The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
You may be wondering what I'm on about (though I doubt it), if you don't I am talking about the license which every household which owns a TV must pay which goes straight to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
The BBC TV service was established in the 1930s and was the only TV station at that time. One channel, that everybody that had a TV could tune into. When the TV license was introduced with it no one complained. Why would they? They were getting regular broadcasts from London, and later Manchester and Birmingham for ten shillings a year (I think). People (admittingly rich ones, as the ten-inch receivers cost about 100 guineas!) could see flickering, but moving pictures on the small screen with this new and exciting technology for a low price.
Of course the TV license wasn't the first tax of it's kind; it was just a continuation of the Radio Tax (ten shillings originally) and so even people who didn't have TV were happy to pay for it.
Fast-forwarding the timeline to 2002 it seems that the State TV license tax has gotten out of control. The license has grown to a huge fee of £112 a year. So what? You might say, it's just the same as before we're just paying for more...
The thing is for most of us we are paying for two channels which to be quite honest are starting to fall behind to commercial competition. It is compulsory, which means if you have Sky, NTL etc you still have to pay the TV license on top of the cable/satellite fees, even if you only have a TV for gaming! Okay so there's also the Website services etc but to be quite honest I don't use it that much.
There is the argument that the BBC creates the chance for alot of new programs to filter through for all viewers to see. Two problems for this argument are that firstly most of these programs could be produced by a commercial station and secondly they now show nearly all new programs on BBC choice (BBC 3) and BBC 4 both of which are digital channels which you have to pay extra for (digi-box, installation etc).
People now roam the country looking for people who are 'dodging' the license ready to burst in through the door and force the residents to pay or PAY, if you get where I'm going here. They have set up a completely different company to collect it and then deliver it to them.
There are so many solutions to that could be implemented to get rid of or improve this paternalistic and frankly patronising tax. One way would be for the BBC to just become a commercial station, therefore putting the license into disuse. I honestly would not mind have advertising breaks in the middle of programs as they are useful to get some snacks in or take a quick trip to the toilet:). Another way would be to turn this tax into a universal station license, meaning that other networks would cost less, maybe even be free. The last way I can think of solving it would be to make it obligatory so you could decide whether or not you wanted the stations, surely they could encrypt their channels easily enough.
For some people the radio stations are a good source of entertainment for them. Once again there are loads of commercial radio stations that cost nothing. Radio 1 (if you like that kind of thing)- Capital FM or Virgin Radio, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live- Talksport, Radio 3- Classic FM and Radio 2- no one listens anyway :D.
It's not just the concept of the 'license' that annoys me, it's the way it's used. The director can spend the money however he sees fit whether it be on a new project, purchasing the rights to sporting events or buying his wife a brand new car. Another waste of the license fee is the new scheme the beeb have to let their staff pursue a 'dream'. They are given money to leave the company for six months and do what they dream of doing, whether it be teaching third world children about the wonders of television or living wherever the hell they like for half a year.
Also there is a channel in the US of A called BBC America, now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it have ADVERTISING or 'commercials' whatever you call them they are using this as a maybe small but an illegal income (since that is why we pay for the license).
That's about it for my rant, so just ask yourself this question: What would you prefer, a couple half-decent channels or £112?
The BBC TV service was established in the 1930s and was the only TV station at that time. One channel, that everybody that had a TV could tune into. When the TV license was introduced with it no one complained. Why would they? They were getting regular broadcasts from London, and later Manchester and Birmingham for ten shillings a year (I think). People (admittingly rich ones, as the ten-inch receivers cost about 100 guineas!) could see flickering, but moving pictures on the small screen with this new and exciting technology for a low price.
Of course the TV license wasn't the first tax of it's kind; it was just a continuation of the Radio Tax (ten shillings originally) and so even people who didn't have TV were happy to pay for it.
Fast-forwarding the timeline to 2002 it seems that the State TV license tax has gotten out of control. The license has grown to a huge fee of £112 a year. So what? You might say, it's just the same as before we're just paying for more...
The thing is for most of us we are paying for two channels which to be quite honest are starting to fall behind to commercial competition. It is compulsory, which means if you have Sky, NTL etc you still have to pay the TV license on top of the cable/satellite fees, even if you only have a TV for gaming! Okay so there's also the Website services etc but to be quite honest I don't use it that much.
