What if all the NFL logos were British?

[J. Wilhelm]

If I may be allowed, and if we're not already pushing the limits in this thread, I also have an extra point of view since I was raised outside the United States, in Mexico.  

Mexico does not charge a license for television either.  There are basically two broadcast networks, one private owned, Televisa -a Mexican network with strong ties to Spain, as well as Latin America, and also a government owned and operated network, each with about 5 channels each (as of the late 1980's as far as I know, and I'm quite sure the number of channels has grown tremendously by now).  Add to that Cablevision, which as the name implies was the private owned equivalent of Time Warner Cable in the united states.  Each network carried an array of interests, with Televisa showing a mix of domestic and foreign branded programming (typically dubbed or subtitled for movies - they had a good old/classic movies channel -all subtitled), Cablevision showing Americans networks such as HBO, and the national network focusing mostly on Mexican programming and Mexican culture programming (as well as state propaganda" which in Mexico is of a rather soft variety - we're not talking "totalitartian state" here -it was mostly focused on Mexican culture).  

The only taxes associated with television, were the satellite dish receiver antennas.  This was done because in the 1980's it was considered to be a luxury import item, which increased the value of personal property, so it was not a communication tax, but rather a property tax ("Tenencia").

Naturally the state sponsored TV channels were paid through taxes.  But never identified specifically as such.  I'd have to take a look back to see if there ever was such a thing as a license (and note that I regard Mexico as one of the most bureaucratic states in the world - something almost innate in the people, jokingly I say, even genetically related to the Aztec administrators  of the ancient city of Tenochtitlan - Don't laugh: in the 1500's the Aztec capital already was one of the largest urban centres in the world before the Conquest... I think a lot of that era survives in modern Mexicans.  Their red tape will make you pull your hair out from the root).

But the similarity to the United States, in terms of licensing and perception as broadcast as a type of  communication-as-right is strong. Not surprising. To tell you the truth, it's be nearly impossible to convince people otherwise, as we all did take it for granted.

I find it interesting that the farther you go from the continent the more different the approach...  Perhaps not surprising.  I wonder how it is in Asia, and Russia and former Soviet bloc countries... Does anybody know?

[Just call me Rob]

I think most people in the UK see access to the BBC as a Right.
It's just a Right we pay for.

Afaik all other broadcast stuff is free to recieve with very few laws in terms of recieving equipment.
But, as it is in most countries, all premium channels are encrypted.

All you can really get for free is generic  TV with adverts, or FM radio with adverts.


The BbC does have some amusing quirks.
For example, in comedy satire it is legally obliged to give the same amount of offense to each political party, and to not letvany party get away without being mocked.
Funny old world.

[Narsil]

I think this is very much about perception.

In some ways 'license' is a misleading term since it's not something which is ever withheld or has any section criteria like a driving license does, it's just a levy on owning a television which is used fund what is universally regarded as very high quality television programs which have a legal obligation to be balanced and inclusive.

Even if there was no TV license you would still have to pay for a television set, so it's never going to be free.

I think that may British people would see an irony in a country where access to free television is seen as a basic civil right and access to free healthcare isn't.

[DreamHazard]

I think that may British people would see an irony in a country where access to free television is seen as a basic civil right and access to free healthcare isn't.

QFT

Priorities

[Shadow Of The Tower]

I think that may British people would see an irony in a country where access to free television is seen as a basic civil right and access to free healthcare isn't.

This was actually exactly what I was thinking about when I said that  we put abstract concepts over practical ones. Fairness over effectiveness in this case.

But to clarify once again, its not access to free TV that is a right, its access to any transmission. Its a free speech issue. Without the right to hear anything you choose to without government interference the right to say anything you want to is also crippled. 

[Siliconous Skumins]

But to clarify once again, its not access to free TV that is a right, its access to any transmission. Its a free speech issue. Without the right to hear anything you choose to without government interference the right to say anything you want to is also crippled. 

I'm curious - don't certain agencies (such as police, armed services etc.) and other parties such as theater / corporate users, use encryption anyway? So the effect is just the same - you can't hear it... 
It would be pointless any government to 'ban' the reception of any radio frequencies as all radio receiver devices can and do receive them - even if they cant use them directly. Also part of the FCC requirements for electronic equipment i believe...

SS

[Shadow Of The Tower]

I'm curious - don't certain agencies (such as police, armed services etc.) and other parties such as theater / corporate users, use encryption anyway? So the effect is just the same - you can't hear it...  

Like I said, principle over practical.  

Yes, they can and do, although most police channels are still not encrypted and listening to police and other emergency traffic is a common hobby.

The point is that if you where able to break the encryption you wouldn't be breaking any laws. Not a very good point mind you but its still there in principle.

As I understand it its not so much to allow us to spy on our government as to allow us receive broadcasts from subversive or minority sources as well as international broadcasts to keep us from ever  ending up in a China or North Korean situation where all news is controlled by the government.

It would be pointless any government to 'ban' the reception of any radio frequencies as all radio receiver devices can and do receive them - even if they cant use them directly. Also part of the FCC requirements for electronic equipment i believe...

Tell that to China.