View Full Version : European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...
...which have video clip recording modes :mad:
We have the story in full on the News (http://dpnow.com/3105.html) section of the site.
Ian
Stephen
10-10-06, 11:47 PM
Will this also apply to Mobile phones Ian? The implications are interesting.
Looking into this, but the initial feedback seems to be that camera phones are not affected. This might be because the primary function of a phone is for telecoms, whereas a camera is for imaging.
Ian
Looking into this, but the initial feedback seems to be that camera phones are not affected. This might be because the primary function of a phone is for telecoms, whereas a camera is for imaging.
Ian
That's a fine line. Primary function of a camera is to take stills. Seems like and old argument has raised it's head again. IE camcorders had their record input disabled to avoid tax. Wonder if this is what will happen to the video function on cameras. Then we get all the gizmo's to unlock the function after you have purchased them.:rolleyes:
It's already barmy in this country as it is. If you buy a computer or a graphics card that happens to have a connection for recording video or TV, you'll get a bill from the BBC for the TV license the next day.
It's totally bonkers. We have a TV license at this address (obviously), pay by direct debit, do all the right things... but one day I bought a graphics card from Dabs to upgrade my old computer. A couple of days later I get a nasty letter from the BBC (whooops, I mean from "TV licensing") saying that they don't have a record of a TV license at this address with my specific name on it and to pay up immediately. Then you have to go through hoops to explain to them that you're already covered because you do have a TV license. They believe that you're guilty until you proove yourself innocent.
They'll do the same with mobile phones soon. If you buy one that's capable of connecting to the internet and showing streaming TV, you'll get a demand for payment of a TV license. Or you'll end up not being able to take your mobile phone with you because the TV license only covers you for your address, not at a friend's house or for "public broadcast" because you and your friends are watching a videoclip at a cafe. You'd have to buy specific "non-mobile" mobile phones to avoid this.
There needs to be a little less of this attitude of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer just because they happen to buy an electronic item that happens to incorporate other features that they may or may not want to use. Are they trying to stifle innovation and progress? It's no wonder people laugh at all the scientific and technological advances shown on futuristic sci-fi films - because they know that, in such a world, no one would ever be able to afford the taxes!
"Beam me up, Scotty" would be delayed as you pay for your "atom broadcast license" from the BBC, the VAT from the country you're beaming out of, the VAT from the country you're beaming into, the import and export customs duty, etc... One "beam" would leave you bankrupt! :D
I think the EC issue is quite different from the TV licensing one. I can't see how taxing imports of digital camera more will benefit me, but I'm very much in favour of preserving the TV license fee in the UK as it represents outstanding value for money. People in the UK don't realise what they have - go abroad and watch all the commercial TV there and then it hits home. The BBC's online offerings are also among the best.
Granted, it must be very frustrating to be billed and treated as a license fee evader when you'r obviously not. Unfortunately there are hundreds of thousands of people out there that do purposely avoid paying the TV licence - at the expense of all of the rest of us. The same kind of people that drive while speaking to a mobile phone held to their ear, who thoughtlessly drop litter, etc.
Mind you, if an increase in tax on digicams might result in better tackling of law breakers.... hmmmm? :D
Ian
I agree with you that the TV service in this country is probably the best there is, but choice is something we must not lose site of. That's to say the choice to view or not to view the broadcast. I have the right to buy and keep a car in my garage and only have to pay road-fund tax if I use it. Same should apply to other equipment. Licenses/tax should only apply for use not ownership. The law now insist that all shop keepers report sales of goods that require a license, so there's no escape or choice anymore. Not wanting to rant on and on as this could get very heated, I'll end now, but boy I feel better now I've said my bit. :D
Patrick
12-10-06, 12:06 PM
It's already barmy in this country as it is. If you buy a computer or a graphics card that happens to have a connection for recording video or TV, you'll get a bill from the BBC for the TV license the next day.
It's totally bonkers. We have a TV license at this address (obviously), pay by direct debit, do all the right things... but one day I bought a graphics card from Dabs to upgrade my old computer. A couple of days later I get a nasty letter from the BBC (whooops, I mean from "TV licensing") saying that they don't have a record of a TV license at this address with my specific name on it and to pay up immediately. Then you have to go through hoops to explain to them that you're already covered because you do have a TV license. They believe that you're guilty until you proove yourself innocent.
