BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

When did television become a 'right'?

  
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
13:15 / 29.03.06
Here and here are a couple of recent reports on calls for public funds to be given to help people acquire digital television equipment prior to the UK government's planned switch over from the analogue to digital signal between 2008 and 2012.

These are just two that turned up in my cuttings today - these calls are not new and the BBC has been forced to play a leading role in driving the move to digital, despite endless criticism over the licence fee already. According to the Guardian article linked to:

"the BBC has been charged with playing a leading role in digital switch-over, including subsidising set-top boxes and helping to win over 'digital refuseniks'".

However, the suggestion is that this cost should be met by the Treasury, according to the FT, because:

"the government's planned targeted assistance programme was too limited, and risked leaving socially isolated viewers 'watching a blank screen'".

Tory chairman of the culture, media and sport committee comments that there are "too many people who do not qualify for government assistance, yet are in geniune need". (emphasis mine)

So, since when did being able to watch television in your own home become a state-supported right. In all honesty, I'm not frothing at the mouth angry about this, but it just seems completely out of proportion. I mean, the government didn't hand out free televisions when they were first introduced and the first broadcasts made. Indeed, many of us probably have 'last family in the street to get one' style stories.

I suppose I dislike some of the things it might be saying about the relationship between state and individual and the function of television in that.

Anyway, am I just moany git or should people not be expected to fund their own box-top sets? Can someone unable to watch television be described as 'genuinely needy' because of that inability? Why and to whom is it so important that we all have access to television that it requires government intervention and public funding to perpetuate?

I realise that this is probably completely irrelevant to anyone except Brits. That being said, I imagine that similar switch overs will be taking place elsewhere - what's happening in the US? I'm also ashamed that I have no idea how this is being handled in Australia (from whence I spring). Enlighten and soothe my tv-funding rage...

Oh, and I didn't put this in Switchboard because although I think there is a very serious political dimension to it, it's about tv and I thought it might get an interesting response here. If people feel it should be shifted, shift away.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
13:34 / 29.03.06
Primarily you need to read this wiki entry on the BBC in order to understand that it is a government owned broadcasting service. As a public service everyone is paying for it and thus should have access to it, that's why the suggestion that the government should fund access to all of its programmes for people who can't afford digital equipment but pay the licence fee are so prevalent.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
14:02 / 29.03.06
I understand the nature and funding of the BBC. The point is that you pay for a licence fee after you buy a television. Now, throughout the history of analogue, do you recall calls for government to fund antennas for people to be able to receive an analogue signal? Do you recall calls for the government to pay for the installation of these devices so that people could watch their analogue televisions? The BBC is funded through the licence which you buy, *once* you have bought a television. In the past, when you bought a television you would need to buy the means to receive the signal - if you were not extremely fortunate to live in the kind of area that had such a clear, wonderful signal that you could watch BBC channels through the rabbit ears that may have come attached to the top of your tv (cost built in to purchase, no doubt). This meant the majority of people, from what I have been able to glean on the internet, then faced the additional personal expense required to receive the signals on the television you had bought sanctioned by the licence you had paid for.

So surely not the same situation? Reading that wiki entry, you will see that the BBC is not a public service broadcaster in the commonly used sense. As a public service, everyone is not paying for it - people who buy licences are paying for it. This is also made clear in the funding section of that wiki.

Obviously, there is a whole other debate on whether people who might buy a tv and a digital receiver and never watch BBC channels should be required to buy a licence, but that's not really relevant. My point is that in order to watch television in the past, the onus was on the individual to purchase the equipment required - now it is being suggested that the state should fund at least part of this purchase.

I don't see why, and I disagree with the suggestion that people are being failed by society - left in *geniune need* because they can't watch television.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
14:04 / 29.03.06
Wow - I am clearly much more frothy at the mouth than I realised. Sorry if that seemed like a rant, Nina. I'm going to go and cycle home aggressively through the traffic now...
 
