$220 a year, TV watching TAX. Good Idea?

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Nodpete

I already get 60+ channels with my antenna, doesn't cost me a dime. And no, I wouldn't pay a dime to watch any TV.

Originally Posted by jim9251

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.

See part of what the money does is pay for enough broadcast towers, and repeaters so that nearly everyone gets good service. British broadcast all use the optimal frequencies so that people can receive signals with indoor antennas (unlike the USA).

But for the gentleman who already gets a lot of channels on his antenna he would be getting more commercial free television. Not all of it would be super high quality drama, but much of it would be news and talk shows.

Roughly 85% of the British households watch antenna TV, but half of them supplement with cable or satellite.
Roughly 85% of the American households do not watch antenna TV, but most of the local channels are on cable or satellite.

CBS is a commercial channel, and it has been in high profile disputes regarding retransmission fees on cable or satellite. So far they have been resolved so that CBS has not been taken off the cable for very long.

In the UK such a dispute with the core 60 channels can't happen. They are receivable by antenna, and the cable and satellite channels are supplemental.

As you can imagine if you have new TV's much of the equipment is built into the TV. If you have old TV's you have a complex mess of boxes, converters and switches.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 was no doubt set up using the BBC as an example, just as the BBC-TV was designed to be different from American TV.

[AuburnAL]

No.

Not sure what's so great about the BBC other than Doctor Who.

[Minervah]

No commercials? Whatever would we on the TV forum have to come here and complain about???

Seriously, as I mentioned, I ran this by my friend in the UK and she doesn't think their system is the greatest. That's why most Brits subscribe to cable which is just as much a pain in the neck as ours.

Regarding the "high quality shows" on BBC, I think that's in the mind of the viewer. Some like the shows on that channel, some don't. Some choose to have cable, some OTA some no TV at all. I can't see having everyone pay a tax of $220 for entertainment they may not want or use. That's a lot of money for many of us in these times.

Thinking about it, I couldn't say I would support the idea.

[treasurekidd]

You don't like commercials then go to the movies. Or go outside a catch a lightening bug, or something.

Or maybe even read a book! I know, I know, crazy, right?

[treasurekidd]

$220 a year for commercial free tv?? Where can I sign up??

Umm, for those of us old enough to remember, that was the whole point of paying for cable TV in the beginning.