3 ms·

For people outside the UK: a TV license is an opt-in for people who chose to watch TV. Blind people aren't required to pay for a service they don't use, they ca

by corin_ 15y ago

For people outside the UK: a TV license is an opt-in for people who chose to watch TV. Blind people aren't required to pay for a service they don't use, they can chose to pay (at a discounted rate) if they wish to consume (listening rather than watching) live television. If blind people don't want to have TV on, they don't have to pay anything. If they do then clearly they feel they are getting something out of it, so why should they get it free unlike everybody else?

raverbashing 15y ago
"If they do then clearly they feel they are getting something out of it, so why should they get it free unlike everybody else?" The TV is a communications device. Sure, they can listen to the radio, but some things you get through tv that you don't get on the radio. This sounds like extreme pettiness by 'tv regulators' towards people with a severe handicap.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Sorry I don't follow - why is it petty to charge people for listening to TV content?
  - raverbashing 15y ago
    I don't know, I think it's absurd to charge for an unencrypted, public Over The Air TV signal. Sure, it's an opt-in system, and it finances the BBC, etc. I'm sure the concept of not paying is as strange as the concept of paying for those who aren't accustomed to it. But the incremental cost of each receptor is insignificant, so IMHO there should be an incentive for blind people to have a television. "TV is opt in" sure, so is the radio, so is internet. But realistically, very few people don't have it. Today, with internet, the importance of the television is significantly diminished, but its communication power was important.
    - corin_ 15y ago
      Oh I totally get the arguments against TV licensing, but that's a different topic to whether, assuming it exists, blind people should have to pay for it. On the overall topic, I'm very much in favour of it, but go find a speech Stephen Fry gave about it (search "Briefings - Stephen Fry", sorry I'm not at my PC) as he makes every argument I'd make, but better. Why did you compare it to the internet which, while there is no license fee, is definitely not a free-to-use service.
      - raverbashing 15y ago
        Great! I think this is the video you mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8evnEqOVEns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8evnEqOVEns Comparison with the internet was only because the internet is a communication medium
  - NLips 15y ago
    They aren't charged. Hooking speakers up to a TV receiver does not require a TV license.

by corin_ 15y ago

raverbashing 15y ago

"If they do then clearly they feel they are getting something out of it, so why should they get it free unlike everybody else?" The TV is a communications device. Sure, they can listen to the radio, but some things you get through tv that you don't get on the radio. This sounds like extreme pettiness by 'tv regulators' towards people with a severe handicap.

corin_ 15y ago
Sorry I don't follow - why is it petty to charge people for listening to TV content?
- raverbashing 15y ago
  I don't know, I think it's absurd to charge for an unencrypted, public Over The Air TV signal. Sure, it's an opt-in system, and it finances the BBC, etc. I'm sure the concept of not paying is as strange as the concept of paying for those who aren't accustomed to it. But the incremental cost of each receptor is insignificant, so IMHO there should be an incentive for blind people to have a television. "TV is opt in" sure, so is the radio, so is internet. But realistically, very few people don't have it. Today, with internet, the importance of the television is significantly diminished, but its communication power was important.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    Oh I totally get the arguments against TV licensing, but that's a different topic to whether, assuming it exists, blind people should have to pay for it. On the overall topic, I'm very much in favour of it, but go find a speech Stephen Fry gave about it (search "Briefings - Stephen Fry", sorry I'm not at my PC) as he makes every argument I'd make, but better. Why did you compare it to the internet which, while there is no license fee, is definitely not a free-to-use service.
    - raverbashing 15y ago
      Great! I think this is the video you mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8evnEqOVEns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8evnEqOVEns Comparison with the internet was only because the internet is a communication medium
- NLips 15y ago
  They aren't charged. Hooking speakers up to a TV receiver does not require a TV license.