collector to all the businesses with PC's on their desks and computers in Data Centers.

  • Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sneftel ( 15416 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:31PM (#14701417)
    In this case, I doubt "the insightful" and "the unprintable" are disjoint sets.
  • Alright, since the US always seems to get bashed when they pass any sort of even halfway stupid law . . . .

    Queue Big Brother posts in 5 . . 4 . . . 3. . .

  • No, nay never! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:34PM (#14701427) Journal
    We pay the TV licence so fund the BBC, if they wish to develope beyond that they should raise their own funds and not charge us for it. If I buy 1 PC, 2 PCs or 10 PCs, I may never use them to watch BBC content and as such I'm paying for fresh air in effect.

    If they want to licence web content why not just make a yearly subscription service and charge for it? £50 a year for BBC programs online for up to 1 week of airing and then random "classic" shows such as Only fools and Porridge. The classic shows would sell it to a lot of people and if they make it downloadable in some way which means it's portables I can't think of a single person who wouldn't DL such content for long trips and when they're out of the country (no more need to miss Eastenders or your poison of voice).

    The BBC has been quite good to the online community, if they start taxing "innocent people" (AKA people who don't watch online content from the BBC), then they are more or less just a thief with government permission.

    • Re:No, nay never! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by aslate ( 675607 ) <planetexpress@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:45PM (#14701470) Homepage
      It all depends how it works though, doesn't it? Instantly accusing it of being a flat tax on PCs would be the same as saying that the TV licence is a flat tax on TVs, it's not as it's per household. It would also depend on what would count as a taxable PC. A PC with a TV tuner (Already covered), a PC with internet access, a PC without internet access?

      Also, it states in the article:
      "The Government reckons changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017"
      Well, every home should have the ability to download TV shows by then in some form or another, so it's not like you'd be taxing a large number of people for the minority that can.

      It also states that they're not just looking at taxing PCs randomly, nor that this is the only thing they're looking at:
      "In that event a fee based on television ownership could become redundant and the government could look at other ways to raise revenue, from subscriptions to taxing other access devices."

      This isn't just about taxing for internet content either, it's about the ability for the BBC to continue as an advertisement free public channel, free from the restrains of lowest-common-denominator programming like Big Brother. When the idea of a Television as opposed to a PC and souped up monitor seems laughable, the BBC won't be able to survive on TV licences alone.
    • Have no fear, under the present convernment, fresh air will be taxed just as soon as they have a half-workable technology to do it.
    • The BBC has been quite good to the online community, if they start taxing "innocent people" (AKA people who don't watch online content from the BBC), then they are more or less just a thief with government permission.

      How would that be anything different from their current situation of taxing people who only watch television from ITV?


    • We pay the TV licence so fund the BBC, if they wish to develope beyond that they should raise their own funds and not charge us for it. If I buy 1 PC, 2 PCs or 10 PCs, I may never use them to watch BBC content and as such I'm paying for fresh air in effect.

      Is it based on the number of television receivers in your home? I collect early television receivers, I have at least 60 television sets right now.

      Here in Canada, the CBC tax isn't based on receiver licenses, it's sucked right out of the federal budget

    • Well, hardly ever (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vainglorious Coward ( 267452 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @06:27PM (#14701857) Journal
      if they start taxing "innocent people" (AKA people who don't watch online content from the BBC), then they are more or less just a thief with government permission.

      I don't have children, but they steal money from me to pay for schools. I don't drive, but they steal from me to build roads. I don't read, but they steal from me to build libraries.

      The value of the BBC to the nation (indeed the world) is somewhat more than the sum of Eastenders and Porridge.

    • I agree it's not so great an idea.

      We reached a point were only an extremely small number of people do not have a TV and or radio or consume the programs in another way like via their PC.

      That's why I agree with the system we now have in The Netherlands were the necessary monies for the public broadcasters are paid from regular taxes.
      To keep the present system of TV/radio licenses just to be fair for the odd that do not consume the provided public (or commercial!) programs is highly inefficient.

