What is Digg?73 Comments
- sirdiddymus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You guys seem to have got the wrong idea. doubtfulsalm's right. We pay £120 per year for a TV licence, which is per house - there's no limit to the number of TVs you can have. This means we get 2 terrestrial channels (BBC1 &2), two digital channels, over 6 radio stations, some fantastic websites (www.bbc.co.uk, news.bbc.co.uk...) and best of all... NO ADVERTS. Which means we get about 25% more actual content. Not paying the licence fee is like scamming illegal cable - they deserve to get caught.
- EpaL, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3For those people who are dissing the UK licensing model, I've watched TV in many countries (including US, Japan, Australia and the UK) and I can categorically say that I think UK has the best television in the world. Lots of original, interesting and topical shows. Ok, so it costs 120 pounds a year, but I think the quality of shows and lack of ads makes up for it.
- greatdevourer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3To whoever said per TV, it's per household. And it's only if you're using terrestrial TV. If you have Sky or NTL or any other cable TV, and don't use Freeview or Terrestrial, then you're exempt. (Freeview is digital TV with about 150 channels, but it doesn't cover some areas yet)
Oh, and next time you find something you didn't know, don't digg it. Otherwise, at about 4PM, all the school kids would come home and start digging their lessons... - thetbad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOOOOOU!
- burstlag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uh, this has been a law in the UK for a very very long time. They tax you annually for each television you own. I understand that a cut goes to the gov't and a cut goes to fund the BBC.
They even have vans that drive around suburbs and with some rather interesting equipment can tell how many TVs are turned on inside a house. But, so far as I know, they can only detect cathode ray tubes (CRTs) from a distance. You get a hefty fine if there are more TVs inside the house than what you have "licensed." I've often wondered if that's still working out for them since these days we now have plasma and LCD TVs, TV tuner cards, and CRT computer monitors.
Actual UK residents are welcome to correct to me and add whatever you know. - Doubtfulsalm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't get whats wrong with this? How did you think the BBC gets it's money? Personally I would rather pay the £120 a year than have to suffer adverts on BBC TV and Radio.
- chrisbudden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No adverts on BBC channles tho.
- stray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One upside of that television tax is that the Beeb has unbelievably high-quality programming. After all, if we Americans were taxed for TV, I doubt we'd spend taxpayer dollars on crappy stuff like "Survivor", "The Apprentice" or "Wife Swap".
Hell, I'd gladly pay that money just to get rid of the adverts and get several channels of really good programming. As it is, our big four networks in the US seem to be a non-stop parade of mind-numbing, spirit-crushing, creativity-killing rubbish.
Oh, and to L30w, (the person who quoted Orwell,) it's "Ingsoc," not "Insoc". Orwell himself, I might add, worked for the BBC at one time (I have a t-shirt with him on it, sitting in front of a BBC microphone). He's my favorite writer of all time, and I think the Ingsoc principles are really not applicable here. Now, if you were using them on, say, the Bush administration, I'd be all with you...but that's another discussion altogether. ;) - lilamae, on 02/22/2009, -0/+1In the U.S., BBC programming is ripped off and shown for free (except for the time you waste on commercials).
- Ir0n_mE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Former UK resident here. I would be happy to pay for tv because the BBC in my opinion is a good company and I trust them with solid news and solid programs and they aren't as corny or crass as stuff in Canada/US.
- troydoogle7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the tv license is for your home, not per tv. For the stuff that the bbc offers, its well worth the cost. And no adverts is a pleaseure. No pointless breaks.......Coke, Mcdonalds, sony....... in the middle of shows
- thetbad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1We Canadians pay for the CBC via our collective taxes... but I dunno if the Canadian public would accept a per-tv tax. I mean, why not a per-radio tax, or a per-podcast tax, etc. ? Would the government require specials vans to measure those, too?
- kyelewis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sigh. I saw this and thought... erm... ok... what idiot submitted this to digg, and which 53... now 56 idiots decided to digg it. So it's different from what you're used to. How on earth does that reach the front page of digg? Must be a slow news day.
- 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hence the Monty Python skit that mentions a "Cat Detector Van";
"I never seen so many bleeding aerials. The man said that their equipment could pinpoint a purr at four hundred yards! And Eric, being such a happy cat, was a piece of cake."
MP rules - maharg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the license fee also paid for a lot of research and development, leading to many of the broadcasting technologies now taken for granted - see http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/milestones/ - for instance, MPEG-2 (and therefore DVB and DVDs) would have been significantly less advanced without the BBC engineers expertise. and don't get me started on HDTV - can anyone beat 1986 ?
