Compulsory computer licenses

[104456]

A sort of an off/on computer topic :D

Two Belgian politicians are pushing for a system of compulsory computer licenses to be introduced in Belgium (
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/12/belgian_politicians_want_computer_licences/)

So would you personally back its enforcement ?

The register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/12/belgian_politicians_want_computer_licences/)

[photolady]

I don't know.......the license would be similar to a levy on blank CDs That doesn't seem fair. We use blank CD's for other thing rather than music, and it would seem that I'd be paying double, for the cds? :eek:

[104456]

Hmm............

Try going to the main page http://www.theregister.co.uk and its under the title Belgians moot computer licensing

[usil]

That would b a good idea...

...only if you would then be allowed to download the music and movies legally (free)!

[NoBoB]

I'm glad I read the linked article. I was thinking "Computer License" like "Driver's License", where you would have to show some basic usage ability before buying one or putting one on the net :)

Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

And no, I'd never support the scheme in the link. We don't license our TV's here either :)

[Nix]

Do they still have TV licences in the UK ??

I remember as a child hiding because the TV licence man was coming round and my mum and dad didn't have one, so they told us kids to hide and be quiet. :eek:

That's why we moved to Australia, to get free TV (just kidding).

[P3-450]

Originally posted by Nix
Do they still have TV licences in the UK ??


Yep we do, and you can really see where our money is going, in the quality of repeats....I mean brand new programs that are being shown.:rolleyes:

[104456]

Originally posted by P3-450
Yep we do, and you can really see where our money is going, in the quality of repeats....I mean brand new programs that are being shown.:rolleyes:

Now theres the topic of another UK poll :rolleyes: :D

[photolady]

Licenses for TV? what the heck?? :eek:

[usil]

Photolady, you'd be surprised, but not only are there countries that make you pay for a TV license, but you also have to pay for local telephone calls. :eek:

TV Licenses are usually only for countries that have state owned channels without commercials, like BBC. Governments have to have some kind of way to steal our money besides all those high taxes.

[photolady]

I'm glad I live where I do then. Although, since we have cable or satellite here, we have to pay for those; so, in essence, I guess you would/could call that a license, eh? :(

[usil]

Originally posted by photolady
I'm glad I live where I do then. Although, since we have cable or satellite here, we have to pay for those; so, in essence, I guess you would/could call that a license, eh? :(
LOL, no! You are paying all those greedy TV execs who get money from customers who watch TV and also from the companies who pay for their ads to be run. But for example, ABC, NBC and CBS are for free to watch because they do with the money they get from the Ads industry.
In England (and Israel for that matter), we have state owned tv (Like BBC) without commercials which are paid by taxes (In Israel, for example, if you don't pay your TV License, the authorities can confiscate your bank account, take your car etc.), and then there is the cable/satelite which is also paid for.
Basically, we pay twice.

[fink]

It'll never fly.

What about those who don't use computers to download media files? or those that do but only download legal or paid-for files? Or those that use other peoples or public/internet cafe/library computers?

Should I pay a licence to cover someone elses downloads? I think not.

[Nix]

Originally posted by usil
but you also have to pay for local telephone calls. :eek:


We have to pay for local calls here in Australia.

Please explain the concep of not having to.

ie how does that work and in what countries ?

[usil]

When I used to live in America (New Jersey), local phone calls were free. If you would dial to another area you would have to pay. I am not sure what other fees you had to pay. For all I know, you had to pay a fixed monthly fee, and then you could call locally as much as you want for free. I was a kid back then, so I don't know the details. I am sure someone will explain it more clearly than I did.

[Nix]

That would be cool we're currently clocking up about 550-600 local calls a quarter, mainly because of darn dial up.

At 22c (I think) for a local call, it soon adds up.

[photolady]

Here in the US Nix, we don't pay for local calls. Well, I have to say for some towns; however, in MN we paid a stipend for calling out side of towns further away than 10 miles. And then they add taxes, state federal, and a charge for having the long distance line even if you don't have long distance......:rolleyes:
But usually local calls are free here.

