Talk:Television licence/Archive 1

message: : Okay, just a friendly little tip: Use colons to indent your responses. It just looks nicer. But anyway, it doesn't say that TV licensing was ever considered. It merely says that it was shown to be unneccessary. As for how it clashes with the constitution, I'm not an american, and cannot verify that this is true myself. The entry does say now that americans would be opposed to such a thing. Isn't that enough? His Ryanness 23:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologize for this being long but I want to say a few words. I deleted our previous discussions because it was getting long, you have my permission to do the same when/if you reply.
   
"presumably proved to the American government" implies that it was considered and a decision was made not to do it. Really it should say "In the United States, a TV license would most likely be illegal under the Constitution" or something to that effect. You don't have to be American; unlike England, our Constitution is written down. Observe, http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html and 
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Most Americans can recite their rights under the Constitution. Speech, religion, privacy, a fair trial by jury of one's peers, etc.
Also, as to the part saying that Americans would be opposed to it, I do obviously agree that we would be opposed, but I don't agree that there is confusion as to what "license" means. Askoxford.com is a service from the same people (Oxford University Press I belive?) who publish the Oxford English Dictionary and hence is quite authoritative; setting it to the UK view, looking up license yields the following:
"licence
(US license)
• noun 1 a permit from an authority to own or use something, do a particular thing, or carry on a trade. 2 a writer’s or artist’s conventional freedom to deviate from facts or accepted rules. 3 freedom to behave without restraint.
— ORIGIN Latin licentia ‘freedom, licentiousness’, from licere ‘be lawful or permitted’."
So, now we look at the wikipedia entry for TV license and find the following "A television licence (or more correctly broadcast receiver licence, as it usually also pays for public radio) is an official licence required in many countries for all owners of television and radio receivers." So, clearly, under the above Oxford definition of license, a TV license is just that. It's not a "service fee" because if you don't want to watch the BBC you still have to pay Her Majesty for permission to use said device. In other words, if I am not mistaken, there is no legal way to own and operate a television set in Britain without permission of Her Majesty, for which said monarch charges a fee (yes, I know that in practice Her Majesty delegates this stuff to the Parliament, but the authority dervies from her so my language is correct). This whole pretense is contrary to the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States. 
Let me explain: It's your property, on your land, it cannot interfere with the rights of others, therefore, under the US Constitution, the government has no authority to grant or deny you permission to use it. You ALREADY have permission. You were BORN with the right to do it. This should be reflected in the wikipedia article. It's not because we disagree about what a license is. It is that Americans do not believe the government has the right to do it, and our Constitution supports this belief.
This would also fall under Amendment 10 (all these parts of the Constitution are equally the Supreme Law of the Land), "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, in America, if the Constitution doesn't say you don't have the right, and no other law which does not conflict with the constitution prevents it, you probably do have it. There was no law preventing Scaled Composites from putting a man into space, so they automatically had permission, in America, to do so. There was no law preventing NBC from transmitting television waves, so they automatically had permisison. Not like this silliness in Britain where only the BBC was allowed to transmit for some time. In America, until the government regulates a given act, it is assumed to be legal under the 10th amendment. Maybe that's where the confusion is coming from in foreign countries.
btw I talk to this British guy who is living and working in Florida on the internet. He says he is glad not to have to pay a TV license for permission to watch his TV, and likes to brag about it to his friends back in England. I would never want to live in Red State Florida, though, where they voted for Bush in 2004...--Brian71.116.106.31 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States section is NOT correct. 