- jeg1972, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"To whoever said per TV, it's per household. And it's only if you're using terrestrial TV. If you have Sky or NTL or any other cable TV, and don't use Freeview or Terrestrial, then you're exempt. (Freeview is digital TV with about 150 channels, but it doesn't cover some areas yet)"
That's incorrect, if you have any device that is capable receiving television signals in your home, then you need a licence. Regardless of Satellite, Cable, Terrestrial... even a TV card in your PC. - turdferguson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So if british TV has no commercials, when do people go to the bathroom, and get snacks while watching TV? Do they have catheders, and an IV so they don't miss any men in womens clothing?
- Tobey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1£120 per year for four TV channels?
I pay nothing and get 8 channels, and PBS airs a bunch of BBC stuff (which isn't that great... but sometimes your dry British comedies suck me in and I can't get out! Damn you!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"I don't get whats wrong with this? How did you think the BBC gets it's money? Personally I would rather pay the £120 a year than have to suffer adverts on BBC TV and Radio."
See, the key word there is "Personally". Maybe I don't ***** care about the BBC. Maybe I don't care to pay for those channels when I watch the tube. - sneeu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If we check the facts here, you'll find that (on Freeview - which is available for a one off fee of about £50) it's possible to receive 10 BBC TV channels (http://www.bbc.co.uk/digital/whatyoullget.shtml) and 11 BBC Radio channels, all commercial free plus a whole host of other channels that do have adverts, not to mention one of the largest sites on the 'net, http://bbc.co.uk/
£120/year per household if you have any device which is capable of receiving a television signal - ~60¢ a day is not bad for more TV per day than you could watch in a week.
There are some facts on wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC
Next thing you know there'll be a story on how much we pay for petrol or health care. - awecz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, we seem to live in paradise. The fee for TV is CZK 100,- (= EUR 3,-/US$ 4,-) per month. And as long as you're regular citizen (not a company) you pay only once regardless the number of TVs you have. There are almost same rules for radio, only the fee is lower (CZK 45,-). The only problem with radio is that they seem to be more agressive and they want to get money even if you have pc connected to the internet, but legal aspects of that are still not clear.
- stuartea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You're doubly screwed with cable/satalite.
You pay a TV license, then if you watch cable or sat you pay a subscription. Not only that but a TV channel like SKY has far more adverts than standard commercial TV.
I think it's possibly the norm in the states, but over here when a TV programme comes on it tends not to go straight to adverts a minute after the credits. With SKY that's what you get.
I'd imagine this will all change in the future as more TV is aired to the internet. The BBC/UK gov may have to change the entire model. - verseguru, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"This sounds like a business model the MPAA and RIAA would love to install on us."
Actually that'd be great. Imagine—unlimited access to quality music for one flat fee. Artists could [probably] be compensated fairly too. Maybe you want everying for free though.
As far as people getting satellite and cable in the UK is concerned, some people like [some of] the programming that comes out of the US (myself included) and want the shows before they make it onto the terrestrial channels. But if you want to be impatient or watch the output of other countries you have to pay extra for it. It's probably unfair to have to pay the licence if you don't use the BBC at all but the same applies to a public health service, wars, roads…
Having seen US TV and being horrified by the omni-present commercials I think this works out quite well, but of course not everyone is prepared to pay that dearly to loose the ads, but consider that time is valuable and wasting it in front of ads is a shame.
Frankly the BBC is superb value compared to any country or channel, and I'm happy to help fund the public BBC websites through my licence too. I am nonethless horrified at how much crap there still is. The BBC has a commercial arm (BBC Worldwide) that is supposed to fund its international presence and the costs involved in hosting the news sites for the world (there's an NY datacenter), but I'm not sure this works in practice.
Incidentally Channel 4 has just had a complaint aginst it upheld for showing too much advertising during the UK showing of Lost. A norm in the US. - Thorin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The other way they tell you have a TV, is they just assume that everyone has a TV, if you don't have one, then you get constantly badgered to buy a licence and threatened with legal action. They just have a list of every address in the country, and compare it to a list of which have licences. Then they spend their time checking up on the addresses with no licences.
You need a licence for any deveice which can pick up a TV signal, regardless of whether it's a tuner card for a PC, or anything else like that.
The best thing (imo) about the TV Licence, is we have News that's not funded directly by the state, and isn't reliant on advertising or sponsorship. So it's independant, which I think is great. - TrueSatan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To those who claim that the BBC is so good may I just ask them to explain why I, and millions of other UK residents, pay to have satellite channels? The BBC's quality has been steadily going downhill for as long as I can remember...sure there were great pro grammes on many years ago but isn't it interesting to note that those mentioned here as being great are also rather old...no mention of high quality from the current crop.