And after the taxes are added, you pay for any extra services, such as call waiting, call forwarding, line service (they fix your lines inside your house for free, if you pay them) otherwise you fix it. Those costs add up, a line fix, if it's not their fault can cost as much as $70 per visit. :( So I guess that's how they can offer free local calling.....In all of this, localling is free, but the phone/line usage can run from $25 to $70 and up a month. Your basic phone line, for residence service is a flat $12.50 but then thay add the taxes and long distance charge.....At least here in my town.

If you guys are paying for local service, what about dialup internet, if you have to pay for the call to the dialup service? Or do you?

[Nix]

Hmm over here we pay a quarterly line rental fee.

We pay for local calls.

We pay for long distance.

We pay for international.

Call waiting is free.

Call forward you pay for on a per call basis.

A thing called message bank which is like an answering machine service is free.

Of course these are all with Telstra, Australia's orignal Telco.

Now that there are some other players in the game all sorts of different deals are being flouted.

EDIT

Yes each connection to dial up is paid for by the user.

I'm looking at moving to ADSL as it only costs AUD$5 a month more thn what I'm currently paying and the ISP will provide free ADSL modem and pay the ADSL enablement fee. A combined saving of AUD$198 and no ongoing costs for having the ADSL line.

As I said to my wife $5 is about 25 calls a month which is not even 1 a day and we easily connect at least once a day though dial up currently. Sometimes 5 or more.

[Micro_Pirate]

Originally posted by Nix

Please explain the concep of not having to.


In the United States, local calls are subsidized by long distance.

[Nix]

I guess it all depends to on how you define local vs long distance

Local for us covers up to about 60Km (37.5 Miles).

[Micro_Pirate]

True. In the U.S., not all that long ago, we used to have just one phone company...AT&T ("affectionately" known as Ma Bell) and its local "Bell" subsidiaries like Bell Atlantic, Pacific Bell etc. These were the parts of AT&T that ran the local part of the business. Back in those days our local calling areas were huge, and local calls were subsidized by business and long distance.

In the early 80's the Federal Govt. broke up AT&T's long standing monopoly and separated the local Bell carriers from AT&T proper, turning them into independant companies. What remained of AT&T proper became the long distance provider, while the newly independant Bells provided local service. Since each REBOC (regional Bell operating carrier) functiontioned independantly, each carved out in its own territories (although with government regulation) what local and long distance meant. The REBOC's provide what is called "local long distance" and this is what now (along with business calling) subsidizes local calling today. Our local calling areas, while in most cases sufficeint, are not the of the size that they once were back in the days when Ma Bell ran the whole show.

Note:

Today, after recent changes, the whole situation is actually even more complex, due to the fact that local companies can now provide long distance and long distance companies can provide local service. Also, many of the original REBOC's are no longer around, having been bought up by other REBOC's. Add to the mix the fact cable companies can provide phone service too. But the above gives you the historical gist of what happened.

[kv]

Sadly, that ridiculous "licensing" scheme was actually implemented in Canada a few years back, with a tarif being added to blank CD media, regardless of it's ultimate intended use. Met with a lot of criticism, and I don't think a cent of the money collected has reached any of the artists it was supposed to protect. (Such is the way of life in a virtual one-party democracy like we have.) The recording industry recently tried to take it a step further, requesting more tarrifs (including $25 tacked onto all MP3 players). In a rare moment of good judgement, they were more or less told to bugger off by the powers that be.

And then again, our courts have also protected our "right" to share protected files, blocking our RIAA-types from forcing ISP's to divulge personal info of customers. So it's really hard to tell where things are going up here. As far as I can tell, the government will more or less allow us to trade files and pirate software, as long as they're getting a piece of the action... :D

And in keeping with the developing tangent, from a local phone service point of view, we're identical to the US model. Local calls are free, LD is chargeable.