 
Mistoffelees
14:05 / 29.03.06
Until the beginning of last year, if you got welfare in Germany, you could get 250,00 € for a new tv. And you didn´t have to pay the tv-fee [17.00 € a month]. There was a reform, and since 01.2005 both of the above mentioned points were stopped.
 
 
Elijah, Freelance Rabbi
16:13 / 29.03.06
The issue may have something to do with the fact that the government, for no realistic reason, is making the current technology obsolete.

I live in the US, so I might be very wrong here, but it would seem to me that if I were paying a mandatory fee for TV as part of my tax money I would be pretty annoyed if the feds decided that I still need to pay those taxes but my less then 5 year old equipment was obsolete.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:16 / 29.03.06
Elijah- I think the point Tabitha's making is that it ISN'T a mandatory tax- the BBC is funded by the license fee, which is only levied on those who own a television.

(Funny- and off-topic- thing being, for years I had no TV, and even now I have one- though I have now bought a license- I was/am getting all my BBC goodness through the medium of radio. Which you don't need a license for!)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:19 / 29.03.06
I don't mind you ranting, I think it's a fair thing to get riled up about, I just wasn't sure how much you knew about the Beeb in light of your comment on the relationship between state and individual and the function of television in that. The relationship between the state, the appointment of governors and thus the Director General and the function of this particular institution is complex because the BBC is directly linked to the state. People pay the licence fee for the BBC and a good proportion of that money is going towards channels that they can't access so it seems a little unfair to have to pay extra on top of that when you've already bought a TV aerial that is shortly to become defunct. No one has control over the decision they've made to not broadcast analogue television in the UK anymore. There's also this ingrained perception that the BBC in some way belongs to us because of its structure but also its cultural history. I think this is a wartime home service thing that remains a huge association in older people's minds.

In short public funding is being used because this is a public service that many people don't have real access to despite being charged for it. Having said all of that I'm not really bothered either way- I don't see a problem in this in and of itself, there are better things I would like to see the money spent on but all of them would cost a great deal more and are far more complex in terms of implementation. Then again I believe in state owned institutions, state governance, the state providing support in all areas, the state in fact so to take that to its logical conclusion I have no problem with the state providing people who can't afford digital boxes with them. Better that they spend their money on healthier food and different types of luxuries than TV boxes. I am "a filthy communist".

In addition I would like to emphasise this quote from the FT article James Purnell, minister for the creative industries, said: "We will ensure no one gets left behind through a comprehensive package of help for those who independent research tells us are most in need of it - over-75s and people with significant disabilities. I particularly see no problem in helping those people who spend a significant amount of time at home, have easier lives in their homes. For some people in the categories Purnell mentions the television functions as an easy way to gather information about what is happening in places that they can't reach but would like to know about. A lot of over-75s have difficulty reading, to help them continue to have forms of entertainment that are always accessible to them seems sensible and a matter of good will.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:24 / 29.03.06
Yeah, I'll admit to being a bit confused about this - why is the government so hellbent on ditching analogue?

Whatever the reason, it's easy enough to imagine the Millbank psychology - lovely OAP's are deprived of their telly by a hard-hearted government, cue a blizzard of tabloid headlines, offers of free digi-boxes, etc... No self-respecting spin doctor's going anywhere near that.

And I suspect this would apply even if the move to digital is basically the result of cetain promises made to the proprietor of verious leading UK red-tops.

As usual, it seems reasonable to assume that the whole thing stinks.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:27 / 29.03.06
Sorry, that last a cross-post to Elijah, and his point re: the lack of discernible reasons for the enforced move to digital.
 
 
■
21:44 / 29.03.06
When I first opened the thread I thought: "Whoa! some people really need their TVs." Then after a minute of thought, I realised no-one really NEEDS a TV except, perhaps, deaf people who wouldn't be able to get regular news elsewhere. Otherwise I find radios tend to do a better job of informing. Like Nina says, it's a goodwill thing.
I know some elderly people who would be lost without the companionship of the flickering wallpaper, though. Mind you, they never watch anything but ITV, so why can't the advertisers band together and buy these boxes for those who just watch commercial channels?

