Of course, there could be more B & W sets in those homes with colour.

BBC News - UK still has 13,000 black-and-white TVs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20957218)

Just shows not everyone is out buying the latest tech.

I was watching The Wizard of Oz at my mate's house at Christmas. I couldn't believe it when Dorothy left Kansas and went all technicolor. Toto will never be the same again. Happy New Year.

Nothing to do with a B&W license costing one third of the price of a colour license?

I would think that there are a lot of pensioners that are happy with B&W TV and others who find the contrast ratio better for poor sighted people.

As for trying to get away with a cheaper option it is now legal requirement for retailers to check that people have a valid colour TV licence here in the UK before they can buy a TV, it happened to me in a store today and the purchaser was asked for their postcode so that if they didnt have a licence then a demand would be issued after the sale!

Makes for fine viewing of "The Third Man," quite possibly my all-time favorite UK production in black & white.

This doesn't include the number of B&W TV's that are used for monitoring or replaying CCTV footage?

No. Those do not require a license; the 13,000 figure has come from the licensing authority for households with B&W tv licenses.

I bet 12,000 of them are in East Anglia :-)

That's a bit ageist isn't it?
What about Eastbourne? ;¬)

I bet 12,000 of them are in East Anglia :-)

Steady...!!!! Actually I saw a graphic yesterday (Telegraph website I think) that showed most of them were in Northern Island! ;-)

One other thing (and it's been a while since I bought a TV), how many of them are people claiming not to have a Colour TV when they move to a new address so that they can get the license 2/3 cheaper?

[That way, because your address is in the Orwellian system as having a license you won't be hassled. They no doubt assume that every address has a TV - and so must need a license, to spell it out].

Not sure about the most B & W licences in raw number terms, but some poorer rural towns in Northern Ireland do have the highest number per thousand.

Retailers have been responsible for completing a form for every tv sold certainly since 1976, even Tesco have to get people to fill in a form. Since the vans with rotating roof racks vanished, this has been the only way they can issue fines to households with no license. Of course, most people just gave details of somebody with one.

I still do my audio in black and white.

Nurse - can I have a cup of tea?

Recently watched the film "Paths Of Glory", directed by Stanley Kubrick in 1957, starring Kirk Douglas in a very good cast.

Black and white, but transmitted in HD and viewed on my HD plasma. Marvellous, maybe partly because one expects anything about the First World War to be B&W.

A long overdue credit to the technicians who constructed the film, which was perfectly lit and shot. Bit like, this afternoon for example, my listening to 1957 recordings by Eric Dolphy, re-mastered onto a CD, and played back on my half decent modern Linn CD player. Entry into another world.


Ron

I still do my audio in black and white.

Nurse - can I have a cup of tea?

But what do you do if it goes into the RED ?

actually if any audio goes into a RED camera it tends to be distorted ! ;0)

There's always the Red Monochrome.

"I still do my audio in black and white." Hysterical!!!!

I've always recorded my cd's in 24 bit color, or colour as you dudes across the pond write.

Jonathan

....or colour as you dudes across the pond write.

Jonathan

That's called English english. ;¬)

Someone please enlighten us American ignorants:

What in the world is a TV license? You guys pay the government to have the right to watch TV?

The BBC is funded through the license. This means you get quality (theoretically) programming with no advertising whatsoever.

After living in the UK for a couple of years I was shocked to see how many ad breaks you have in the US. There are no ads on the BBC. Many European countries have some sort of TV license.

BBC - Annual Report and Accounts 2011/12 - Executive: Understanding the BBC's finances (http://www.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/2012/exec/overview/finances/)

Licence about £140 a year. Because I want to watch live football, rugby and cricket in HD, I pay Sky (Largely American owned) £60 a month as well. Licence is a bargain. Pays for half a dozen radio channels, several orchestras, and a very good online news channel. All minus commercials.

The commercial broadcasters, particularly Sky, HATE, Auntie Beeb which to me shows how good it is, warts and all.


Ron

You pay a lot more indirectly in the USA as all those adverts and sports for the superbowl etc don't get made for nothing, problem is though that the advertiser can affect what you see on the screen or even worse the person who holds and controls your news channels can manipulate to suit his or her own interests so free speech and opinion tends to get blurred depending on who pays the most $$$$ for access!