One laughable point though, is that we are charged an extra fee for touch tone service that harkens back to the original introduction of touch tone. Customers have no choice but to pay the fee, since most of Bell's upgraded equipment can't handle pulse or rotary anymore.

TV is free if you don't mind using an antenna, but since Canada has one of the highest penetration rates of cable/sat in the world, most of us are paying for it.

Cheers,
KV

[DuaneB]

I was surprised to see how expensive licences (spelled licenses in the US) were in the UK. According to this article in the UK Edition of BBC News, "The cost of a colour licence will increase by £5.50 to £126.50, and a black and white licence by £1.50 to £42, with effect from 1 April, 2005."

TV licence to increase to £126.50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4022873.stm

[techallenged]

Originally posted by DuaneB
I was surprised to see how expensive licences (spelled licenses in the US) were in the UK. According to this article in the UK Edition of BBC News, "The cost of a colour licence will increase by £5.50 to £126.50, and a black and white licence by £1.50 to £42, with effect from 1 April, 2005."

TV licence to increase to £126.50
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/4022873.stm

Hi DuaneB

yes I suppose it is on the expensive side, but I for one am reasonably happy with the value for money I get for it. Look here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/#provides) to see what the money is spent on.

Their news service to me is 2nd to none, and regionally they really help me keep in touch with whats going on in my area via TV, Radio and Web.

The biggest gripe I hear about BBC TV is the number of repeated programs aired.... and there is an element of justification there... but if the repeats are of my favourite old programmes then I'm happy.. :D

Regards

Tech

PS it is way better than the inependant commercial channels...

[DuaneB]

Is that £126.50 per month, per year, or the life of your Television? The article doesn't say - I suppose that they assume that UK readers would know.

[techallenged]

£126.50 per year... approx 33p per day..

and just in case anyone asks... no I dont work for them .. lol

[K G G]

Originally posted by photolady
Licenses for TV? what the heck?? :eek:

You'd be surprised photolady: TV, Radio's (even car radio's) are to be registered and paid annually in Germany. Even if you technically disable the 'government' subsidized channels, you are still supposed to pay.
And I don't even want to go into the telephone thing... :rolleyes:

However, one thing here in the US is the seldom mentioned tax, fee and charges area.

I you have a phone plan for EUR50.- a month in Germany you pay EUR50.- - period.
I you have a $49.99 plan in the US you pay ~$63.- after all so-called surcharges are added on.
(and that's not limited to phones)

IMO - Overall the convenient (free) services here are better, but one ought to be on guard for true cost.

[user595212]

In the United States, local calls are subsidized by long distance.


That's true, but as Micro_Pirate points out, it varies depending on the service available in your area. Around here it has pretty much sorted down to Verizon and AT&T. They offer a dizzying array of plans. The one we're on has us paying $35 or so for unlimited metropolitan area coverage. That covers a wide range in the five-county metropolitan Philadelphia area that's in Pennsylvania (when I say that, keep in mind that three counties in New Jersey just across the river are considered "Philadelphia area" too).

The alternative to this flat rate is keeping track of different tiers of "message units" for calls in a wider and wider radius from my town. Too confusing.

I pay for a second line that has ADSL on it, but (to my knowledge) I don't pay separately for "calls" exactly. It's just DSL-enabled.

Sigh. I remember the good ol' days before the government broke up the monopoly and really screwed us over. I was a telephone operator for a brief time in the late '60s and still remember when you could get an operator (me!) to dial for you if you were too old or confused to dial. I remember free directory assistance!! Now you might get 1-3 of those free and otherwise pay, depending on the plan. And then of course they now have computerized, voice-activated directory assistance. That can get awfully strange. About the only thing good about it is hearing the silky-smooth voice of the actor James Earl Jones saying "Verizon Nationwide 411."

Oh well. This is even further off topic. But I could add another whole thread about voice-mail menus, pleeeeze. The length is ridiculous anymore. Why the ---- don't they just hire some people for God's sake.

Cheers
Wendy
:rolleyes: :mad: :eek: