European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

[JSR]

Re: European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

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? 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.

[Ian]

Re: European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

(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.

Did you know that about 10% of the licence fee is used to pay for collection of the licence fee? 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.

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

[JSR]

Re: European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

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.)

[Ian]

Re: European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

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

[JSR]

Re: European Commission wants to increase taxes on still digital cameras...

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.

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.