Time to re-think multiple monitor systems?

[Dan]

... and maybe all those spare laptops, too.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...mputer-screens

<....>

[Gareth Jones]

Traditional TV licensing is looking increasingly archaic these days, so I can see where they're coming from. Unfortunately, as a Brit who can't stand advert breaks and wants the BBC to keep going, I can't quite bring myself to say the TV licence should just die (as much as I do loathe the UK's TV Licensing agency).

[Dutchy]

Glad I don't live in France!
They even have this "three strikes" law which can result in being cut off of the internet (Germany is also fun, they'll just send you fines when you download something illegal).

That aside, I don't think they'll get that law through because unlike with a tv or radio you can't guarantee that every computer user can actually use the digital public services they offer (e.g. here in the Netherlands you need Flash or Silverlight for the public VOD service).
Furthermore, I don't really get the "screen = computer" way of determining that the law applies to you.

Apparently people are ditching their tv / broadcast reception in favour of computers so now they have a shortage and need new cash cows.

[billybob linux]

From the article:

The French government is considering extending the television licence fee to include computer screen owners to boost revenues for public-sector broadcasting operations, the culture minister said on Saturday.

Maybe the problem for "public sector broadcasting" is that with a wide variety of other options to choose from, it is just not attracting the audience that it may have done in the days of less competition, some might even argue that they are top-heavy and living in the past.
They must have heard of "pay per view" that would mean that if the quality was good enough then people would pay to watch. The problem with that would be that they would then have to get creative, provide a quality product at a competitive price and run it like a real business (with employees having to work efficiently, multi-task and work for a competitive salary) you know , kinda like the real world

But why bother with all that when you can just ask the government to impose a tax on people to get the money, today computer screens, tomorrow aquariums and goldfish bowls

[Dan]

Originally Posted by Gareth Jones

Traditional TV licensing is looking increasingly archaic these days, so I can see where they're coming from. Unfortunately, as a Brit who can't stand advert breaks and wants the BBC to keep going, I can't quite bring myself to say the TV licence should just die (as much as I do loathe the UK's TV Licensing agency).

I long ago kicked the reverse electronic sewer line of television out of our home. I miss it once in a great while, but usually my brain immediately reboots, and sanity returns.

Taking the longer view here ... the handwriting on the wall is clear enough. Regardless of which party wins or is ruling, politicians just are what they are. If they weren't ... they wouldn't be there. So I will sadly miss the gloriously free, raucous, wild and woolly heydays of the unfettered, uncensored, untaxed and unregulated internet. And before it becomes as fully useless as any other state-sponsored broadcast/communications media ... I plan to surf and enjoy to my heart's content. For tomorrow ...

...

...


... (Blip!)

[Bazu135]

Does this not already apply in the UK? I may be wrong, but I believe the TV licence here is for "any device which may be used to view live broadcasts" or something to that effect.

Might be mistaken though!

[Gareth Jones]

Originally Posted by billybob linux

Maybe the problem for "public sector broadcasting" is that with a wide variety of other options to choose from, it is just not attracting the audience that it may have done in the days of less competition, some might even argue that they are top-heavy and living in the past.
They must have heard of "pay per view" that would mean that if the quality was good enough then people would pay to watch. The problem with that would be that they would then have to get creative, provide a quality product at a competitive price and run it like a real business (with employees having to work efficiently, multi-task and work for a competitive salary) you know , kinda like the real world

Well I don't know about the US, or even France, but in the UK the BBC still produces or broadcasts most of the best output (and an awful lot of complete b*ll*cks too of course, as with them all). The commercial channels (with the occasional exception of Channel 4 or Sky I suppose) are uniformly lowest-common-denominator, or just repeats on loop (usually of old BBC programs). The problem here is, without the licence fee or some similar equivalent, we'd lose almost all of what little is left that's still worth watching (or is even remotely watchable)...

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Bazu135

Does this not already apply in the UK? I may be wrong, but I believe the TV licence here is for "any device which may be used to view live broadcasts" or something to that effect.