Over here you just need to look at ITV to see how an independent public service network can be taken over by advertising and the quest for ratings, their regional and diverse content has almost gone in the quest to make a quick buck!

Britain still clinging to it's Empire heydays? :D

Because I want to watch live football, rugby and cricket in HD,

Is the Challenge Cup still shown on BBC TV there?

That's called English english. ;¬)

Britisch Englisch. ;¬D

So, I'm an American who went to Uni in the UK (Lancaster) so I'm vaguely familiar with the license system. But question: do you have to pay for sets that are not in use? That is, do you have to pay a license if you buy a TV but it gets stored in your basement, or you have an old one you just haven't disposed of? And do you have to pay for the set, not the use? How do they deal with people who use computers as their TV? How do they deal with people who use TV's solely as computer monitors (as is common in many post production studios?)

If you use a computer as a TV you need a license. If you only have a monitor I guess this would cover that: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8/

If you don't have a license they want to ensure you don't have a TV being used as a reciever, some people just have radio. Every household gets a reminder about the licence. TV Licensing - Home (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/)

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/understanding-your-tv-licence-top3/

So, I'm an American who went to Uni in the UK (Lancaster) so I'm vaguely familiar with the license system. But question: do you have to pay for sets that are not in use? That is, do you have to pay a license if you buy a TV but it gets stored in your basement, or you have an old one you just haven't disposed of?

A single TV Licence permits all residents in a single dwelling to view as many TVs that are used in that dwelling. (A 'dwelling' does not mean a block of apartments or a hotel). So if you keep all those old CRT sets in the garage or loft, there is no additional charge. If you declare that you have ceased watching TV altogether, (and maybe use the TV sets as monitors for playback of recordings or playing games on a console), no licence is required. One is required if recordings are made from real-time broadcasts/streams.
The authority may call round to verify your declaration that you no longer watch TV and then leave you alone for 2 years.

Britisch Englisch. ;¬D

Not quite, British english include Welsh english, Scottish english and Irish english. {;¬{

Maybe the Licence could be changed. How about only getting your licence once you've passed a viewing test, which would involve resisting reality and celebrity fat camp shows?

Adrian, that sounds like a reasonable request... :)

Australia used to have a licence for the ABC, by most accounts the quality of shows/films made back when there was funding for it (provided by the licence) was far superior in general to what we get these days.

I can't even stand commercial television these days, between the relentless ads and the godawful shows - I've switched to DVDs and digital downloads of TV shows entirely.

Whenever we've been back over in the UK visiting family I've always been really impressed with the TV content. Personally I think the BBC's got a good model.

Irish english. {;¬{

That be only Northern Ireland of course?

A single TV Licence permits all residents in a single dwelling to view as many TVs that are used in that dwelling. (A 'dwelling' does not mean a block of apartments or a hotel). So if you keep all those old CRT sets in the garage or loft, there is no additional charge. If you declare that you have ceased watching TV altogether, (and maybe use the TV sets as monitors for playback of recordings or playing games on a console), no licence is required. One is required if recordings are made from real-time broadcasts/streams.
The authority may call round to verify your declaration that you no longer watch TV and then leave you alone for 2 years.

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?

That be only Northern Ireland of course?
Of course, - although the accent there has a similarity to the brogue spoken by those outside the six counties. (Steps back to avoid any flames).

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?
Not sure what you mean by totalitarian. If you Google 'TV Licence', you can see just how many countries do fully or part fund services by receiving licence or direct government funding. As you can see from other posts in this thread, those who have visited the UK and sampled our regular TV services, seem only envy us for it. Maybe you haven't had the opportunity to make that judgement. Sever
A TV licence is not required to watch DVD's or Blu-Ray material using a monitor which happens to be a TV receiver, or even material recorded off-air by somebody that does have a TV licence. What you cannot do is watch broadcast material at broadcast time from any source, (i.e. not on a 'catch-up' website like the BBC i-Player).
Most UK citizens accept that it is necessary to hold a TV licence and grudgingly (because it is a tax or sorts) pay up without question. There are a few freeloaders who try to justify why they shouldn't pay - as for any tax. The fact is that for many years, it has been demonstrated that (frequently inferior) UK commercial TV programming costs more than the BBC's output through added costs on purchased goods and services and buyers have no choice whether they watch TV or not.

