Hypothetical Question

[ogryn]

I was wondering if you could answer this hypothetical question for me....

"Imagine your government is setting up a new editorially independent state broadcaster. This broadcaster provides you with:

• 2 Analogue TV Stations
• A Digital Young-Adults TV Station
• An Digital Arts & Culture TV Station
• Two Digital Childrens Channels
• A 24hr News Network
• A Parliamentary News Network
• 5 Analogue Radio Stations to cover most tastes (Pop&Rock, Classic Hits, Classical/Arts, Speach, Sport & News)
• 5 Digital Radio Stations to cover the rest (R&B/HipHop, Comedy/Drama, Extra Sports Coverage, Eclectic Music Mix and Asian Music/Talk)
• One of, if not the biggest and most popular website in the continent
• Upto 30 Regional News & TV Stations
• Educational Schools Content

All the above has a commitment to have a high percentage of new, original and innovative programming. None of the above networks carry any sort of commercial advertsing. They only show promotions for programs and other channels in between the end/start of programes. The programs can be cutting edge and risky because there is no commercial pressure in making them.

Here's the downside... every person under the age of 75 that has a TV set has to pay $244 per year for this service. If they are caught with a TV and haven't paid, then they could face jail and a $2000 fine. This fee applies whether they watch the channels provided by this broadcaster or not."


Do you think that would be a fair price to pay? Is is fair to the poor of society? Is this system good for the greater community, even if you don't watch the programmes? Would it be just another tax? Most importantly, if you were a politician, would you agree to it?

 

[The Mom]

I suspect that we're already paying that amount, or more, through federal grants and subsidies to PBS, etc. We're just never presented with the "bill."

Just take a look at your cable bill some time! I know I'm paying about $120+/year already for taxes and "FCC" charges, and I still have to deal with commercials...or pay extra for TIVO. :lol:

 

[Foolish Mortal]

Without a doubt, sounds wrong to me. Actually it sounds like extortion !!!! I like the idea in general, but making people pay for something thay may not want or care about is wrong.

Can you give more info ? It sounds just like cable t.v. in that you would need a box. I'm in cable t.v so this is an interseting sounding topic.

 

[barnum42]

Can you give more info ? It sounds just like cable t.v. in that you would need a box. I'm in cable t.v so this is an interseting sounding topic.

I can see where OG is coming from on this - To get the digital services you either need a set top box that works through a standard aerial (costs about $70) no subscription charge, or it comes bundled with the most basic of cable / sky packages. The internet access is open to anyone for free.

Regardless of whether you use these services you have to pay the annual $244 fee to own a TV set.

 

[TAC]

What about a housing development that does not allow outside antennas, so the homeowners are forced to subscribe to cable ?

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) ruled several years ago that such "covanents" are illegal, which basically permitted the use of the small satellite tv dishes, and tv antennas.

Thank God I don't live in a housing development like that.

 

[ogryn]

Without a doubt, sounds wrong to me. Actually it sounds like extortion !!!! I like the idea in general, but making people pay for something thay may not want or care about is wrong.

Can you give more info ? It sounds just like cable t.v. in that you would need a box. I'm in cable t.v so this is an interseting sounding topic.

You get the analogue stations on a standard tv and aerial, or standard radio. You get the digital stations & analogue if you either get Satellite/Cable or a Set-Top-Box that you plug into your roof aerial.

You pay the same amount if you can recieve these extra services or not.

What about a housing development that does not allow outside antennas, so the homeowners are forced to subscribe to cable ?

The signals are generally strong enough to put an aerial in your attic.

 

[TAC]

The signals are generally strong enough to put an aerial in your attic.

Do you mean satellite TV signals ?

 

[ogryn]

No, terrestrial, via a VHF aerial. Similar to how FM radio would be broadcast.