message: What I wrote in that section is NOT nonsense. It is the TRUTH. We don't have tv licenses because we are not a socialist nation where the government is allowed to control everything. What was written there before was the nonsense. The absense of TV licenses is not because it has been "proven to the government" that they are not necessary, but rather because IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF OUR WRITTEN CONSTITUTION for the government to require them. As I said it would be a violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments, not to mention the 14th, to try to force people to pay a fee to own a television. Furthermore, Americans would NEVER stand for that, as we proved in 1776 when we threw Britain out of our country by force. So no, I didn't put nonsense, I *CORRECTED* the nonsense that was there.--Brian71.116.106.31 21:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR, WP:NOT a soapbox, WP:NPOV, etc, etc, etc. Please take your ranting elsewhere. --Kiand 21:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: While you may believe that, wikipedia requires that you write from a neutral perspective. i.e. No opinions/biases. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, or even that I agree with you. But I would suggest that you look over the contribution guidelines: . His Ryanness 22:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I told you to read some Wikipedia policies, which are in fact what specifies the content of the Wikipedia and hence any possibility of it being "taken seriously". None of that can amount to anti-americanism or communism. If you want to go on a communist witchhunt, a discussion on the television licence, which you don't have and aren't going to have and hence should be entirely irrelevant to you, is not the place to do it. --Kiand 22:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you cite any reliable sources for your point about the television licences in relation to the constitution? What I mean is, has is been reported or written about anywhere? If so, where? -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not imply anything of the sort, Brian. In fact, I believe that the entry does require some tweaking. However, you're only trying to replace one bias with an even bigger one. His Ryanness 22:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I should also probably add that while we've been talking about this, I believe the necessary tweaking has been done. His Ryanness 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the great nation of the United States of America

message: The British overseas territories are regarded by the UK as separate countries, entirely responsible for broadcasting in those jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, those of them in North America, follow the North American model - Bermuda's three channels are affiliated with the three main US networks. 
I suspect that the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba are much the same, as their relationship with the Netherlands is much looser than that of the French Overseas Departments with France.
Only Gibraltar has a TV licence fee, for GBC, which used to rebroadcast BBC Prime, with residents needing to get a set top box for the privilege. Most people watch SkyDigital via communal set-ups, including all the UK terrestrial channels, even though they aren't entitled to as Gibraltar is considered as foreign as Spain from the point of view of UK broadcasting rights.
St Helena gets a mix of programming from M-Net in South Africa. Falkland Islanders have cable TV - they're lucky that BFBS doesn't confine its TV signal to the military bases, or scramble it. Montserrat is not uninhabitable, people have moved back there, and watch satellite TV, including BBC World, but pay no licence fee. Hardly anybody lives in Pitcairn , South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, much less has TV. Quiensabe  01:52 UTC
Also the part about the reason why we don't have a TV license in the United States is completely wrong. The reason is the 4th Amendment, part of the Constitution, which is the ruling document of the United States. We do not have a King; we are ruled by Laws, not by nobles, and the government "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed", as is stated in the Declaration of Independence. History has proven that the ideas of Hamilton and Jefferson were superior to the idea of a monarchy. 
The 4th Amendment is as follows:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." 
The Supreme Court, the judicial branch, being equal in power to the President (executive branch) and Congress (legislative branch), has interpreted the 4th Amendment to mean that men have a right to privacy from the government. 
So, as long as what you're doing is done in the privacy of your own land, and does affect anyone else, it is legal. There are vehicle licenses, BUT THEY ARE ONLY NEEDED TO DRIVE A VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC ROAD; if you drive a car on your own land, you don't require jack shit in terms of permission from the government. Same with a TV set. It is used on your own land, in your own home, therefore the government has no right to require a tax in order to use it. 
You see, in the United States, the Constitution limits the power OF THE GOVERNMENT, as opposed to limiting the rights of individuals. This notion of a TV license is unmitigated nonsense. Any true patriot of the UK would be opposed to it.
--Brian, proud citizen of the United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world. Also former US Navy submariner.
71.116.106.31 23:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: As far as I've used to know, only US$ values are marked as prefixes, and € are always "10€" -esque (suffix) here in Finland. --84.249.252.211 17:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It varies from country to county, possibly based on what the previous currency used, e.g In Ireland, I'd always see and write €10. According to the article Euro symbol the offical recommendation is to have it as a prefix. MartinRe 17:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  € = suffix or prefix? 