      Expanding

  • Although I lean towards being economically conservative, from what I gather, most Britons have been in favor of the TV Tax over the past few years, stating that the value of the programming on the BBC that they get in return exceeds the cost of the tax to them.

    Do they plan on doing the same for the internet? Personally, because I think it's very difficult to define what a 'PC' is, people should be taxed based upon connections to the internet if anything. Likewise, I think it just makes more sense for peop

  • No adverts on TV rock (Score:3, Insightful)

    by malsdavis ( 542216 ) * on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:35PM (#14701431)
    Oh well, atleast we will keep on getting decent advert-free TV and freely downloadable TV programs. All BBC2 programs are going to be downloadable later this year apparently. Bargain.

  • My thoughts (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:37PM (#14701437)
    Is this talking about how they have like an annual fee for simply owning a t.v.? Maybe it's time the government switches to something progressive for their form of taxation. Isn't this a burden on the poor? Don't the richer people pay a lot less relative to their income?
    • >Isn't this a burden on the poor? Don't the richer people pay a lot less relative to their income?

      When did you last see TV programming for the rich? :o)

      TV Programming is for the masses. Thats us poor folk.

      Did you know it's cheaper to go to the opera in Covent Garden than go to a football match? Mad eh.

    • Re:My thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by agm ( 467017 ) * on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:41PM (#14701678)
      Why stop at a TV license? Why not cherge people progressively more for bread, milk, meat, cars, computers etc. based on their income. I mean, surely it's unfair that that rich pay proportionally less of their income on food than the poor do - right? That's the logical conclusion of such a corrupt socialist system - people are rewarded for doing poorly and punished for doing well. Quite frankly it sucks.

  • Only if you can receive broadcasts (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ScottyLad ( 44798 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:39PM (#14701448)
    You don't need a TV licence unless your television is set up to receive broadcast programmes.

    In my house, we don't watch any broadcast programmes, but we do watch a lot of DVD's, so we have a set hooked up to our DVD player.

    Recently we were getting increasingly threatening letters from the TV Licensing people, which I ignored after checking checking on http://tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp#lin k1 [tvlicensing.co.uk] which states you need a licence "If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes"

    Roll on a couple of weeks and one of the TV inspectors came knocking on my door, had a quick look at my setup and agreed I don't need to pay a license as I had no aerial and no way of receiving broadcast programmes.

    Result!
    • I do the same. I love their letters. Some are designed to look like debt letters etc, but worded carefully as to not ACCUSE you of anything, just 'suggest' that you 'might' be breaking the law. They're fantastic. Naturally, I throw them in the bin.
    • I find their letters incredibly annoying. Inevitably, when you move house there's one waiting for you on the mat; I generally have no objection to paying the license fee as I find the BBC's programming to be of value, but those letters infallibly make me angry and resentful.

    • Re:Only if you can receive broadcasts (Score:4, Insightful)

      by deacon ( 40533 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @06:02PM (#14701759) Journal
      The really amazing part of your post is that you seem to see nothing wrong with (or have been conditioned over the years to accept) living in a police state where agents of that state (or their proxies, backed by the deadly force of the state) knock on your door, apparently demand entry without a warrant, and you let them in to your home to "inspect" your television apparatus. Don't you have an ACLU equivalent?!?!

      Try to imagine the outcry that would happen in the USA if any remotely similar scheme was tried here (and rightly so too!)

      • The whole point of their setup is that these people are NOT agents of the state. The state gives them permission to licence TV sets able to receive broadcasts, in order to fund themselves, so that they don't draw on tax money from the state, and are free from the possibility of state pressure on their funding.

        They don't have the right to force entry into your house. They are, however, allowed to knock on the door and request entry. You can refuse them if you like, in which case they will probably have to

      • Re:Only if you can receive broadcasts (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kraut ( 2788 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @06:05AM (#14704747)
        . Try to imagine the outcry that would happen in the USA if any remotely similar scheme was tried here (and rightly so too!)

        Yes, I'm sure the American's would overthrow the govrenment in a trice if, for example, it turned out that it wiretaps people illegaly. That's what you have your assault rifles for, after all.

        Meanwhile, back in the real world, the TV licensing inspector is not directly an agent of the state, and while I understand that they like to pretend that they have the right to enter, they don't actually.

  • On the grasping hand, they have a tax on computers "capable of receiving live or virtually live broadcasts" which they propose to apply to my Linux comptuter. On the other hand, they have DMCA-type laws which make it illegal for me to receive, play, or do much of anything relating to video content.

    Why do I not expect "choose one" to get me either content or a tax exemption?

  • It worked for the US.
  • You know, we have the same system in Sweden, which is a tax for every TV owner which in turn pays for public access TV. Which I don't mind at all. Except that they are complicating matters way too much - and a lot of the money simply goes to administration and "catching the dodgers".

    So what I don't get is why they don't simply spread it over the normal taxes and let everybody pay. Almost everyone has a TV or a PC anyways so there's little need to sort it out. It'd be a lower sum for everyone instead and no

  • What about mobile phones? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BarryNorton ( 778694 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:55PM (#14701507)
    I'm not kidding, there was in sensationalist article in a newspaper (so poor I'm sorry to admit having read it) today (ok, it was the Mail), saying that shops are sending the details of all purchases of phones with video capabilities on to the licensing authority!

  • TV tuners versus all PCs (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blindman ( 36862 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @04:56PM (#14701510) Journal
    It seems that the proper focus should be on TV tuner cards and not PCs. Almost all of the reason to have a TV tuner card involve watching televsion, but most PCs are used for other purposes (especially the ones without TV tuner cards.) Obviously, one could have a TV tuner card to record programs from a video camera, but the same could be said of a TV which needn't use its tuner, although they generally are equipped with one. In so far as the idea is to also cover live streaming video, this could cover any PC, but there have to be better ways to monitor this activity than to lump all PCs into the same category.

    • This is forward thinking, in a few years time the PC is likely to be at the centre of the living room with TV downloaded over broadband.. I'm not suggesting that everyone will have this setup, just that a population segment will receive "TV" in this way and will not own a traditional television set and that they should still contribute.

      If the BBC open up their programming for watch again internet downloads and live streaming, the last thing that they want for providing this service is a reduction in licens

  • General taxation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Richard_J_N ( 631241 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:07PM (#14701543)
    I do in principle support the TV license, because the BBC (especially the Radio - World Service + Radio 3,4) is extremely good. However, I think that the TV license is a bad way to do it, and it ought to be included in general taxation. Reasons:

    1)The license is there as a "tax of choice". So, if you don't have a TV, then you don't pay (not even if you do listen to the radio). This made sense in 1960 - but not so much now, when virtually everyone has a television.

    2)The license collection is extremely inefficient. It involves hassle for the licensor, a draconian TV licensing authority (who make an enormous nuisance of themselves if you don't actually own a TV), and you cannot legally purchase any TV-capable equipment without giving a name and address to the retailer. [Yes, this is outrageous.] Enforcement and collection must cost a significant proportion of the total fee!

    3)With the exception of pensioners, the TV license is the same for everyone. Yet, some can afford to pay more than others.

    4)On principle: As a citizen, I have a natural right to my share of the RF spectrum - and to operate a Radio receiver!

    However, the idea of a centrally funded broadcaster is a good one: it means that the quality of output need not go into freefall in the pursuit of ratings.

    • Re:General taxation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TheEvilOverlord ( 684773 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:59PM (#14701741) Journal
      1)The license is there as a "tax of choice". So, if you don't have a TV, then you don't pay (not even if you do listen to the radio). This made sense in 1960 - but not so much now, when virtually everyone has a television.

      Yeah well I don't use a TV at the moment and I'm quite happy not having to pay the BBC for a service I don't use. I think we should all get petrol for free from the government and they can recoup the cost through general taxation, because lets face it, 75% of it is tax and virtually everyone has a car, right?

      2)The license collection is extremely inefficient. It involves hassle for the licensor, a draconian TV licensing authority (who make an enormous nuisance of themselves if you don't actually own a TV), and you cannot legally purchase any TV-capable equipment without giving a name and address to the retailer. [Yes, this is outrageous.] Enforcement and collection must cost a significant proportion of the total fee!

      You are right there, they do send out loads of stupid letters. I doubt the overall cost is very high though compared to other forms of taxation; there are, for example, a very small number of detector vans.

      3)With the exception of pensioners, the TV license is the same for everyone. Yet, some can afford to pay more than others.

      Oh but of course, those of us that go out and work hard at making ourselves more employable, get the high value jobs and become successful should pay for those lazy good-for-nothing layabouts that sit on the dole. Pensioners have reached the end of their working lives, the rest of the lazy rabble should stump up or shut up. I'm all for working together to create a better society, I'm not for me working while the rest sit on their collective arses.

      4)On principle: As a citizen, I have a natural right to my share of the RF spectrum - and to operate a Radio receiver!

      "my share"??! Since when did frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum become property? I DEMAND my share in the ownership of the colour RED! I have a natural right to apply a blunt force instrument to your skull until you die; however most governments have decided to regulate both the RF spectrum and murder as it is a generally held belief it is beneficial to the majority.
      • 4)On principle: As a citizen, I have a natural right to my share of the RF spectrum - and to operate a Radio receiver!

        That's what ham radio is for, silly!

      • Possibly the wost thought out comment I've read today...

        Yeah well I don't use a TV at the moment and I'm quite happy not having to pay the BBC for a service I don't use.

        I don't have a car, I don't have children, I'm in good health but I pay for roads, schools and hospitals. Also I don't have a TV either, but I still pay for the advertising costs whenever I purchase a product from a company that advertises on TV and so do you. I expect the per annum cost is much higher that the cost of a TV license.

        I doubt t
    • 2)The license collection is extremely inefficient. It involves hassle for the licensor, a draconian TV licensing authority (who make an enormous nuisance of themselves if you don't actually own a TV), and you cannot legally purchase any TV-capable equipment without giving a name and address to the retailer. [Yes, this is outrageous.] Enforcement and collection must cost a significant proportion of the total fee!

      I'm amazed at how governments create a ridiculous number of taxes in a ridiculous number of pla

      • Why can't we just pay one Federal Tax, one State Tax, and one Local Tax? (I imagine it's varied outside the US.) Why do we need to be nickeled and dimed to death?

        Because politicians are too chickenshit to raise taaxes directly. Instead, they raise revenue by adding taxes through the backdoor.

      • Why can't we just pay one Federal Tax, one State Tax, and one Local Tax? (I imagine it's varied outside the US.) Why do we need to be nickeled and dimed to death?

        Because it's far easier to pass a tax on a minority, i.e.:

        People who use this particular highway/bridge.
        People who use this other highway/bridge.
        People who use the train.
        People who use the bus.
        Sooner or later, you've managed to levy a tax on everybody.

        People don't mind taxes they don't pay, because of which, they get outvoted on the ones they do pa
    • With the exception of pensioners

      Just to clarify, the license fee doesn't apply to those aged over 75. TV broadcast watching pensioners under this age must still pay.

      I pay £25 to my ISP each month for Net access, it would seem unreasonable for the government to demand more on top of this fee. A solution would be to simply apply greater taxation to ISPs. Sure, it'll be passed onto consumers in the form of higher monthly fees, but at least then the BBC won't be derided as much for its source of income. G

  • Sounds scary to me (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:08PM (#14701544)
    Because the detector vans can't actually 'catch' people watching such broadcasts on their computers, the BBC is proposing a blanket tax on PCs instead.

    Future: Because the police can't actually 'catch' people breaking the law, the government is proposing that all people are criminals, including themselves.

  • Financing public television through a tax on PC equipment is better than the bureaucracy built around the current fee structure.

    The real question, however, is why the BBC (and other public broadcasting stations) shouldn't just be paid out of general tax revenues--why single out a population, in particular one that is likely to view less television than other people?

  • Inefficient? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Balthisar ( 649688 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:32PM (#14701636) Homepage
    Not a troll - I'm just not British...