Theoretically the license fee is used to pay for non-commercial content in the public interest so it ought to be spread around to all broadcasters offering content that matches that ideal yet it's the BBC that grabs almost all of it (Channel 4 gets money too...it's also a state owned operation though few seem to realise). The license fee also pays for utter stupidity such as setting quotas for x amount of national viewing to be made in Wales...and to be damned awful as a result....reminds me of the US having politicians dictate how much of NASA projects are made in each state then finding the parts don't fit together.
The BBC produces license feed paid for products that hamper the production of non license feed paid for products as a kind of spoiler rather than for the public good and is wonderful at wasting money on a grand scale...just what you'd expect for a largely unaccountable government body full of it's-more-than-my-job-is-worth to provide innovation and excellence.
This UK resident would suggest that most of the US residents who comment on the BBC in glowing terms are suffering from a grass is always greener somewhere else effect. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0- You need to pay even if you dont watch the BBC
- All money goes to the BBC, even if the viewer is watching other channels. The other channels get none of the license money.
- This license was ok for back in the day when it was only the BBC on british tv. Now that we have Sky television as well, its outrageous that the license continues. - dstart, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is not news : We've been paying a tax to watch TV since the BBC started.
- voisine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oh and while I am at it, 'INSOC: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH', that has got to be the stupidest thing I have EVER heard."
Heloooo?!? George Orwell?!? 1984?!? I hereby permanantly revoke your nerd card. What business does anybody have commenting on digg who isn't familiar with this novel anyway? - Dygear, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its a TV tax big deal, they also have a poll tax, now that one pisses them off.
Oh and while I am at it, "INSOC: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH", that has got to be the stupidest thing I have EVER heard. - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0And how many of you pay how much per month for cable and/or satellite? Hmmm?
- eclectro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The brits have it bad.
- Kimera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We pay for the quality over quantity Americans :D I still can't belive this made it onto digg though, its been here since i remeber, so it definatly isn't news to me, i bet you're just worried that the president will start getting some ideas :P
- karenin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"I'm proud to be an American where at least I know TVs free!"
Yep, you're free to watch inane adverts for 10 minutes of every hour, even on channels that you actually pay for. Enough to make you reconsider the value of 'freedom'? - ForbesBingley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Here's a dose of reality to that notion that the British have it bad. Go to: http://myblah-blah.blogspot.com/2005/10/i-want-my-i-want-my-i-want-my-mtv.html#comments
- fraserspeirs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I get around that by not having a TV. No way I'll pay £120 to fund that liberal propaganda.
- Chasuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I lived in the UK for 15 years, and the telly was so much better there that the memory makes me weep. Of course, there was a fair amount of ***** as well, but I had more choice of quality programming on THREE channels (which were all that existed at the time) then I'd had previously on 50 channels.
The funny thing is, most of the crap UK television was clones of US television, but the reverse was also true. I guess it is easy to copy ***** than quality. Cilla Black and Blind Date (a Dating Game clone). A smelly arse would have been better!
The few exceptions were Steptoe and Son (1962 - 1974), re-made in the US as Sanford and Son (1972 - 1977), and Til Death Us Do Part (1966- 1975), cloned in the US as All in the Family (1971 - 1979).
Even Three's Company (1977- 1984) was a copy of a UK series, Man About the House (1973 - ?). I hated both shows. Likewise Who's the Boss? (1984- 1992) copied by the Brits as The Upper Hand (1990 - 1996). Both were *****. Men Behaving Badly (1992 - ?) was hilarious in its British original version, but awful when it was cloned for American audiences (1996 - 1997).
There are other notable examples of this trend, but these are the first which spring to mind. - garadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In case you are wondering how they tell you have a TV:-
The transformer in the TV is designed to broadcast a signal at a specific frequency (~16.568KHz, just outside of most people's hearing range). This can be detected outside your house, so they know you have a TV on without gaining access.
Of course, if they can see you watching it through your window, that always helps :)
I believe that TV capture cards for the PC don't need this transformer to function, so as long as they don't see it, you should be OK.
LCD and Plasma, I have no idea. I doubt they need the transformer either, but I wouldn't be surprised if the UK Government managed to force it upon manufacturers who make PAL TV's for the european market. - TacitusBen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0They have to get licens because the business model for television is different in Europe. Here in Austria, you have to a license for every TV and for every Radio.