What a horrible totalitarian system. Are they any other countries that do this and what if you want to watch DVDs or Blu ray? What if a laptop to watch online videos was connected to a tv?
I remember some years ago being on a smallish boat for a week, only Brit with everybody else American. Most of the time there was broad commonality in general outlook etc, but when the subject of the TV licence came up I remember almost universal horror about the concept from fellow passengers. But as others have said, when you've grown up with it, you don't really consider it that big a deal, and the majority view in the UK is that it's the least of evils - and the more anyone has lived outside the UK, the stronger that view tends to be.

Every now and then it comes up as a topic for debate, and no, nobody likes taxes - but so far nobody has been able to think of an overall better system of funding. That was really brought home to me during the summer when the BBC televised the Olympics, whilst a commercial channel televised the Paralympics. I don't think I was the only person who was very unimpressed when the opening ceremony of the latter was interrupted for adverts.

Most people see it as the least of evils, and it's FAR less than most cable or satellite subscriptions. Surely it's no different in principle to such as a road fund tax - if you want to use a car on public roads, you have to pay an annual fee? At least with the TV licence the money is ring fenced and goes to the BBC, all road tax doesn't go towards road maintenance!

I don't know what the license fee is, but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.

I don't know what the license fee is, but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.

It's a lot more than that:

BBC1
BBC2
BBC3
BBC4
BBC1 HD
BBC HD
BBC News 24
BBC Parliament
CBBC
BBC Cbeebies

and BBC World and BBC Asia and all the regional BBC local TV stations.

then there is the radio

Radio1
Radio2
Radio3
Radio4
Radio5
Radio6

and even more regional radio stations and loads more I have probably forgotten or I am not aware of as they serve cultural minorities, BBC i-player and all the RED button and on-line services,

then all the world service channels and the commercial channels in other countries makes a public service broadcaster that actually brings in £8 billion worth of revenue on top of the licence fee!

Now what does Mr Murdoch et all do for our country, probably evade paying the tax that is due on their turnover due to offshore fiddles, oh and end up with half of their staff in court for phone tapping etc ?
and ITV have made hundreds of my colleagues and me redundant so they can pay simon cowell et all to make their commercial Pap!

all for less than 50p a day!

Jalan,

How much TV have you personally seen from a broadcaster supported by a 'horribly totalitarian system' like ours? Can you say how it compares in quality and quantity to that served up by your national broadcasters which I presume are 'democratic' and free from government and commercial interference?

In my two holidays in Bali, available TV was restricted to local Indonesian TV and US provided CNN news. It was the choice of the hotels in which I stayed. I was familiar with the CNN service but my Bahasa Indonesia is non-existent so I couldn't appreciate what was being said on the indigenous channels.

............ but I bet it is more than worth the price to have two channels with the world leading quality of the BBC, and not a single commercial break to ruin the flow of a tense program.
And leaving the BBC aside, it means less competition for advertising revenue which benefits the main commercial channels. Hence ITV can fund some pretty expensive drama. The other knockon is that even on the main advertising funded channels, the timing of the adverts is controlled and regulated to defined breaks, rather than being scattered throughout a programme as in many countries.

Jalan,

How much TV have you personally seen from a broadcaster supported by a 'horribly totalitarian system' like ours? Can you say how it compares in quality and quantity to that served up by your national broadcasters which I presume are 'democratic' and free from government and commercial interference?

In my two holidays in Bali, available TV was restricted to local Indonesian TV and US provided CNN news. It was the choice of the hotels in which I stayed. I was familiar with the CNN service but my Bahasa Indonesia is non-existent so I couldn't appreciate what was being said on the indigenous channels.

Each to their own opinions Steve. I have seen plenty of UK TV thanks and whilst most of the dramas produced by the BBC are good quality, there is also an awful lot of junk. Indonesian TV isnt great, and neither is Australian of which do not have a licencing system.

To force lawfully a licence onto individuals is in my opinion wrong. You already purchase the set then pay for the transmission. Nobody yet has answered me about why you cannot just have a TV for DVDs???

Jalan, the way I understand it, is that you're paying the licence fee to watch transmitted TV and radio broadcasts ( including iPlayer etc. ). I think it's possible to have a TV/Monitor just for watching DVDs and not pay, as long as you can prove that it isn't used as a traditional TV.

