TV Licencing, your thoughts.

[mitchymo]

If you live in a country that is funded entirely from advertising then i guess you're really lucky because you have a choice to use your tv just for watching dvd's on or playing computor games without having to pay extra.
If you live in a country where government grants do the funding then although you are still paying for the priveledge to watch tv, you don't have what seems like an extra financial burden to deal with.
In countries (like UK) a licence has to be paid which is cumpulsory if you watch tv no matter how little you watch.
What are your views on tv licencing? Should advertising be the sole provider allowing people to watch freely? Is government funding a good idea or a bad idea?
I personally would love a pay per programme model because i don't watch much tv but because i watch some and because even if i did'nt, i still watch dvd's, i still have to pay a licence fee which is an annoying extra financial burden.
What tv if any is most worth paying for?

 

[thetramp]

In germany there is a licensing system, and i don't mind it, it is based on the devices you got in your household, just a radio is a different fee than a radio, a tv and a computer with internet. I do not watch a lot of german tv, in fact i hardly watch it, i do sometimes tho listen to radio stations funded through that licensing.

But looking at how much i do actually utilize the availability of those medias, it could be considered unfair that i have to pay for it.
But i don't find it unfair, i want independent media, i want tv that can inform without having to interrupt every 5 minutes for commercials and i do want them to be able to plan their program not only based on what brings the best ratings but by what is important. Media has an important role in a good democracy and i don't like the idea of having no counterweight to the Murdochs and Berlusconis of the world, i don't want to ban commercial tv, but i think a counterweight is needed and in the name of democracy i am willing to pay for that even tho i personally don't make that much use of it.

 

[mitchymo]

In germany there is a licensing system, and i don't mind it, it is based on the devices you got in your household, just a radio is a different fee than a radio, a tv and a computer with internet. I do not watch a lot of german tv, in fact i hardly watch it, i do sometimes tho listen to radio stations funded through that licensing.

But looking at how much i do actually utilize the availability of those medias, it could be considered unfair that i have to pay for it.
But i don't find it unfair, i want independent media, i want tv that can inform without having to interrupt every 5 minutes for commercials and i do want them to be able to plan their program not only based on what brings the best ratings but by what is important. Media has an important role in a good democracy and i don't like the idea of having no counterweight to the Murdochs and Berlusconis of the world, i don't want to ban commercial tv, but i think a counterweight is needed and in the name of democracy i am willing to pay for that even tho i personally don't make that much use of it.

Good thoughts. Are all networks in Germany funded by the licence fee or just specific ones? In the Uk i think the BBC takes the biggest chunk of licence fees.

 

[thetramp]

No there are private founded networks too who are making money with commercials.
Actually the licensing founded networks actually got founded by the western allies after WWII, the model was the BBC. In 1950 those 6 local radio stations founded the ARD, the first german tv network. In 1963 the ZDF the second network was founded which also is a public network also funded by licensing. Somewhere in the 80s the commercial networks were added.There are also regulations on the amount of commercials public channels are allowed to air. they are only allowed to air them before 8pm and i think a maximum of 12 minutes per hour.I hope i gave a little overview.

I really like the idea of not funding the networks with tax money and have politicians control the network budget to assure independence, but still give them a relaible funding to free them from the need to only show what sells. This is why i am strongly oppose to a pay per program system.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

commercial and licensed tv sucks - it should all be like US public service tv, if you like the programme you make donations. They even play music to write cheques by. The BBC has more commercials (plugging their own tripe) after 300 promos you don't want to watch the f******* programme anyway. Stick that in your baggy pants, Yentob.

 

[mitchymo]

I really like the idea of not funding the networks with tax money and have politicians control the network budget to assure independence, but still give them a relaible funding to free them from the need to only show what sells. This is why i am strongly oppose to a pay per program system.

Another good point. I guess the idea of pay per programmes would suit only those who watch little television but then dilute the choice of programming and we would end up with much more trash on the box i guess. Perhaps the next step in giving licence payers their moneys worth would be a choice of programmes as advertised or an option to watch something from the archives.
(there was this programme on here ages ago, a three parter called Gormenghast, it was a fictional programme set in a strange and quirky kingdom, i loved it and would love to see it again but it has never been repeated, if it has i missed it completely. I'd love to be able to watch something from a huge choice of past programmes if the current programmes where not of interest.)

 

[mitchymo]

it should all be like US public service tv, if you like the programme you make donations.

Does that actually work? I mean surely people would just prefer not to pay anything at all?

 

[thetramp]

Another good point. I guess the idea of pay per programmes would suit only those who watch little television but then dilute the choice of programming and we would end up with much more trash on the box i guess. Perhaps the next step in giving licence payers their moneys worth would be a choice of programmes as advertised or an option to watch something from the archives.
(there was this programme on here ages ago, a three parter called Gormenghast, it was a fictional programme set in a strange and quirky kingdom, i loved it and would love to see it again but it has never been repeated, if it has i missed it completely. I'd love to be able to watch something from a huge choice of past programmes if the current programmes where not of interest.)

that is more and more possible, the german channels start so called mediathecas, archives of shows they aired, that can then be viewed online, similar to what some commercial networks do. That of course also is funded by license money

 

[Mem]

TV is free in the US. PBS is the only publicly funded station that I know of. The show Sesame Street and Nova type shows. They do run fund raisers for members.

The TV signal here is free. Now you need a converter to get the digital signal. The amount of channels you get is very limited.

Most people that I know have Cable TV or Satellite and now Verizon Fios. They are pay services and there are taxes and fees that go to the government.

 

[Mem]

If you live in a country that is funded entirely from advertising then i guess you're really lucky because you have a choice to use your tv just for watching dvd's on or playing computor games without having to pay extra.

So if you just wanted to use your TV as a monitor for computing and DVD and gaming you still have to pay a fee?

 

[thetramp]

Yes that is how it works

 

[Mem]

Yes that is how it works

That sucks balls. Do you have to register a new TV? How do they know that you have one? If it breaks do you report it? If you buy a used one do you have to register it?

 

[thetramp]

in germany you get a form where you have to list the devices you got in your household.

 

[Mem]

in germany you get a form where you have to list the devices you got in your household.

So can you lie? Do they do inspections? Do most people use antennas or is Cable and Satellite popular there too?

 

[vince]

So can you lie? Do they do inspections? Do most people use antennas or is Cable and Satellite popular there too?

In the UK they use to have these trucks that drove around sniffing the airwaves and they could detect if you had a TV receiver in the house. Then they match that to the list of licenses and if you weren't on the list... Busted.

Do they still do that? How much does a licence cost?

I prefer to pay my Satellite service. Great line up of stations, almost no commercials, HiDef channels and good tech support. Costs me about 30 dollars a month.

 

[canuck_pa]

In Canada we have mainly commercial TV stations which are free, but full of advertising. We also have CBC TV which receives some government funding but still has commercials. CBC radio is commercial free. Reception in many parts of Canada isn't very good so most people pay for cable service. I pay $ 75.00 a month (for however many TVs we have) which gives me about 65 TV stations and high speed internet service. We get all the Canadian and American networks and dozens of specialty channels. And still very little worth watching.

 

[mitchymo]

That sucks balls. Do you have to register a new TV? How do they know that you have one? If it breaks do you report it? If you buy a used one do you have to register it?

Like Vince mentioned, they use special equipment driving around in cars to detect signals. They monitor changes in addresses so if a licence for 12 sesame street for example has had a licence for the last four years and then suddenly stops having one then they make sure its because the premises have been vacated rather than the tenant has just stopped paying.

You also need to have two licences if you sub-let your premises so that each sub-let part is covered by different licences!!!

 

[FuzzyKen]

In the U.S. I am guessing that within ten years the only way that you will get television is to pay some corporate entity for the privilege. As soon as they have taken away television radio will be next. The excuse will be something creative, but, it will be said that you need some kind of converter to receive radio signals. Radio will after a time then be moved completely into a pay for programming situation as well.

The final stroke will be your internet usage. I probably will not be alive by that time but the idea will come down that you need protection of some sort. In order for you to get this protection your e-mail will be subject to a charge by some corporate entity. In the U.S. it will not be some government entity receiving the money, it will be some corporation getting it instead.

This has so far been denied, but, it is coming. The idea will be to do it in steps so that we the public will not notice that another free thing has been taken away.

As it is right now I live very easily with broadcast television even though I only get a few versions of the major networks. Considering that television in general is now one of the most vapid wastelands of mind numbing boredom, I really don't care. Those who want to watch dysfunctional families portrayed as comedy, those who want to see law enforcement agencies violate the United States Constitution to "get their man" and those who want to watch infomercials that are inane and often fraudulent have access to both cable and satellite. Cable Service has escalated in cost at an astounding rate compared with other services. Satellite is now cheaper for more, but the more is an ever increasing spiral of very poor programming.

I had cable for years and with Time Warner I had abysmal service with constant outages and never a refund on my bill for the days of service when it was down. Satellite is better and more reliable by far, but, one still has a very high percentage of the programming that is of very low quality.

I collect old television shows and movies and 90% of what I watch is my own version of historical television.

The only time I avidly tune in is when there is some time where national events come to the front of the line. These are the times that I have in my life lived in front of a television.

Living in Los Angeles as a kid my glued to the tube times:

Bel-Air Fire 24 hour programming 1961
Cuban Missile crisis 1962
Death of John F. Kennedy 24 hour programming 1963
Watts Riots Los Angeles 1965
Death of Robert Kennedy 1967
Coverage of Neil Armstrongs Walk on Moon 1969
Los Angeles Sylmar Earthquake 1971

These news events and special programming events have been a part of my life for decades. In Los Angeles stations have gone to 24 hour programming for earthquakes, fires, weather problems, and disasters of other kinds.

Other than that usually there will be one or two programs I may watch as I can.

If possible, I will usually try and do something active rather than sit in front of the tube as best I can.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

The Romans knew how to govern: state violence, bread and circus. Today's governments use the same methods but use different words. The circus is today's tv. This weekend I was on standby at home so viewed more tv than usual and all 5 terrestrial channels broadcast a load of rubbish. Don't fall for the media guff, switch off (the advertisers and BBC governors take seriously the viewing figures) pick up a book, turn on the radio, take the dog for a walk and have a pint at the village pub, where you can rant about everything from the World Cup to BBC luvvies.

 

[Tattooed Goddess]

Ahhh the joys of no television in my house.