They'll do the same with mobile phones soon. If you buy one that's capable of connecting to the internet and showing streaming TV, you'll get a demand for payment of a TV license. Or you'll end up not being able to take your mobile phone with you because the TV license only covers you for your address, not at a friend's house or for "public broadcast" because you and your friends are watching a videoclip at a cafe. You'd have to buy specific "non-mobile" mobile phones to avoid this.
There needs to be a little less of this attitude of trying to squeeze every last penny out of the consumer just because they happen to buy an electronic item that happens to incorporate other features that they may or may not want to use. Are they trying to stifle innovation and progress? It's no wonder people laugh at all the scientific and technological advances shown on futuristic sci-fi films - because they know that, in such a world, no one would ever be able to afford the taxes!
"Beam me up, Scotty" would be delayed as you pay for your "atom broadcast license" from the BBC, the VAT from the country you're beaming out of, the VAT from the country you're beaming into, the import and export customs duty, etc... One "beam" would leave you bankrupt! :D
Don’t blame the BBC, blame the licence dodgers for this uncompromising stance that has to be taken.
It’s the crooked minority spoiling if for the honest majority.
Patrick
Patrick
12-10-06, 12:19 PM
I agree with you that the TV service in this country is probably the best there is, but choice is something we must not lose site of. That's to say the choice to view or not to view the broadcast. I have the right to buy and keep a car in my garage and only have to pay road-fund tax if I use it. Same should apply to other equipment. Licenses/tax should only apply for use not ownership. The law now insist that all shop keepers report sales of goods that require a license, so there's no escape or choice anymore. Not wanting to rant on and on as this could get very heated, I'll end now, but boy I feel better now I've said my bit. :D
You still have the choice of to view or not to view.
The fact you own equipment capable of receiving programs as I see it is enough to warrant the licence, you can’t tell me you buy a television to watch a blank screen.
The car analogy is a none starter you don’t buya new car to watch it rust in the garage.
The TV licence is terrific value for money, particularly when compared with Sky/Cable for which you pay more per month to watch the very programs you have already enjoyed on terrestrial TV, many made with that very licence money.
Patrick
I think the EC issue is quite different from the TV licensing one. I can't see how taxing imports of digital camera more will benefit me, but I'm very much in favour of preserving the TV license fee in the UK as it represents outstanding value for money. People in the UK don't realise what they have - go abroad and watch all the commercial TV there and then it hits home. The BBC's online offerings are also among the best.
Although I agree with the concept of the TV license, there's a lot about it I disagree with.
To start with is it's name. It's called the "TV license" but it is clearly the "BBC license" as only the BBC benefit from it. We pay the TV license but almost every channel, bar the BBC ones, have more commercials that you can wave a stick at and some ruin programmes by putting commercials on the screen while you're watching the programme itself.
Suggesting that the TV license is a way to avoid US-style commercial TV is wrong because most channels do have US-style commercials.
Also, despite being a "TV" license, a good proportion of the money goes towards their online website and radio stations. Where's the "TV" in radio? Where's the "TV" in their website? If you don't have a radio, why are you paying for the radio stations with your "TV license"? If you don't have a computer, why are you paying for the BBC website with your "TV license"? And if you do have a computer but don't have a TV, why are you forced to pay a TV license just because it happens to have a chip on the graphics card that you can't remove?
The license is allegedy about having a TV in the house, yet people from outside the UK can view the BBC website (funded by the UK TV license), but they don't have to pay a TV license. People may benefit from the radio stations but, if they don't have a TV, they're not paying for it - it's the owners of TVs that are paying for it. This is just unfair.
And a lot of the TV license goes towards BBC3, BBC4 etc. If you only have a terrestrial aerial, you can't even watch what you're paying for!
The "TV" license is solely for the benefit of the BBC, it should have nothing to do with owning a TV or computer/electrical equipment that's capable of receiving broadcasts. The BBC could operate a "commercial free" channel by abolishing the TV license and, instead, operate a system similar to cable channels - buy a "BBC license" to watch BBC content. If you don't want to watch BBC content, you don't need to buy the license. Surely that would work?
It's almost as bad as the debacle of "Freeview". They say it's "free" but you have to buy a box before you can view. If you've got to pay money, it's not free. If I want to watch, for example, ITV4, I have to (i) buy a TV license, (ii) buy a freeview box, (iii) pay by watching ITV's adverts. How many times do we have to pay to watch the TV? This situation is barmy.
you can’t tell me you buy a television to watch a blank screen.
But that's just the point. If you don't own a TV but you do have a computer, and you upgrade your graphics card to one that happens to have a video/TV capture facility, you'll get a demand to pay the TV license.