Yes, but the fee isn't per-device. Also, while TV Licensing can be really awkward about TVs that aren't actually being used to receive broadcasts, there's not really an issue in practise with computers. It's technically illegal to watch live iPlayer without a licence (it is okay to watch recorded iPlayer content, although the BBC artificially limits it to UK IP addresses only), but you won't normally get into a fight with Licensing over a computer, unless it has a tuner card.

[billybob linux]

According to this:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/n...tion-week.html

Magistrates have called for TV licence evasion to be decriminalised as it is revealed more than 3,000 people a week are being prosecuted for the offence

And:

Last year 140,000 defendants were convicted and saddled with a criminal record.

The revelations have raised concerns that the fee evaders are being treated with a heavy hand and face tougher penalties than drug users and shoplifters.

[Bazu135]

Originally Posted by Gareth Jones

Yes, but the fee isn't per-device. Also, while TV Licensing can be really awkward about TVs that aren't actually being used to receive broadcasts, there's not really an issue in practise with computers. It's technically illegal to watch live iPlayer without a licence (it is okay to watch recorded iPlayer content, although the BBC artificially limits it to UK IP addresses only), but you won't normally get into a fight with Licensing over a computer, unless it has a tuner card.

I got the impression that the French one wasn't per-device either?

"Is it necessary to extend the fee to [computer] screens when you do not have a television? It is a question we're asking ourselves, but obviously it would be a fee per household and you would not have to pay an [additional] fee if you have a computer and a television," Aurélie Filippetti said on RTL radio

That's just splitting hairs anyway - the point is we've dealt with it for ages; there's no need for them to get their briefs in a bunch!

[secipolla]

Governments is so last millennium...

[droidhacker]

I'm not understanding this discussion... is this about a tax placed on televisions or display devices? Is this like a sales tax? Or is this like a periodic tax based on registration?

Either way, government globally is becoming so overbearing, that there will eventually be a revolution.

[Gareth Jones]

In Britain it's an annual fee per-household with live TV receiving equipment, collected to fund public service broadcasting (i.e. the BBC and part of Channel 4, and the infrastructure for terrestrial transmission). In the BBC's case it also funds UK national and local radio stations and the website, but BBC World-Wide operates on a more commercial basis. You could view it as something between a tax and an (effectively) compulsory subscription charge.

I think government vs. private sector is off-limits here. Anyway they're both complicit as far as I'm concerned...

[deanej]

Originally Posted by Gareth Jones

Well I don't know about the US, or even France, but in the UK the BBC still produces or broadcasts most of the best output (and an awful lot of complete b*ll*cks too of course, as with them all). The commercial channels (with the occasional exception of Channel 4 or Sky I suppose) are uniformly lowest-common-denominator, or just repeats on loop (usually of old BBC programs). The problem here is, without the licence fee or some similar equivalent, we'd lose almost all of what little is left that's still worth watching (or is even remotely watchable).

We don't have any form of TV licencing in the US; there is no cost of getting TV here other than the cost of the set (assuming you don't pay for cable or satellite, which you'd need to to make it worth having a TV these days). Our situation is the opposite: the public stations are mostly unwatchable, and the only times they have something decent on they spend 2/3 of the broadcast asking people to donate money. Frankly, I'd rather watch ads than people asking me to call 585-454-6300 all the time (you can get an idea of how bad it is because I haven't watched PBS in a decade yet I still have their local phone number memorized from all the pledge driving! It's even gotten worse since then!).

[stevea]

As much as I believe that a tax to support state sponsored programming is reprehensible, at least there is a crude attempt to implemented as a 'use tax'. Too crude tho' if they can't meter programming use.

deanej - yes the beggar's channel is pretty bad in recent decades. The funding scam wrt to PBS and NPR is that they get little or no funding directly from government - it's laundered through CPB and similar. So they have an unfair and market distorting advantage over private programming.

[sonoran]

Originally Posted by deanej

It's even gotten worse since then!

"The Wasteland grows." --Nietzsche