While I agree that the BBC and licence fee system does work and we benefit from some great programming as a result, it isn't without it's problems and should be questioned on a regular basis to stay relevant, especially as peoples viewing habits change.

Not forgetting the Beebs five orchestras and that they commission something like 200 pieces of original music each year.

Ron

Nobody yet has answered me about why you cannot just have a TV for DVDs???
Well, Steve Game answered you pretty clearly straight after you first asked the question:
A TV licence is not required to watch DVD's or Blu-Ray material using a monitor which happens to be a TV receiver, or even material recorded off-air by somebody that does have a TV licence.
If you want the definitive answer, : TV Licensing - How to tell us you don't watch TV (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/)
.........You don't need a licence if ........... you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
To force lawfully a licence onto individuals is in my opinion wrong. You already purchase the set then pay for the transmission.
Can I ask if you also think it wrong that anyone without children should pay taxes to pay for schools? What about other forms of charges, to pay for water, sewage, and a host of similar services? What if I only drive my car 500 miles a year on public roads - should I pay the same road tax as someone who does 20,000? Are these fees/taxes also a sign of a "horrible totalitarian system"?

No, nobody likes paying taxes of any sort, and I'd be the first to agree that they should be kept to a minimum and there should be a high level of accountability. But realistically, what's the alternative? Isn't it recognised that in principle some level of taxation and public spending is neccessary, the debate within nearly every country being the level, not the principle. And in the UK, the TV licence is probably less unpopular than other forms of fees/taxation.

"have in your possession" and "television receiving apparatus" are the key words. It was also extended to include "capable of" when people started using TV's connected to a VCR to avoid paying the license. So if the TV or VCR could receive TV signals, you needed a license. A TV aerial, or evidence of recording, such as tapes wasn't needed. If it could do it, they could fine you. A monitor and DVD player were ok! They get records from every TV set sale, from the dealer - so it's just a data matching exercise. Frankly though - people now pay many times more for satellite and internet delivery than the TV license costs, so the old complaints don't work any more.

Well, Steve Game answered you pretty clearly straight after you first asked the question:

If you want the definitive answer, : TV Licensing - How to tell us you don't watch TV (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12/)


Can I ask if you also think it wrong that anyone without children should pay taxes to pay for schools? What about other forms of charges, to pay for water, sewage, and a host of similar services? What if I only drive my car 500 miles a year on public roads - should I pay the same road tax as someone who does 20,000? Are these fees/taxes also a sign of a "horrible totalitarian system"?
Seems you quite like the idea of socialism??....

I'll say no more. Seems the UK TV licence advocate are more than happy with thier system. Glad I don't live there.

Bye

Not forgetting the Beebs five orchestras and that they commission something like 200 pieces of original music each year.

If you like Classical that is.

"socialism??"

Countries need a means to pay for their infrastructures etc. Taxes are a balancing act for governments. For all the BBC's flaws, the TV license is probably one of the best bargains around.

Film and TV soundtracks are full of classically based music. The BBC has to cover the musical tastes of a wide range of people, it also transmits contemporary music that's not forced onto a DJ's play list.

Seems you quite like the idea of socialism??....

If a TV licence and publically funded health and education services are socialism, then according to what I have read, the Indonesian population also enjoys its benefits:
1) TVRI is funded in part by the government from general taxation.
2) In 2014, there will be universal social health insurance coverage for the whole population.
3) Although progress is slow, there are moves to provide adequate funds from central taxation to create universal education for 12 of a child's developing years.
All three of the above services are paid for by taxation that is levied on individuals whether they have a TV, are ever needing medical support or have any children of school age. This model is replicated in countries across the globe many of which would not be described as the slightest bit 'socialist' by even the most capitalist of commentators.
Steve

Seems you quite like the idea of socialism??....
I like the idea of a mixed economy, so no, not any more than many other "...ism's", anyway. :-) There are some ventures that work best in the public sector - funded by taxation or licence - others which are far better suited to private enterprise. That's the practice in nearly all democracies, the debate and differences between them are really where to draw lines.

And in terms of TV here, then it's a mixture anyway - the licence fee pays for one set of programming, advertising pays for another. Which gives competition within the industry, yet stops it being totally money driven - it may not be ideal or without fault, but it seems to deliver far better than other systems that have been tried.

Do you know of any country on the planet that doesn't charge it's citizens any form of taxation?