I am also rather surprised that I have no good answer for the "why switch off?" apart from the fact that the government could make a ton of cash by flogging the frequencies, presumably for some as-yet-uninvented new technology or to increase wireless/phone bandwidth. Don't those operate on UHF, though, not VHF? Could be the increased use of SatNav and RFID tracking technology, too.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
07:05 / 30.03.06
Nina - first, you are quite right in that this will largely go to assist elderly and disabled people and I genuinely don't begrudge the money. Despite my ranting, I'm not at all angry about the idea of spending state funding to provide a service for disadvantaged people. I am a great believer in state-owned institutions and support, and a staunch supporter of the BBC.

My concern is with the idea, which it seems to me underpins this, that to be able to watch television is some kind of 'right'. Again, that someone could be said to be in genuine need without it.

My ridiculously vague reference to 'the relationship between state and individual and the function of television in that' was not aimed at the relationship between the BBC and government (although that is a very interesting issue in itself), but more about how both government and individuals use (rely on?) television.

I work in a Government department Press Office. The Department I work for is without doubt one of the most important to the disadvantaged. It is very big. It is currently making significant cuts to front line staff - those cuts are not coming in the press office, or indeed in any area of communications that I can see at the corporate level.

Where is this babbling leading: I suspect the government now considers it so important that it is able to reach (read manipulate?) every individual in society through television that it is prepared to centrally fund this where necessary. A Minister will drop everything to be on GMTV with a nice, 'soft' message - but may not even return the call for a quote in The Times.

Further, I think it reflects a lack of critical questioning of the role of television in people's lives that while we are removing certain relief and benefits for the elderly, we are unquestioningly giving them access to tv for this will what? Alleviate their suffering? Make them feel included in society? Do we now believe that a needy person is one without a television and that by giving people the means to receive it we are caring for them as a society?

The German situation would seem to raise the same issues that I am concerned about, although obviously it has been changed. I assume you are having a switch over though - is there state funding for the change?

Elijah, Alex, Cube and others raise yet another thorny question - why the switch over? And where does the support end? Now we go to digital signals, what about when broadcast is HD? Will the needy be funded to upgrade their televisions?

Perhaps a Pager thread call might attract some lab types with more information on the impetus for change.
 
 
Tabitha Tickletooth
07:13 / 30.03.06
Sorry for the double post, but Cube's post reminded me of this:

According to Age Concern, there is no national scheme providing financial help with telephones for older people. So the current funding model would seem to indicate that an elderly person needs a television more than a phone? I disagree.
 
 
Mistoffelees
09:06 / 30.03.06
The German situation would seem to raise the same issues that I am concerned about, although obviously it has been changed. I assume you are having a switch over though - is there state funding for the change?

I don´t know, what you mean by state funding. The change happened as part of a giant "welfare reform". The goal was to cut expenses, and of course the expenses have exploded.

In Germany, we have many government tv and radio stations, and that´s the reason for the fee. The kick is: tvs and radios, that only broadcast private stations are technically possible but illegal. So, you don´t have a choice, you have to pay.

These days, I only pay for radio, since I don´t own a tv. But next year, everybody (no exceptions anymore!) will have to pay the whole fee, regardless if you own tv/radio/nothing. I´m sure there will be legal action against that, and I intend to sue my government.

And for the "from analogue to digital television":
We have that only in certain cities yet, for example here in Berlin. Welfare people got a receiver (worth about a 100 € ), so they could still receive the stations. When they had really old tvs/radios [where the receiver didn´t help], they got money (see above) for new ones. So that´s similar to the UK.
 
 
DaveBCooper
11:29 / 30.03.06
Um, isn’t the British Govt keen to shift to digital because they can flog off those old analogue airwaves to phone companies and the like? And keep the money (cue debate of who owns it, etc)?

I think that’s much more of a motivating factor then any concerns about low-income folks having access to TV, or a means to control our minds (they’ve been doing that with the chemicals in the water for years anyway).
 
  
Add Your Reply