$220 a year, TV watching TAX. Good Idea? (movies, commercial, satellite tv)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In addition the network of broadcast masks is far more dense than in the USA, and 98.5% of the households can get good digital television via antenna (aerial in British English). The broadcast TV is called Freeview, and consists of a dozen high definition channels and up to 60 standard definition channels. TV's or converter boxes must be "Freeview"compatible.
Studies in the USA show roughly 9% of households use antennas as their primary source of TV, although some studies say the percentage is higher. In contrast 85% of British households get Freeview, but many homes supplement it with cable or more commonly SKY satellite TV. Still, 45% of homes just watch Freeview.
Although it is almost impossible to imagine the USA copying the British model of television, if possible would you be willing to pay a tax of $220 to get high quality BBC style commercial free television,and the ability to get good antenna service?
NO! And that would never work here. I was told once by a television executive that television is to sell advertising, programming is just a side line. I (and a lot of people) live in a rural mountain area with zero over the air antenna stations. We're taxed to death already here.
$220 a year for commercial free tv?? Where can I sign up??
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmozer
Me too!
Netflix. Hulu+, Amazon, bunches of other programming streams. There's no sense in paying the government for something the government doesn't do... well, unless of course your a progressive liberal type thing.
You don't like commercials then go to the movies. Or go outside a catch a lightening bug, or something.
No. My friend in the UK has the same gripes about TV programming as we do here. Too many commercials and cable getting ever more greedy with a monopoly on the sports channels. Their tax based channels don't really give them all that great a deal according to her. Let's keep government out of this.
Oh, and BTW, "high quality BBC TV" is in the eye of the beholder. It's not all "Downton Abbey." Even that isn't all that high quality in some people's eyes and a mandatory tax would be a waste of money. Whose to say what is and what isn't "high quality?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