A relative of a friend had this happen when he moved home. He didn't have a TV in his flat so he didn't have a TV license. He bought a home PC from Dell so he could play computer games, do email/internet, and chat to his mates on IM. A few days later received a demand to pay a TV license - because it turns out the graphics card had one of those tv/video capture sockets (that he had no intention of using). He had to go through hoops to convince them that he shouldn't need to pay the TV license. Eventually he won, but it's this assumption that you're guilty until you can prove that you're innocent that is wrong. And it's this that turns the TV license into a tax.
The TV licence is terrific value for money, particularly when compared with Sky/Cable for which you pay more per month to watch the very programs you have already enjoyed on terrestrial TV, many made with that very licence money.
That's not a reasonable argument. If I want to watch ITV1, Sky don't force me to buy a Sky license to do it with. Yet I have to pay the BBC their "TV license". Paying Sky/cable is an option, it's your choice. Paying the BBC their TV license is not a choice, it's compulsory, it's a tax.
Patrick
12-10-06, 01:05 PM
But that's just the point. If you don't own a TV but you do have a computer, and you upgrade your graphics card to one that happens to have a video/TV capture facility, you'll get a demand to pay the TV license.
A relative of a friend had this happen when he moved home. He didn't have a TV in his flat so he didn't have a TV license. He bought a home PC from Dell so he could play computer games, do email/internet, and chat to his mates on IM. A few days later received a demand to pay a TV license - because it turns out the graphics card had one of those tv/video capture sockets (that he had no intention of using). He had to go through hoops to convince them that he shouldn't need to pay the TV license. Eventually he won, but it's this assumption that you're guilty until you can prove that you're innocent that is wrong. And it's this that turns the TV license into a tax.
That's not a reasonable argument. If I want to watch ITV1, Sky don't force me to buy a Sky license to do it with. Yet I have to pay the BBC their "TV license". Paying Sky/cable is an option, it's your choice. Paying the BBC their TV license is not a choice, it's compulsory, it's a tax.
I go back to a reply I made earlier blame the crooks for the authorities having to take this line, there are so many licence dodgers it affect the licence cost.
In any case he can still watch TV if he wishes, and I don’t doubt at some point he will just this once for that special program he heard about and then something else and he is suddenly getting used to watching TV, with no licence. He could of course change his graphics card to one with no TV capability.
I believe if we can watch TV by whichever method available, we should pay the licence, after that the choice remains ours.
Patrick
That's not a reasonable argument. If I want to watch ITV1, Sky don't force me to buy a Sky license to do it with. Yet I have to pay the BBC their "TV license". Paying Sky/cable is an option, it's your choice. Paying the BBC their TV license is not a choice, it's compulsory, it's a tax.
Yes it is a tax, but it's an exceptional one for many reasons. First of all, every penny goes in to the cause it represents, which is more than can be said, for example, the road fund tax. And how about this, if you don't own a car and so don't pay for a tax disc every year, does that mean you shouldn't be able to use road transportation at all?
If subscribing to Sky or being able to watch ITV meant not being able to watch BBC, I wonder how many viewers those channels would have?
There are millions of people who voluntarily and gladly pay their TV Licence each year because they know it's worth it - it is a national institution.
Saying that the TV Licence doesn't prevent commercial TV is also missing the point. Having non-commercial TV is precious and it's great that we have both types.
Our commercial TV is actually of a better standard than other countries as well. The standards set by the BBC affect the quality of many of the more popular commercial stations. Take away the BBC and the standards of the likes of ITV and C4 will plummet.
I'm genuinely sorry that innocent people are being harrassed for TV Licence payments they don't owe, but it's thankfully a very rare situation.
By the way, the association with TV goods sales with licence payment demands is nothing new. When I moved to a new house back in 1989 and bought a new TV at the same time I was contacted regarding my TV licence within a week.
Ian
I believe if we can watch TV by whichever method available, we should pay the licence, after that the choice remains ours.
Actually, on those grounds it could be said that as soon as we enter a shop we can shoplift so we should all be fined as though we have shoplifted. We have a choice whether to enter the shop or not.
Yes it is a tax, but it's an exceptional one for many reasons. First of all, every penny goes in to the cause it represents, which is more than can be said, for example, the road fund tax. And how about this, if you don't own a car and so don't pay for a tax disc every year, does that mean you shouldn't be able to use road transportation at all?