There is the argument that the BBC creates the chance for alot of new programs to filter through for all viewers to see. Two problems for this argument are that firstly most of these programs could be produced by a commercial station and secondly they now show nearly all new programs on BBC choice (BBC 3) and BBC 4 both of which are digital channels which you have to pay extra for (digi-box, installation etc).
People now roam the country looking for people who are 'dodging' the license ready to burst in through the door and force the residents to pay or PAY, if you get where I'm going here. They have set up a completely different company to collect it and then deliver it to them.
There are so many solutions to that could be implemented to get rid of or improve this paternalistic and frankly patronising tax. One way would be for the BBC to just become a commercial station, therefore putting the license into disuse. I honestly would not mind have advertising breaks in the middle of programs as they are useful to get some snacks in or take a quick trip to the toilet:). Another way would be to turn this tax into a universal station license, meaning that other networks would cost less, maybe even be free. The last way I can think of solving it would be to make it obligatory so you could decide whether or not you wanted the stations, surely they could encrypt their channels easily enough.
For some people the radio stations are a good source of entertainment for them. Once again there are loads of commercial radio stations that cost nothing. Radio 1 (if you like that kind of thing)- Capital FM or Virgin Radio, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live- Talksport, Radio 3- Classic FM and Radio 2- no one listens anyway :D.
It's not just the concept of the 'license' that annoys me, it's the way it's used. The director can spend the money however he sees fit whether it be on a new project, purchasing the rights to sporting events or buying his wife a brand new car. Another waste of the license fee is the new scheme the beeb have to let their staff pursue a 'dream'. They are given money to leave the company for six months and do what they dream of doing, whether it be teaching third world children about the wonders of television or living wherever the hell they like for half a year.
Also there is a channel in the US of A called BBC America, now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it have ADVERTISING or 'commercials' whatever you call them they are using this as a maybe small but an illegal income (since that is why we pay for the license).
That's about it for my rant, so just ask yourself this question: What would you prefer, a couple half-decent channels or £112?
Page:
There have been no replies to this thread yet.
You may be wondering what I'm on about (though I doubt it), if you don't I am talking about the license which every household which owns a TV must pay which goes straight to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).
The BBC TV service was established in the 1930s and was the only TV station at that time. One channel, that everybody that had a TV could tune into. When the TV license was introduced with it no one complained. Why would they? They were getting regular broadcasts from London, and later Manchester and Birmingham for ten shillings a year (I think). People (admittingly rich ones, as the ten-inch receivers cost about 100 guineas!) could see flickering, but moving pictures on the small screen with this new and exciting technology for a low price.
Of course the TV license wasn't the first tax of it's kind; it was just a continuation of the Radio Tax (ten shillings originally) and so even people who didn't have TV were happy to pay for it.
Fast-forwarding the timeline to 2002 it seems that the State TV license tax has gotten out of control. The license has grown to a huge fee of £112 a year. So what? You might say, it's just the same as before we're just paying for more...
The thing is for most of us we are paying for two channels which to be quite honest are starting to fall behind to commercial competition. It is compulsory, which means if you have Sky, NTL etc you still have to pay the TV license on top of the cable/satellite fees, even if you only have a TV for gaming! Okay so there's also the Website services etc but to be quite honest I don't use it that much.
There is the argument that the BBC creates the chance for alot of new programs to filter through for all viewers to see. Two problems for this argument are that firstly most of these programs could be produced by a commercial station and secondly they now show nearly all new programs on BBC choice (BBC 3) and BBC 4 both of which are digital channels which you have to pay extra for (digi-box, installation etc).
People now roam the country looking for people who are 'dodging' the license ready to burst in through the door and force the residents to pay or PAY, if you get where I'm going here. They have set up a completely different company to collect it and then deliver it to them.
There are so many solutions to that could be implemented to get rid of or improve this paternalistic and frankly patronising tax. One way would be for the BBC to just become a commercial station, therefore putting the license into disuse. I honestly would not mind have advertising breaks in the middle of programs as they are useful to get some snacks in or take a quick trip to the toilet:). Another way would be to turn this tax into a universal station license, meaning that other networks would cost less, maybe even be free. The last way I can think of solving it would be to make it obligatory so you could decide whether or not you wanted the stations, surely they could encrypt their channels easily enough.
For some people the radio stations are a good source of entertainment for them. Once again there are loads of commercial radio stations that cost nothing. Radio 1 (if you like that kind of thing)- Capital FM or Virgin Radio, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live- Talksport, Radio 3- Classic FM and Radio 2- no one listens anyway :D.
It's not just the concept of the 'license' that annoys me, it's the way it's used. The director can spend the money however he sees fit whether it be on a new project, purchasing the rights to sporting events or buying his wife a brand new car. Another waste of the license fee is the new scheme the beeb have to let their staff pursue a 'dream'. They are given money to leave the company for six months and do what they dream of doing, whether it be teaching third world children about the wonders of television or living wherever the hell they like for half a year.
Also there is a channel in the US of A called BBC America, now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it have ADVERTISING or 'commercials' whatever you call them they are using this as a maybe small but an illegal income (since that is why we pay for the license).
That's about it for my rant, so just ask yourself this question: What would you prefer, a couple half-decent channels or £112?
The BBC TV service was established in the 1930s and was the only TV station at that time. One channel, that everybody that had a TV could tune into. When the TV license was introduced with it no one complained. Why would they? They were getting regular broadcasts from London, and later Manchester and Birmingham for ten shillings a year (I think). People (admittingly rich ones, as the ten-inch receivers cost about 100 guineas!) could see flickering, but moving pictures on the small screen with this new and exciting technology for a low price.
Of course the TV license wasn't the first tax of it's kind; it was just a continuation of the Radio Tax (ten shillings originally) and so even people who didn't have TV were happy to pay for it.
Fast-forwarding the timeline to 2002 it seems that the State TV license tax has gotten out of control. The license has grown to a huge fee of £112 a year. So what? You might say, it's just the same as before we're just paying for more...
The thing is for most of us we are paying for two channels which to be quite honest are starting to fall behind to commercial competition. It is compulsory, which means if you have Sky, NTL etc you still have to pay the TV license on top of the cable/satellite fees, even if you only have a TV for gaming! Okay so there's also the Website services etc but to be quite honest I don't use it that much.
There is the argument that the BBC creates the chance for alot of new programs to filter through for all viewers to see. Two problems for this argument are that firstly most of these programs could be produced by a commercial station and secondly they now show nearly all new programs on BBC choice (BBC 3) and BBC 4 both of which are digital channels which you have to pay extra for (digi-box, installation etc).
People now roam the country looking for people who are 'dodging' the license ready to burst in through the door and force the residents to pay or PAY, if you get where I'm going here. They have set up a completely different company to collect it and then deliver it to them.
There are so many solutions to that could be implemented to get rid of or improve this paternalistic and frankly patronising tax. One way would be for the BBC to just become a commercial station, therefore putting the license into disuse. I honestly would not mind have advertising breaks in the middle of programs as they are useful to get some snacks in or take a quick trip to the toilet:). Another way would be to turn this tax into a universal station license, meaning that other networks would cost less, maybe even be free. The last way I can think of solving it would be to make it obligatory so you could decide whether or not you wanted the stations, surely they could encrypt their channels easily enough.
For some people the radio stations are a good source of entertainment for them. Once again there are loads of commercial radio stations that cost nothing. Radio 1 (if you like that kind of thing)- Capital FM or Virgin Radio, Radio 4 and Radio Five Live- Talksport, Radio 3- Classic FM and Radio 2- no one listens anyway :D.
It's not just the concept of the 'license' that annoys me, it's the way it's used. The director can spend the money however he sees fit whether it be on a new project, purchasing the rights to sporting events or buying his wife a brand new car. Another waste of the license fee is the new scheme the beeb have to let their staff pursue a 'dream'. They are given money to leave the company for six months and do what they dream of doing, whether it be teaching third world children about the wonders of television or living wherever the hell they like for half a year.
Also there is a channel in the US of A called BBC America, now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it have ADVERTISING or 'commercials' whatever you call them they are using this as a maybe small but an illegal income (since that is why we pay for the license).
That's about it for my rant, so just ask yourself this question: What would you prefer, a couple half-decent channels or £112?
Page: