StarFlyer From Germany, joined Sep 2002, 987 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2220 times:
You pay for state television in many countries here in Europe. The idea behind this is to keep at least part of television unbiased and objective because it doesnt have to seek a profit - unlike stations that are privately owned.
The result is that shows other than Popstars and Big Brother are also still being produced - like good old Coronation Street.
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6197 posts, RR: 13 Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
and I thought we were a police state!
If you use or install television receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services you are required by law to have a valid TV Licence.
The type of licence you'll need and how to go about getting one will depend upon your individual circumstances.
Using television receiving equipment to receive or record broadcast television programmes without the correct licence is a criminal offence.
You could therefore face prosecution and a hefty fine of up to £1,000.
You may be asking yourself 'how will they know if I'm using a TV without a licence?' The answer is through a number of different methods.
At the heart of our operation is the TV Licensing database. It has details of over 26 million UK addresses.
Our officers have access to this computer system and a fleet of detector vans and hand-held detectors to track down and prosecute people who use a television without a licence. To find out how effective our methods are click here.
Each year it becomes easier to find and prosecute people breaking the law in this way.
So please be aware:
Our detection equipment will track down your TV
The fact that our enquiry officers are now so well equipped with the latest technology means that there is virtually no way to avoid detection.
How our detector vans can catch out licence evaders
We can detect a TV in use, in any area. That's because every TV contains a component called the 'local oscillator', which emits a signal when the television is switched on. It's this signal that the equipment on our vans picks up.
But, what if you live in a block of flats or a house without road access? Well if this is the case our enquiry officer can simply use one of our hand-held scanners. Measuring both direction and strength of signal, they make it easy for us to locate television sets in hard to reach places.
The Broadcasting Act 1990 made the BBC responsible for licence administration and TV Licensing is the trading name used by the BBC's agents.
Over 1200 staff are employed at our Contact Centre headquarters based in Bristol, and over 500 throughout the UK.
Our role is to send out reminders, process queries applications and payments, and to maintain an accurate licence database. It also involves looking for people using a TV set without a licence. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport sets the amount of the licence fee and decides what needs to have a licence.
Our Service to you
At TV Licensing our staff are providing a high-quality service.
We promise to:
be courteous to customers at all times
answer queries and customer enquiries quickly and fairly
make every effort to maintain accurate name and address details
When visiting your home our officers will always show their identity cards. For your own safety you can confirm an officer's identity by contacting the TV Licensing hotline on 08457 77 55 44. If you admit that you are using a television without the right licence or if we suspect that you are, our staff can and will ask to interview you according to the rules of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Should we decide to take further action, we will follow the Crown Prosecutor's Guidelines, taking into account your circumstances.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
JAL777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
Synonyms: big brother, body politic, commonwealth, community, country, federation, kingdom, land, nation, republic, sovereignty, territory, union
Concept: govt/political entity
No... we don't have anything like the BBC here. Our media is controlled by mega corporations!! NewsCorp, Time Warner, VIACOM, Vivendi Universal, Disney, and a few others.
The closet thing we have is PBS (public television) but it takes all its money in via donations.
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2171 times:
Technically you need a licence to watch all television channels, including satalite. The money raised goes to pay for the BBC though it is not it's only source of income. The BBC generates a lot of money by selling its products world wide.
Generally the quality of the BBC is very high and means the commercial stations also have to produce good programmes in order to compete.
Although State funded, they are given a lot of independence, so much so the current government are looking at ways of changing the 'rules' because of the criticism they have received over Iraq.
Eg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1834 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2155 times:
The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world, bar none.
Key to this is the way it is funded. There are no commercials, no pressure from owners. The company is owned by the people of the UK who pay for it via thier licence fee.
The government has absolutely no influence with the BBC. The BBC is sometimes (witness the strong anti-war sentiment recently) extremely critical of the government.....whoever is in power. It is the only state-owned broadcaster in the world that has an impartial voice.
Compare the BBC with a Murdoch-owned network such as Fox or Sky, and you'll see the latter two will speak the voice of their owner....the right-wing nut.
The BBC on the other hand, will always give you both sides. Now, for some Americans who think that Fox is 'unbiased', that concept may prove a little difficult to understand..........
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
The BBC, with unbiased news, irritates governments of all colours from time to time, and always has, long may it continue.
It's operating charter demands fair and balanced news, that's not a nonsense corporate slogan, it is the ethos.
Look at how poor the general US news reporting is, on foreign affairs in particular, who benefits from that?
The government, that's who.
Do they sometimes make crap programmes and mistakes in news, yes of course, but they are accountable, to the public not to shareholders.
Who else has the reach and influence of the BBC World Service?
Most successful UK TV exports, in direct programmes as well as formats, are BBC products.
Who else would have taken the risks in say Monty python, which took time to get an audience?
Who has the best reputation in documentaries? Look how many of the better programming are often co-productions with the BBC.
Public broadcasting can be commercially successful, innovative, daring, the BBC have been doing just that since the 1920s.
Jhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6197 posts, RR: 13 Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2094 times:
Obviously FOX is not unbiased news; everyone knows they're right wing (even some of their "left wingers" seem more like moderates). All I'm saying is to not fall into the trap to assume that the BBC (and yes we can watch that in America if we want to, just as you can watch CNN) is an "unbiased" news source. For example, If the U.K. went to war with, say, Iraq, what side would the BBC naturally tend to lean towards????? Who was given more time to lay out their case on British television, Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair? If you say Tony Blair, George Bush, and if you assume that the "coalition" are the "good guys" and the "regime" are the "bad guys", then you have biased news coverage.
Over here, we do have PBS and they do seem to be more of a "just the facts" organization, while everyone else is in the game for ratings.
Television is a vehicle for propaganda. Otherwise, why waste your tax dollars on the bureaucracy to regulate "TV licenses"?
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12948 posts, RR: 79 Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2073 times:
Well both the pro and anti war groups attacked BBC coverage.
It was neither cheerleading or anti military, it was BALANCED, showing both the troops and Iraqi civilians experience.
What's happening now with the Hutton Inquiry is not so different to when the BBC pissed off Maggie Thatcher, Harold Wilson (political opposites), even Churchill.
They have a fearsome reputation for interviewing the great and the good, of all political hues, I'd love to see John Humphries and/or Jeremy Paxman tackle Bush, it will never happen, he gets a very easy ride at home after all.
However, the UK has a very competitive TV industry, both terrestrial and satellite, commercial TV has been around since the mid 50's here.
I would argue that major US news groups, in the hands of a few very rich corporations, are much less diverse, more biased and keen to keep the government who regulate them, happy.
Look at the influence of the CLEAR channel has, when they want to set up a media lynch mob of anyone who even asks mild questions about Bush, how representative is that?
Ask any UK sports fans who they prefer for coverage of major events too.
Many BBC reporters are courted by other channels, including foreign ones, most recently US channels have been after Rageh Omar for his coverage from Baghdad, they want to hire him.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21346 posts, RR: 54 Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
The situation in Germany is somewhat similar: We´re paying a mandatory license fee for public radio and television.
In return, the public channels offer much more balanced and fact-based reporting than the private ones (which are down on the normal commercial level). More substance, less ratings-boosting fluff and propaganda.
Banco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 54 Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1949 times:
It's worth remembering that you pay for all commercial television whether you watch TV or not. Marketing budgets are reflected in the retail price of almost everythin you go out and buy, advertising on the telly costs an awful lot, and we all pay for it. There's no such thing as free television. However, since costs are an issue, how about this comparison:
BBC - £110 per year. For that you get two general terrestrial stations, two general digital stations, a 24 hour news channel, two childrens channels, a parliamentary channel,five national radio stations, God knows how many local radio stations, a free (and huge) website. All of this comes without adverts.
If you got the full Sky package, you get one general digital station, with another that repeats the first, with virtually no original programming. Half a dozen movie channels, which do show some major films, but also a hell of a lot of drossy TV movies. Four sports channels, mainly football and cricket. One 24 hour news channel, and one 24 hour sports news channel. This costs £444 a year, and you get an awful lot of adverts.
Now, I get Sky, because I love all of the sport they show, so I'm not complaining about it, but I do think that if you look at what you pay and what you get, then the BBC is an absolute bargain. For all its faults, it remains the most respected broadcaster in the world, and almost all of those British TV shows you see around the world are made by them. If the price of losing the licence fee is to lose the quality we currently have (and it would be) then I am more than happy to pay.
She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
25 GDB: To give some perspective about the BBC's innovation, 'All In The Family' was the BBC's 'Till Death Us Do Part', made by US networks for US audiences,
26 Bobrayner: I think the BBC's independence also allows it to make some of the most outstanding history and wildlife coverage... these might get less viewers, so i