 | Television Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
| |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 730 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A proper dicussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using a TV Licence. Perhaps comparing this to other methods of funding public television. User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I feel like there may be a big point missing here. I was always led to believe that the main reason for the TV Licence, is to ensure that TV Programmes 'for the public good' are to be created, above and beyond what's just necessary for commercial interests.
In addition, that the reason that it's not handled through general taxation is that makes it a lot harder for the government to meddle with. Thus, creating a media platform that's A) more independent from government influence and B) more independent from commercial biases than either Media Sources that are funded directly by government or purely commercial means.
I'm trying to find some good discussions on this before writing a summary of it. Could anyone help? User:multikev 22:38, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
When adding Czech Rep, which I was sure had a licence fee, did some digging on Other nations. Problem is a lot of public broadcasters dont have English versions of websites. However I have found two reports that may be of use. HOWEVER, these are 2000 figures, of course these will have undoubtly changed, in some cases nations may have scrapped their licences. So we need to get uptodate figures!:
1. According to http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/service_public.html the following countries also have a TV licence:
2. Another Document written in 2000 (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en states that:
Also:
http://www.mediasouthasia.org/Colomboworkshopforwebsite010604.htm
User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
There should perhaps be something about U.S. views added to the "Opinions of television licensing systems" section, but it needs to be sourced, not based on someone's half-baked theory of American exceptionalism. I can well imagine that many Americans are amazed to learn that televisions must be licensed in most of Europe. It would be even more interesting to note whether there is anyone arguing for a reintroduction in those countries where the licence has been abolished. I was surprised to read that some Eastern European governments are considering introducing a TV licence; I would have thought licences were simply an anachronism from the age when TV was a luxury, which persists because of a ratchet effect.
There should also be more added about the history of radio/TV licences. While it may (or may not!) be the case that that licence fees are now used to fund public broadcasters, this was not always the case. In the UK, radio licences were introduced in 1904 at the behest of the Armed Forces, which wanted to maintain control of the new technology. The BBC was not government-funded (or even created) till the 1920s. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
User:Pit-yacker 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps Philippines should fall here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4452:38C:CA00:F9BB:C4F:7912:3E2A (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
The term "evasion" is POV. If every TV user has to pay for a license, and more and more people choose not to watch TV, it might be evasion or not, depending on the motivation. If someone who would otherwise watch TV refrains from doing so just to save money, it is evasion. If someone doesn’t watch TV because heorshe is not interested, it is not evasion. There is no way to find out the motivation, so the term "evasion" is an allegation. -- Sloyment (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
You confuse two different things. Should I explain why? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have made edits to try to improve this article. A very large proportion of the article is taken up by details of individual countries' licensing arrangements. I think this could be distracting for most readers who want more of an overview about television licensing. I also think that separating them according to whether they currently, formerly or never had a licence is unhelpful, especially as some countries' classifications are a little ambiguous. I would therefore suggest leaving a summary of licensing by country in this article (perhaps by expanding on the table in the Europe section), then moving the remaining detail to a separate Television licensing by country article. But I would like to see if there is a consensus before starting such a large change. Any feedback on the other changes I have made is, of course, very welcome. --Mgp28 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article lists Germany. However, in Germany there is no such thing as a TV license. While in the UK, watching TV is forbidden unless you pay for a license, i.e. your individual permit, receiving public broadcasts is a constitutional right in Germany, and no license is required whatsoever.
Until 2012, there was a TV fee that had to be paid if you owned a TV receiver. The idea behind it however, was not to pay for a license, but to pay for using the service of the public broadcasters, as the assumption was that anyone owning a TV receiver would watch their very good program 🙄. (This assumption is of course ridiculous.)
In 2013, the system was replaced by a broadcasting contribution that has to be paid by everyone living in an apartment, regardless whether they watch TV or not. Again, the idea behind it has nothing to do with a license. The idea is to pay for the mere ability to use the high quality program 🙄 of German public broadcasters. TV is usually consumed in apartments, so as long as you live in an apartment, even if you don’t own a TV, you could start watching at any time, and thus you benefit from that offer all the time. (Again, this assumption is of course ridiculous, but that is how the federal constitutional court has argued.)
As there is no TV license required, you won’t be in trouble for watching TV like in the UK, if you don’t pay. Instead, if you don’t pay the broadcasting contribution in Germany, you will be in trouble for not paying. Yo will be indebted and might be distrained after some time. Not paying it is also a contravention; so in theory, you might also be fined.
I think, the article Television license should cover only countries that really have a TV license. I don’t know if it’s just the UK, or if other countries use that model, too. Countries like Germany should go into a broader article, maybe called Financing of public broadcasting or similarly. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