I'm not sure that's true. The TV license doesn't make buying a TV any cheaper. I have to pay a TV license (as well as a subscription) to watch NTL, but NTL don't get the money from the TV license.
Our commercial TV is actually of a better standard than other countries as well. The standards set by the BBC affect the quality of many of the more popular commercial stations. Take away the BBC and the standards of the likes of ITV and C4 will plummet.
That argument would only work if ITV and C4 were producing quality programmes now, which they're not. Are you suggesting that without the TV license fee we wouldn't get the likes of "Big Brother" and "Ant and Dec"? That sounds like another reason to abolish the license fee, then! :D (Actually, I'm not an advocate for abolishing the TV license fee - just that it shouldn't be treated as a criminally enforceable compulsory tax.)
There would be less animosity towards the TV license fee if it was fairer. For example, as a "TV license" it should benefit all TV stations (thus reducing the price charged to watch satellite/cable); or, it should be turned into a BBC subscription fee and they arrange the BBC like satellite/cable in which you can't receive BBC content unless you've paid the subscription. At least that'd be fair.
Still, as said by a previous poster, nothing is solved by ranting. So long as the vast majority don't see a problem with this tax, it'll never change. I'll shut up now. :cool:
Patrick
12-10-06, 02:12 PM
Actually, on those grounds it could be said that as soon as we enter a shop we can shoplift so we should all be fined as though we have shoplifted. We have a choice whether to enter the shop or not.
I'm not sure that's true. The TV license doesn't make buying a TV any cheaper. I have to pay a TV license (as well as a subscription) to watch NTL, but NTL don't get the money from the TV license.
That argument would only work if ITV and C4 were producing quality programmes now, which they're not. Are you suggesting that without the TV license fee we wouldn't get the likes of "Big Brother" and "Ant and Dec"? That sounds like another reason to abolish the license fee, then! :D (Actually, I'm not an advocate for abolishing the TV license fee - just that it shouldn't be treated as a criminally enforceable compulsory tax.)
There would be less animosity towards the TV license fee if it was fairer. For example, as a "TV license" it should benefit all TV stations (thus reducing the price charged to watch satellite/cable); or, it should be turned into a BBC subscription fee and they arrange the BBC like satellite/cable in which you can't receive BBC content unless you've paid the subscription. At least that'd be fair.
Still, as said by a previous poster, nothing is solved by ranting. So long as the vast majority don't see a problem with this tax, it'll never change. I'll shut up now. :cool:
Your original argument was about choice, buy the licence and you can choose to watch/listen to anything.
It’s worth noting when you buy a product advertised on TV you are paying towards the programming of that TV stations, so if you don’t watch commercial TV but still buy the products advertised then with your argument we would be justified in asking for a % refund.
On Sky/Cable you pay for the service (more expensive than the licence) and get the adverts as well, at least with the BBC it pure program.
Is it called a TV licence anyway? I thought it was officially a broadcast reception licence.
Patrick
As I say, Patrick, I'll leave my ranting there as I've said all I need to say on the subject.
Except I'll just say that:
On Sky/Cable you pay for the service (more expensive than the licence) and get the adverts as well, at least with the BBC it pure program.
(i) On satellite/cable if you elect to subscribe to certain movie channels, you do not get adverts on those channels.
(ii) Most satellite/cable packages can be customised to meet the requirements of the viewer - you can pick selections of channels to pay for and you don't have to pay the full amount whether you watch the channels or not (example: if you don't want Sky Sports, you don't have to pay for them). With the TV licence you have to pay the full amount, regardless of what you watch, regardless of whether you are able to view their website and regardless of whether you can receive their digital offerings or radio stations. Satellite/cable is a subscription service that is optional depending upon what you want to watch. You can watch ITV and C4 without having to pay Sky a fee. You can't watch ITV and C4 without paying the BBC a fee. In these terms, the BBC's licence is a compulsory tax.
Did you know that about 10% of the licence fee is used to pay for collection of the licence fee? :rolleyes: What a waste.
Ultimately, the TV licence made sense 50+ years ago when there was only BBC1 and a handful of BBC radio stations. It made sense that the money went to the BBC as the BBC were the only ones broadcasting - "TV" was "BBC". Today, it does not make sense when the BBC only make up a tiny proportion of receivable television channels.
There, end of rant. :cool:
(i) On satellite/cable if you elect to subscribe to certain movie channels, you do not get adverts on those channels.
And I should hope so too! It seems very hard to find viewing statistics for premium channel viewing, but I'd bet the figures are tiny compared to non-premium TV viewing.
(ii) Most satellite/cable packages can be customised to meet the requirements of the viewer - you can pick selections of channels to pay for and you don't have to pay the full amount whether you watch the channels or not (example: if you don't want Sky Sports, you don't have to pay for them). With the TV licence you have to pay the full amount, regardless of what you watch, regardless of whether you are able to view their website and regardless of whether you can receive their digital offerings or radio stations. Satellite/cable is a subscription service that is optional depending upon what you want to watch. You can watch ITV and C4 without having to pay Sky a fee. You can't watch ITV and C4 without paying the BBC a fee. In these terms, the BBC's licence is a compulsory tax.
Granted, there is no choice in having to pay the £131.50 per year for the TV Licence Fee. Compare that to Sky which extracts, on average, £388 per subscription per year. And remember, this is a broadcaster that earns billions in revenue from advertising.
You can't watch commercial stations like ITV, C4 and C5 without paying the licence fee, that's correct. OK, so let's take the BBC out of the equation - you can watch these channels without the BBC. Their share in the cost of the broadcasting network would be much higher, forcing more advertising and an even poorer quality of service. How many people would subscribe to Sky if the BBC feed was not included?
Did you know that about 10% of the licence fee is used to pay for collection of the licence fee? :rolleyes: What a waste.
The admin costs for managing the fee collection service for 25 million fee payers of £13 per fee collected per year sounds reasonable to me. Incidentally, the licence fee does not pay for the entire running costs of the BBC. The World Service is government funded and the BBC's commercial activities supplement the overall running of the corporation.
Ultimately, the TV licence made sense 50+ years ago when there was only BBC1 and a handful of BBC radio stations. It made sense that the money went to the BBC as the BBC were the only ones broadcasting - "TV" was "BBC". Today, it does not make sense when the BBC only make up a tiny proportion of receivable television channels.
It makes sense then and now, though the reasons have changed. The number of channels the BBC offers may a tiny percentage of those available, but it accounts for about half of all TV viewing, not to mention the excellent online and interactive content as well.
The reason it makes sense now is that the evidence of other countries that do not have a properly funded public service broadcasting regime is that the quality of TV is significantly lower. The BBC underpins the very high quality of TV we enjoy here in the UK, both in terms of commercial and public service broadcasting.
Yes, the fee is a tax, but it's separate from government taxes so it can be fully accountable and independent of the government.
But it's also a tiny wee tax! Just 36 pence per day.
Arguing that there should be choice is all very well, but not if - as is human nature, sadly - many of us would be selfish and choose to save 36p a day and sacrifice a fundamental pillar of our every day lives.
May I remind you of a very sensible point you made about Epson's investment in ink technology on this forum in another thread: "At the end of the day, if we all used third-party inks we wouldn't have printers like the R2400 to enjoy anyway."
Even if a minority of us were permitted to stop paying the licence fee, in the name of freedom of choice, the BBC would become financially unviable. If the BBC were to be broken up, a measurable drop in the quality of our daily lives would be inevitable; a drop that can not be measured in terms of 36 pence per day.
Ian
May I remind you of a very sensible point you made about Epson's investment in ink technology on this forum in another thread: "At the end of the day, if we all used third-party inks we wouldn't have printers like the R2400 to enjoy anyway."
This mirrors my view of the licence fee, actually. Although we all know how expensive OEM ink is, the majority of us still pay for it. However, we don't have to pay for it simply because we own a printer. If you buy an Epson printer, you don't have to use Epson ink (much as they'd like to enforce this). You don't buy a Canon printer and have to pay Epson for the priviledge of printing. It's choice. Despite the choice, most of us elect to pay for the OEM ink. And if we decide not to use the printer for three months, we don't have to pay a "printer licence fee" simply because we happen to own a printer.
If the TV licence was a BBC licence and cost the same as it does now, I would be one of those who would still pay for it (probably). That would be my choice, as I'm sure it would for most reasonable people. (As I say, I'm not an advocate for abolishing it.) The statistics generally say that the BBC is the most watched channel in the country (you yourself state "but it [the BBC] accounts for about half of all TV viewing"), so the vast majority of people would still chose to pay the BBC licence. And, more to the point, more of the money would go towards the programmes because there'd be less need to track down "licence dodges" because people would be paying based on their choice. They wouldn't be being forced to pay for something they don't want, nor would they be able to receive the BBC content without paying first - there would be no fee-dodgers to waste time and money on bringing to justice.