message: The UK section in this article is growing quite large in relation to all the other sections, any objections to splitting this into its own article and having a brief summary here with a  at the top? MartinRe 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now split the article as suggested - and have moved all discussions directly related to the UK licence issues to Talk:Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Thomas Blomberg 00:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article

message: It's not obvious to me from the article whether a separate license is required for every set in a household or rather just a single license for each household possessing one or more sets. Can anyone please edit accordingly? Also, what about computers with a tv card? I assume they would be considered TV sets. What about streaming tv programming via internet? Would that be a statutory tv set for purposes of licensure? Thanks.
:It depends on the country, in the UK, a TV licence is required for any dwelling that has a television that can receive broadcasts, no matter how many TVs are in the house. Even TV cards in computers, need a TV licence as they are picking up a television signal or watching British TV online though a the Internet. 
:In Ireland where you are from, according to RTÉ, it seems to have the same rules as the UK, bar the requirement that you must have a TV licence in the second dwelling even when it is not being used.159753 15:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many other countries, such as those in Scandinavia, the license is tied to the household instead of the dwelling, so if a household has two dwellings (let's say a summer house by a lake in addition to the normal dwelling), one license covers all TV sets in both dwellings. Thomas Blomberg 16:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As they do in Europe.
Pit-yacker 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules about television licencing 

message: Privately-owned radio and television stations do in fact have to apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for licences, but they are a form of regulation, not taxation, i.e. a (usually inexpensive) document that says the holder is allowed to do something.
:As they do in Europe.
Pit-yacker 00:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 6 sept 06 

message: The map key isn't very clear. I presume the labels only apply to the licence-fee receiving broadcaster, but really it needs to say that on the map. --Dtcdthingy 06:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map key 

message: Currently, License fee redirects here.  I believe that this should be remedied.  License fees are not restricted to Television by any stretch of the imagination.  Since i have never contributed to this article, i wanted to get some thoughts before i started to make any major changes.  What are your thoughts? // Tecmobowl 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page [[WP:D|Disambiguation]] 

message: Currently, License fee redirects here.  In accordance with disambiguation, I believe that this should be remedied.  License fees are not restricted to Television by any stretch of the imagination.  Since i have never contributed to this article, i wanted to get some thoughts before i started to make any major changes.  What are your thoughts? // Tecmobowl 19:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is another article it may be an idea to set up a disambiguation page at "License fee".  However, at least in the UK, the term "License fee"/"Licence fee" is usually used to refer to the Television licence. Whereas even other licences which incur an annual charge go by other names e.g. "Road Fund Licence" (now officially Vehicle excise duty (VED)) is usually known as "Road Tax" or "Car Tax".Pit-yacker 22:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure why you labelled this section 'page move'? Perhaps some disambiguation at license fee if you can find enough entries, but there does not appear to be a need for a page move, or indeed any major changes to this article. Any disambiguation of licence/license fee should probably point to Television licensing in the United Kingdom. I don't know how many other countries use this term for a TV licence (my guess is not many), but it is the main definition in the UK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I labeled it this way because i felt it was the easiest way to label the section without writing a long title.  Please feel free to adjust it if you see fit.  I'm not knowledgeable on this particular topic, but all i can say is, there are a number of other ways to have a license fee.  This happens in most any form of media promotion regardless of country. // Tecmobowl 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ZZuuzz, a quick look at the link to RTE's site from the main page suggests the TV licence is also known to some extent as the licence fee in Ireland as well.Pit-yacker 01:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So that suggests that the disambiguation page should be at licence fee :) and it should probably point to this article as opposed to the UK-specific one. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Move 

message: call me silly but i never knew that south america is in asia.. why was in included in the bit with asians who use tv licence?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.24.175.199 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me in the direction of what you are talking about please? If you are reffering to the lack of any mention of South America, this is because AFAICT, South America, with the notable exception of Chile doesnt tend to have public broadcasting at all (See TVN (Chile). Pit-yacker 21:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why is s.america in "asia" 

message: Please bring the discussion regarding TV Licence Resistance(Find out the truth behind the lies) to this page, and not duke it out in an Edit War please. Thanks. Delbert Grady 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV License Resistance 

message: I think it's somewhat misleading to put Denmark in the "Television licence and advertising" category, since the main channels (DR, DR2) are solely license-based and advertising is only present on the license supported regional news which are broadcast on an otherwise commercial channel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.238.28.62 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark's license 

message: "or more correctly broadcast receiver licence".  I don't agree that that would be more correct.  In the UK you are legally required to have a licence if you own a television.  You aren't required to have a licence if you own a radio, or even twenty radios.  And of course, television licence is also the official name.  The fact that the money also funds radio doesn't change the fact that it's a TV licence.  Perhaps in some of the other countries described, it really is a broadcast receiver licence, but this shouldn't be implied to be the case everywhere. -06:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcast receiver licence 

message: Swedish public TV is at least partly sponsored by advertisement (although there are no proper ad breaks, just announcement of sponsors before and after shows). Perhaps the map should be edited to reflect this?
LarsHolmberg 11:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sweden's license 

message: Pleas add further references to this section. No verifyable reference is given to back up the claim of abolishment of reciever or TV license in following countries in thes section-Australia, Belgium (Flemish region), India, Malaysia, New Zealand.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanket ar (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  countries where reciever license is abolished 

message: Although not one bit encyclopaedic in nature, this line from the article is rather amusing:  "These interruptions are, in effect, a mild form of tyranny which robs viewers of their free time and their choice of what to watch. This free time is as much of value to the viewer as it is to the advertiser."  
They're also good for pee breaks and runs to the kitchen for a snack tho, wouldn't you say?
No wonder Communism is all but dead and Socialism shall follow soon enough!  Idiots...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.81.2 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that you have just got used to the status quo. If a person in the U.S. went to a movie theater and every 10 minutes throughout the movie there was a 3 minute break for advertisements a riot would break out. The BBC is funded by viewers so that they don't have to tolerate this kind of thing. And with many homes having access to hundreds of channels (some of which they pay subscriptions for), a whopping 51% of people watch some BBC1 programs during the day and the BBC still manages to attract 27% of viewer share from its 2 main channels and about 30% from all its non-advertising channels. The lack of advertising is probably a siginificant factor, but the quality is probably also another high factor.  See http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=multichannel&requesttimeout=500&flag=viewingsummary viewing statistics.  Its one reason why the BBC is popular even though there is a TV licence.  Incidentally, the commercial channels have at times called for the BBC to disbanded and/or its licence fee money shared with the commerical companies who argue (often rightly) that they too can make quality programs.  But if they take the licence fee money, will they give up advertising when they show those programs? I bet not!!  Of course one might argue that 50% of people on a given day do not watch the BBC channels and are still paying for them and that is unfair. But the same argument goes for paying for public libraries by people that don't visit them also. You can lead a horse to water but you can't (and you shouldn't) make it drink.  --Tom (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually a very similar pattern of preference for non-advertising channels is apparent in Finland too. My home has cable and about 14 free channels and very many more pay channels. Homes without cable get about 10 free to air channels. Despite this, YLE, the national broadcaster which has no advertisements attracts 40 per cent of all viewing from just 2 channels. See Average viewing hours per day per channel in Finland (Note: MTV3 is not a music channel but the largest advertising based general entertainment channels).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauskalainen (talk • contribs) 18:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good For A Laugh 

message: I have commented out this section for now.  Does it really warrant inclusion looking at why 2 nations in particular (out of very many) dont have a TV Licence.
User:Pit-yacker 17:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put it in with countries that never had a TV Licence User:Pit-yacker 19:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North America 

message: ... when including all these legends (at least in FireFox). I'm not sure what to do about it. --Manscher 11:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The image is not working 

message: I've added a few arguments against TV licensing to balance this section out but to be honest I think the entire thing should be cleaned out, big time. I'd rather just see most of it deleted than have lots of "citation needed" things put in when the statements that are there couldn't be supported by citations anyway. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Opinions of TV Licensing Systems Section 

message: Isnt it spelled license?
Just figured i'd point it out...
:This is another difference in US English vs English used in most of the rest of the world. Quite apart from the rules on national varieties of English, as users above are so proud of pointing out the US is a country that doesn't have a TV licence so it would be odd to use a spelling from a country that doesn't have this. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling? 

message: Cyprus ceased to force tax in electricity bills since 30 Jun 00
http://www.parliament.cy/parliamentgr/008_05/008_05_091.htm
"Όπως είναι γνωστό, η ισχύς του νόμου για την εισφορά υπέρ του ΡΙΚ έχει τερματιστεί στις 30 Ιουνίου 2000. "
Google Translate to English:
As is known, the validity of the law to charge to the RIK has terminated on 30 June 2000.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.69.16 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyprus should be removed 

message: I propose that the "dubious - discuss" and "citation" tags are removed from Japan.  I can confirm the section is true.  In Japan a requirement only exists where enforced by a penalty for non-compliance.  There is no penalty for non-compliance.  And as for a legal authority to enter premises, if they had such an authority, inspectors would mention it when they come to the door, which they don't.  I propose that it's inappropriate to require the citation of something's non-existence: if it was asserted that there *were* a penalty, that would be the subject of documentation.  Requiring a citation for something that doesn't exist sounds weird to me.  (eg. A splottely tollabockle doesn't exist, because I just made it up: it's a matter of fact that it doesn't exist, not a matter of record.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: According to the TV licence FAQ of the Finnish broadcasting corporation (YLE), Iceland no longer has a TV tax (mandatory licence) as of 1st Jan 2000: . Could someone verify this and edit the article accordingly? My Icelandic is not up to the task and no solid information seems to be available in English. FinnV (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the refs for the Iceland section is RÚV itself.  The page in question still appears valid Pit-yacker (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland outdated 

message: This discussion should be merged with the one above - "Should Britain be blue, not red, on the map?" nazrani (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And what percentage of total broadcasting comes from grants?  I think you will find it is so small that it is insignificant in the broad scope of things. I would not support such a change.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely the point is that an element of direct-grant funding exists, not how much it is. You could argue the toss on this for ages; the grant which pays for the BBC World Service is a fraction of the money the BBC generates through licence fee for its domestic services, but the former has a significantly larger audience than the latter; S4C's grant is perhaps insignificant in monetary terms yet the station is nonetheless the fourth most viewed service in Wales. Alternatively, you might say, Channel 4's advertising revenue of a few tens of millions is largely dwarfed by the billions generated by the licence fee so that too should be ignored on the map. All of these facts are available in the various articles dedicated to these subjects for those interesting in pursuing the subject so there is no need to resort to subjectivity here by dictating some sort of 'threshold'. Much better to stick to the facts. -- Fursday 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain should be yellow on the map 

message: I deleted the following text
However, the television licence scheme has been put under some scrutiny by those who do not own a television.  There are many cases in which people who do not own a television are accused of avoiding the licence fee and are taken to court. In the UK there are several examples of this, most notably when a woman received over 200 letters over a 6 month period and eventually sued the licensing company for harassment. A common complaint is that letters sent do not offer enough ways to show that the recipient does not own a television set although several licensing companies have denied these allegations.
The main reason being that the section contains several unsubstantiated claims ("many cases"  and "common complaint" are not backed up with numbers; it cites one case without any external referencing to enable the reaser to validate the case really existed.  Also, why would the letters ask for information about NOT owning?  Surely it is up to the senders to prove that the recipient DOES own. The text is not clear about which country/ies it is talking about though it mentions the UK once. However, there are not as far as I know, several licencing companies in the UK, so the text is even more puzzling.  The last sentences also make claims that are not substantiated.
On balance therefore I think it is right to delete this material until further explanation is forthcoming.--Tom (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Para deleted for lack of substance... please provide references or substantiate the claims before adding back 

message: Let me clear -- UK has two forms of televsion expenses collection methods: licensing and advertising. So, why there's RED and BLUE? It should be constantly BLUE. Comments and reactions are open below. 121.1.55.87 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be misleading, because it would imply that the main recipent of the licence fee - i.e. the BBC - also carries external advertising, which it doesn't. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big problem with the map I think. The UK is pretty unique in having two different public broadcasters. The BBC (which is funded pretty much totally by the licence income is correctly represented by the red stripe) but Channel 4 which is also a public broadcaster gets only advertising income, which ought to be the orange coloured stripe and not the blue. I assume "commercial" means "funded by adverting and not "subscription". I would recommend that the label for the orange block should be "advertising only" and not "commercial"). Then there is S4C which would need to be a third stripe!  In a new colour!!  Hmmm it's getting quite complex. There is at least one other issue. Should France be red?  I think it should be blue because the public TF channels also carry advertising (see the text).Hauskalainen (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hotter UK 

message: Why does the map tell French television is funded by "Television licence only"? Public television in France displays ads. 92.142.197.91 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Situation in France 

message: I realize that there are a lot of people against public broadcasting, and they should have their opinions and views represented on Wikipedia. However, the TV License Resistance's blog seems to have a much broader underlying agenda: pro-BNP/anti-"leftwinger", pro-Israel/anti-Arab & anti-Muslim. AFAICT, the members and owner(s) of the site are more opposed to the views expressed by the BBC than by the concept of TV licensing itself. Is there a more apolitical website that could be linked to instead, or is this site representative of most whom are against TV licenses?--Subversive Sound (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: TV Licence Resistance fails as a reliable source, as it is primarily a forum and blog, even before we get to the disagreeable aspects that you mention. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable website in external links section 

message: Finland don't have anymore television license system. 
===Sources===
* http://yle.fi/uutiset/end_of_the_road_for_tv_license_fees/6392392 
* http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index.html 
* http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa/uutiset/2012/P_63.html --212.226.73.205 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland

message: * http://yle.fi/uutiset/end_of_the_road_for_tv_license_fees/6392392 
* http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index.html 
* http://www.tv-maksu.fi/en/index/tietoa/uutiset/2012/P_63.html --212.226.73.205 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The orange color in the graph for "commercial only" is NOT correct. Although 1FLTV does not receive funds from the media promotion, but small contributions from service agreements and from the settlement for official pronouncements (the national "Service bublic" system). And further the Landeskanal (state's channel) as a broadcaster under state auspices, the "State Office for communication" denies from its budget (without advertising). Anyway the color green (for "Government grants, and advertising") therefore would be correct for the whole tv stations in Liechtenstein.
This will still remain so when in 2015 the expected fee for television licence is introduced, because the public broadcaster "Liechtensteinischr Rundfunk" operates only "Radio Liechtenstein" and no TV station. All official and press references are linked in german interwiki article. --H7 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liechtenstein 

message: I've fixed some marked dead links use archive.org.  However, for the foreign language ones I can't check if they are consistent with the text - the document versions in the archive may not be the same as the ones originally used.  In particular:
* The price data on Switzerland looks like it doesn't tie-in with the values in the linked document.
* The Swiss document also needs a title (I don't now the language at all).
The Greek link is still dead.  I did a quick search in archive.org and for re-names on the original site, but I don't know any Greek, so can't go further. --Otus scops (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: > In 1964 the Australian Television Licence cost £6
Per month, year or once? --MartinThoma (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia 

message: The heading "Countries that never had a television or broadcasting licence " -- is inconsistant with the article premise, that this is about the operation of Television or Radio Receivers, and not about the Sending, or "Broadcast" of the signals. There is a separate article referenced in the preamble to this article about "Broadcast Licence". Being a bold WikiEditor means doing the right thing from the beginning. Changing The heading. Richard416282 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Broadcat(ing) licence" has two distinct meanings. The page is about one - i.e. a receiving licence - while the top note is a like to the other - i.e. a transmission licence. It's not a contradiction to mention the former in the body of the article. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading indicates 'Broadcast Licence' Typo or Fault of leftovers?

message: So, for the purposes of this article, every single country in South America does not exist?
One would think that even if the article writer(s) were too lazy to research South America's television licence history, they would have at least bothered to mention why the entire continent was omitted.
Rmwpg (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  South America 

message: This feels anachronistic, and can never be truly complete. 
Debates seem to be raging on this page about countries who've never had nor are never likely to have a licence, the US in particular, so why indulge this? This article should be an NPV topic about what the TV licence is and describing its implementation in the various countries that use it. Not a general debate about the funding of TV services in other countries nor a platform for people to air nationalist views. Pjaymes (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: ITV (and Sky etc) is not a "public" broadcaster in the sense it is not wholly or partially owned by the Government (i.e. in the public sector), as S4C and Channel 4 are. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there really a need for the list of countries that have never had a TV licence? 

message: When I lived there (8 years up to 1997) a TV license was required (or a radio license), and I received several license demands forwarded to me by post for a couple or three years after I had left the Netherlands.  Of course, the law could have been changed, but has this been checked properly?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.129.61 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you sure about the Netherlands 

message: The first paragraph of the UK part doesn't mention ITV?  Surely ITV is bigger than Channel 4, and if there is a particular reason why it isn't counted in the list of "independent public broadcasters" and explanation would be good.  And what of channel 5?
The United Kingdom has three independent public broadcasters, the BBC which is funded primarily by a TV licence, Channel 4 which is funded by advertising and S4C which is funded through a combination of direct government grant, advertising and in an indirect sense through the licence fee (see below). The BBC is by far the biggest broadcaster in terms of funding and breadth of output.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.18 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ITV (and Sky etc) is not a "public" broadcaster in the sense it is not wholly or partially owned by the Government (i.e. in the public sector), as S4C and Channel 4 are. Si Trew (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ITV? 

message: The numbers are not per capita, per household, or per TV, so it is mostly a map of population density. London is obviously going to have more evaders than a rural area. If it can't be converted to a more meaningful format, perhaps it should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.212.230 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless graphic about "TV licence evasion in the UK, 2014" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Television licence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xe.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wallonie.be/cmsmedia/fr/autoradio_television_tout_savoir_sur_la_redevance_pdf.pdf?uri=8a838083007a58500100bd7b7b5a0eee
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.billag.com/web/de/gebuehrentabelle.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://mbc.intnet.mu/corporate_info.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eumap.org/topics/media/television_europe/national/estonia/media_est1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010629010159/http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en to http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517015815/http://broadcastingfee.com/ to http://www.broadcastingfee.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was:  (page mover closure) DrStrauss talk 11:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Television licence → ? – 1. UK-centric name; 2. In most countries (including the UK), that kind of licence also funds radio. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

text: How is the current form "UK-centric"? That you offer no alternative suggests you're more interested in changing something you consider "UK-centric" simply for the sake of changing it because you think it is. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 14 July 2017 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Television licence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130317102029/http://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/buergerinnen-und-buerger/rund-um-das-neue-modell.shtml to http://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/buergerinnen-und-buerger/rund-um-das-neue-modell.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009131525/http://www.circom-regional.org/crdocs/european-benchmarking2002.pdf to http://www.circom-regional.org/crdocs/european-benchmarking2002.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517015815/http://broadcastingfee.com/ to http://www.broadcastingfee.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on Canada lacks a single citation. While it is all plausible, the lack of any citations for so much information gives me pause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.80.217 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian section is lacking sources 