    Isn't a TV tax kind of stupid idea in the first place? And then you have the whole infrastructure to support looking for the evaders (the signal vans). And this tax beaucracy just duplicates whatever is already in place for all of the other taxes you folks already pay. And all of this just to watch "Keeping up Appearances" (yeah, so what if that was years and years ago?).

    Now I'm not saying don't fund the BBC. But why not just fund it out of the general funds or operating budget or appropriated funds or whatever pool of money your government spends from year to year?

  • Detector van evidence has never been used in court (Score:3, Informative)

    by nih ( 411096 ) on Sunday February 12, 2006 @05:32PM (#14701640)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence [wikipedia.org]
    Despite the prevalence of so-called "detector-vans" in TVL advertising and literature, the main method of detecting evaders is an address-based database system called "LASSY". This is basically a list of all addresses in the UK - letters and agents from Capita are sent to any address not listed as a paying customer. No evidence from any kind of "detection equipment" has been used by Capita in any UK court case to date - some speculate that it would be inadmissable because information about how such equipment works is not known (unlike for example Gatso speed cameras).
    they might as well be white vans not capable of detecting any tv signals, afaik they are...

  • Detector vans? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ben_kelley ( 234423 )
    Did everyone else just skim over this one?

    Because the detector vans can't actually 'catch' people watching such broadcasts on their computers

    The detector vans?

    Quick poll: Who believes the TV "detector vans" are real? They must be real! Right? In fact, I've seen the advertising for the new hand held TV detector units. "We know what Mrs Brown from number 7 is watching!" They would never lie to us! Would they??

    If they didn't have detector vans, how else would they know if you had an "unlicensed" TV?

    Well perhap
  • Wasn't the original purpose of this tax to help pay for the public broadcast stations? If my computer oor DVD player doesn't require the resource that is the TV station, what basis do they have to expect me to pay for a service I am not using?

    Or do they just want to maintain their revenue stream?
  • At least you HAVE decent programmes. Here in the US we're stuck with crap for morons like Survivor, American Idol, Desperate Housewives, and a ton of ultra-right "news" programs. TV sucks here in the states. At least you've got options on regular over the air broadcasts like Green Wing, The Mighty Boosh, Murder in Mind, Waking the Dead, Midsomer Murders, and Doctor Who (the new series). Say what you want about your own programmes, if you had to live with what we are stuck with in the US, your brain woul
  • I hate and despise the TV tax, but it had at least some theoretical justification. Here was a service, supposedly according to its friends a worthy service that couldn't be duplicated by the market, broadcast free for the taking. The BBC was to inform the nation and produce worthy and fair programming, without commercial bias. Vital for the nation and yet lacking an income - I can see how a levy on televisions could make sense. I disagree with the assumptions, but that was the argument.

    !!! BUT !!!

    WHAT do th
  • What is the average effective tax rate in the UK when you add up all of the taxes that the average citizen pays?
  • If you already pay a TV tax then it should cover all devices since you are only likely to watch one at a time. The tax is meant for the service not the item itself. It's completely rediculous at best since most aren't going to watch TV progams on their computer. You're telling me if I have a render farm I have to pay a TV tax on ten or twenty machines just in case I happen to watch Python reruns on one? Are the businesses going to get hit as well? Imagine some of the CG companies. When I was in New Zealand
  • They will get our money one way or another.. Eventually they will just take it all from your job, then give you what they feel you should get. Then redistribute the rest.

    The natural progression of society. its a cycle.
  • Here in the states, I pay a $180/year TV tax. In exchange, I get advertising free TV that I want to watch. The tax collector goes by the name of Netflix and is quite flexible in terms of providing interesting content.

    I pay another TV tax to the Federal government. The folks in Washington think I should watch PBS so they use some of my income tax payments to chip in for public broadcasting's operating costs. Since the folks at public broadcasting can't manage to keep their politics to themselves, I don't wat
  • "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." - Ronald Reagan

Slashdot Top Deals

If you teach your children to like computers and to know how to gamble then they'll always be interested in something and won't come to no real harm.

Close