- BooshTukka, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0OK, so we pay for a TV license. And, yeah, it sucks. And whoever said "you don't need a license if you don't watch terrestrial channels" is right in theory, but completely wrong in practice. People have received the £1000 fine just for having a TV tuner in an old VCR, regardless of if it even had an aerial connected to it, or if they actually owned a TV. They may get away (like blind people) with a B&W license though :)
Remember though, that this encourages lack of ads. In a half-hour show on other channels, we only get 1 ad break. Watching US TV drives me mad - it's like every five seconds there is an ad break, and then they spend another five minutes showing you the highlights of what you watched a minute ago. Sometimes just the credits at the end have an ad break before and after, with NO actual content! I find that so insulting, like, they think they can just repeat the same content over and over and I'll just sit there and watch it.
So, I genuinely believe our quality of TV is much higher, and this is maybe because of the TV licenses - they ensure that channels are at least vaguely comparable to the BBC. An important fact no-one has pointed out is how to circumvent this fee. Although "TV detector" vans can detect an aerial connected to a TV set, and their documents can tell them whether a license is associated with that address in particular, they are also not known to be full-proof. In which case, to prove that you are watching TV without a license you either need to admit it, or they need to get into your house and see it (for which they need your permission). The way around this is as follows:
"Hello, Sir. We have reason to believe you are watching TV without a license."
"Well, I'm not."
"May we come in and check?"
"No, you may not."
"Why not?"
"It's not convenient. Goodbye."
That's that! No-one is going to give them a warrant to check on your TV. And this isn't info I heard "from a friend of a friend" I have actually tried this in practice.
With IP TV, no-one's going to need a license anyway - it's an old costing model.
Anyway, millions of people knew about this. Don't link to stories just because you're ignorant of something - not all the rest of us are. - ryanknapper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This story should get negative diggs. Very old news.
- glozycom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Live Stream and on demand Media Portal
Watch Live
2300 Live TV Channels + TV Shows, Cartoons, Movies, Anime, Asian Drama, Manga
http://glozy.com
1800 Live TV Online
http://tvportal.co.uk
TV Shows, Videos, Movies & Cartoons
http://videostop10.com
Dutch TV Stations Live
http://nederlandstv.com
Philippine TV & Radio Stations
http://pinoystreet.com
Games Cheats, Links, Forum
http://bootsgames.com
Pinoy TV
http://pinoytelevision.com - Arevos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Its a TV tax big deal, they also have a poll tax, now that one pisses them off."
Uh, no we don't. The first time the poll tax was introduced in Britain (well, England actually) was in 1380, which sparked the 1381 Peasants' Revolt. When the government tried again, 608 years later in 1989, they had no greater success. The poll tax was revoked in 1993. - .Steven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ok that gets the WTF for sure!
TV licence...
My Ass, how stupid.
Oh... um.. you see thats not a tv thats a telecomputertronicalmech that just make desions based on its 256x256 Neural Net. It just chose to be a TV today. - generalleoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In the United Kingdom, these fees are set by Parliament and go directly to the funding of the BBC, enabling it to run without the need for market competition. The licence fee, initially for radio sets (exempt since 1971), was mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The fee was originally 10 shillings (£0.50) and in 2005 was £126.50 for colour TV and £42 for monochrome TV. There are concessions for the elderly (free for over 75s) and blind people (50% off). Only one licence is required per household.
It is believed that approximately 5% of TVs are unlicensed. With the BBC's increased worldwide output (including its online services) there has been a debate as to the abolition of the TV licence, which has been denounced as unfair by competing television companies.
According to the definition of TV receiving apparatus [1], a licence must be obtained for any device which is "installed or used" for receiving broadcasts, which potentially covers devices such as a tuner card in a PC or a portable television. However a television installed and used for some other purpose, such as a closed-circuit monitor, video player or a games console, is exempt provided the owner can demonstrate it is not used for receiving broadcasts.
good old Wikipedia answerd my question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#United_Kingdom - grayapple, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0well the BBC is *****, very little on it. But the TV license has been around since the BBC's launch in the early (or mid?) 1900s.
No Digg. - Michael495, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In Denmark you pay £100 per household if you have a color-TV. (£98 if it's a B/W-TV)
And £10 if you have a radio. For this money you get one commercial free TV channel, and 20 radio stations.
The channel can not, under any circumstances, be compared with BBC. - murusaki, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does it count if i download the latest episode of lost??
It's a fact that UK girls love Lost.
I just moved to the UK and apparently they don't show season 2 here, and nobody had heard of My Name Is Earl here either.
It's good to see that people here get their money's worth.... You Know, Getting charged for what in the us would be free outdated TV - icheyne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's worth every penny to me. BBC content is unrivalled worldwide.
- LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As an American, I can say that, without a doubt, a TV tax bill would not get out of committee (no research on this, but whatever). The part that makes me laugh though is that in Britain they have something like ten or so channels with no commercials and fairly entertaining stuff, but in the states we have satellite TV, which is around 700 or so channels with NOTHING ON!
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is