At the end of the day, this is a free country and, while it is true that taxes are a very important part of our lives, the "BBC licence" should not be a tax - it should be a choice. (Not that it ever will be, so the entire debate is quite moot.)
This mirrors my view of the licence fee, actually. Although we all know how expensive OEM ink is, the majority of us still pay for it. However, we don't have to pay for it simply because we own a printer. If you buy an Epson printer, you don't have to use Epson ink (much as they'd like to enforce this). You don't buy a Canon printer and have to pay Epson for the priviledge of printing. It's choice. Despite the choice, most of us elect to pay for the OEM ink. And if we decide not to use the printer for three months, we don't have to pay a "printer licence fee" simply because we happen to own a printer.
I see what you mean, but the difference is that you cannot use a printer without ink of some description and you need to pay for that ink unless you steal it. There are already hundreds of thousands of people watching BBC broadcasts without paying for it.
If the TV licence was a BBC licence and cost the same as it does now, I would be one of those who would still pay for it (probably). That would be my choice, as I'm sure it would for most reasonable people. (As I say, I'm not an advocate for abolishing it.) The statistics generally say that the BBC is the most watched channel in the country (you yourself state "but it [the BBC] accounts for about half of all TV viewing"), so the vast majority of people would still chose to pay the BBC licence. And, more to the point, more of the money would go towards the programmes because there'd be less need to track down "licence dodges" because people would be paying based on their choice. They wouldn't be being forced to pay for something they don't want, nor would they be able to receive the BBC content without paying first - there would be no fee-dodgers to waste time and money on bringing to justice.
Sadly. the reality of human nature is that a significant proportion of the people who currently pay the licence probably wouldn't if it became voluntary - assuming there was no bar. So a mechanism to block non-payers would have to be introduced and this would add to the cost for people wishing to pay. The black market industry in getting around such a block would flourish and the end result would be either a much increased fee or the realisation that the BBC can't be funded that way. Either would be a disaster.
At the end of the day, this is a free country and, while it is true that taxes are a very important part of our lives, the "BBC licence" should not be a tax - it should be a choice. (Not that it ever will be, so the entire debate is quite moot.)
The TV licence is unique - I can't think of anything else comparable. So I think it's not right to try to apply free market economics to something that is so unique. I'm generally in favour of free markets, but in this case the BBC and the TV Licence are an oddity that represent a massive value compared to the peanuts that it costs us and I fear that applying the free market to this institition will be the end of it.
Ian
I see what you mean, but the difference is that you cannot use a printer without ink of some description and you need to pay for that ink unless you steal it. There are already hundreds of thousands of people watching BBC broadcasts without paying for it.
Sadly. the reality of human nature is that a significant proportion of the people who currently pay the licence probably wouldn't if it became voluntary - assuming there was no bar. So a mechanism to block non-payers would have to be introduced and this would add to the cost for people wishing to pay. The black market industry in getting around such a block would flourish and the end result would be either a much increased fee or the realisation that the BBC can't be funded that way. Either would be a disaster.
Ideally, if it was to become choice and not compulsory, the BBC should operate like Sky and NTL in that you wouldn't be able to receive it without paying. Who knows, maybe the licence fee could be combined with your cable/satellite payment so there's only one bill to pay.
If this was even possible, they've clearly missed the boat though. With analogue being turned off and everyone being forced to go digital, something like this could be introduced into digital tuners and freeview boxes. Already you can buy "top-up cards" for freeview boxes to access other content - the same could have applied to the BBC licence. If you don't pay the licence, your BBC gets cut off.
It's rather comical that we buy freeview boxes that allow you to watch "free to view channels", yet we have to pay the BBC licence - so nothing is "free to view" whatsoever. :rolleyes:
The TV licence is unique - I can't think of anything else comparable. So I think it's not right to try to apply free market economics to something that is so unique. I'm generally in favour of free markets, but in this case the BBC and the TV Licence are an oddity that represent a massive value compared to the peanuts that it costs us and I fear that applying the free market to this institition will be the end of it.
Perhaps, in that case, the BBC should do more to justify their compulsory licence? I mean they constantly try to compete with ITV when they should be offering alternatives rather than spending most of their time appealling to the masses - I mean, Eastenders... really! As they don't need to appease advertisers, they should create better programming. A classic example is the old World Cup football - why show the same match as ITV?
Admittedly, just recently, the BBC does seem to be producing a slightly better class of programming on the whole - but for a long time they were equally as bad as ITV - and they still have some way to go.