message: I removed this claim in the lead about how common TV licences are in the world. As I noted in the edit summary although there was a source, the date given in our ref is 1997. I didn't actually notice a date but finding the specific ref which I assume is , the latest date mentioned there is 1995 so 1997 could easily be accurate. A 1997 source may have been somewhat okay when the article was created in 2002, but by now it's definitely way too outdated for something like how common television licences are. Also, perhaps because it was modified by people who realised it was wrong (even though they should have either found a better source or just removed the whole sentence), our article said  but the source says . A few countries and one half are not the same thing when it comes to Africa. Finally the bit about "rare in most of the world" isn't mentioned in the source and hopefully most would agree that something which is used half the countries in Asia, 2/3 in Europe and a few in Africa shouldn't be called "rare in the world" so the sentence even contradicted itself. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How common TV licences are 

message: I've been reading through this article and there seems to be conflicting information as to what is abolished and what isn't. For example, Finland is stated as abolished on the first table but is under the TV Licences of the World heading and the Abolished heading. I understand they are still paying through taxes on income even though their traditional TV licence was abolished. Greece on the other hand is shown as an active TV licence but they are taxed through their electricity bill, and then there is Iceland which is shown as being paid as a tax but is shown only under the Abolished heading as their traditional television licence was abolished. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems a bit inconsitant in the article as to what is considered abolished and what is considered as a TV licence. I wanted to check here first before changing anything else as I didn't want to muck the article up. I've had a go at editing so far to update a few parts but I don't feel confident doing anymore until I know what's what. Thanks for you help :) --Samthecrazyman (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is considered abolished and what isn't? 

message: The beginning of the article reads “A television licence […] is a payment”. This definition is most likely wrong. A license is a permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden. So the idea behind a TV license is that using or owning a TV is forbidden unless you have a valid TV license, and in order to receive the license you have to pay a license fee.
This article is not about the license itself but the fee you have to pay. So even with the definition fixed, the title would not be quite correct.
Even worse, the title is not correct for jurisdictions that follow a completely different logic. In Germany, it is legal to own and use one or more TVs from the beginning; however there is a hypothecated tax on homes, which is used to fund the public broadcasters. As most people live in homes, all people except for the homeless have to pay for it. Non-payment creates debt and can lead to distress; it is also a contravention and can theoretically be punished with a fine. However non-payment cannot make it illegal to own or use a TV receiver, because no license is required.
So there is also a fundamental difference between the fee in the UK and the fee in Germany: In the UK, it is a license fee that you pay if you want the license. If you don’t own a TV, you don’t need a license, you don’t have to pay. As it is one’s free decision to own or not own a TV, the fee can be considered voluntary. In Germany however, the fee is compulsory, because you have to pay it regardless whether you own a TV or not; there is not much you can do about it, unless you move abroad or become homeless or seek confrontation with the state. The article should thus also classify the different fees along this line.
-- Sloyment (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  License??? 

message: Hi! Please update the map about the funding of European public broadcasters, because is incorrect about Portugal. Since 2014, the government has not directly funded RTP. It is funded by the broadcasting contribution tax and advertising revenue. (https://www.publico.pt/2019/02/19/politica/noticia/pcp-vai-propor-rtp-volte-receber-indemnizacao-anual-estado-1862561) {RTP began to be funded only by advertising and the broadcasting contribution tax in 2014. [in Portuguese] Thank you! 2001:8A0:F9B9:FB01:ADDD:F615:BB0A:BD26 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update the map 

message: Article say that both Norway and Sweden are abolished television fees. But map say that they still have television license. Map should be update. --85.76.39.249 (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway and Sweden