[Draft 4] - Prohibition On Fees For Owning TV Sets

[Simone Republic]

Update: this is (kind of) on hold for now since there's too much pushback that this regulation is specifically British and Japanese (ie against BBC and NHK, respectively).

Motivation

This is largely in response to the fact that many European countries such as France, Denmark, or other countries such as Australia, Canada and Malaysia have strong public broadcasting services but have abolished license fees, leaving Britain (159 pounds per year), France, Japan and much of Africa as the exceptions. So it's not an American issue, but it is an issue that still affects hundreds of millions of people worldwide.

Background

For those not familiar with the Television license (such as the US): in many countries (UK, Japan being the main ones now), a tax per person/per household is collected for ownership of a television set capable of receiving television signals. It is not related to your cable or satellite bills.

So in these countries there's no such thing as "free to air" television at all - not paying the tax for ownership of a television set is sometimes an offence. Many countries have abolished it (France in 2022, Denmark, Australia, Singapore etc) but this persists and I consider this tax both regressive (hurts the poor, who can't afford Netflix and streaming news sites and what not) and not conductive to the free flow of information.

As George Orwell says (on the statue outside the BBC), quoting from a line from 1984 that did not make the first edition - 'If Liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear'.

Paragraph 4 come from certain countries (such as the UK) making it difficult for neighbouring countries to receive their signals, again due to television license fees.

Category: social justice/mild

Draft 3

The World Assembly (WA),

Frustrated that some WA states impose a fee for temporary ownership of equipment needed to receive television (TV) signals, (sometimes known as "fees for licenses for TV reception equipment", and, in this resolution, "fees" for short, and, for this purpose, excludes any fees for subscriptions to TV services such as cable broadcasts, premium channels, and Internet streaming services), in order to use the revenue from such "fees" to pay for the operating costs of each member's government-owned or affiliated broadcasters;

Enraged that such "fees", usually on a recurring basis at a rate per TV set or per households and sometimes more expensive than the cost of buying a TV set, putting undue pressure on the budgets of lower income households, and sometimes forcing these households to access to TV broadcasts without paying such fees, which reduces access to important broadcasts such as live public affairs, debates and news bulletins that are essential to the functioning of a democracy;

Exasperated that vulnerable inhabitants in a WA state, such as those with less opportunity for education or with learning and other disabilities (such as deafness or dyslexia), digest information more readily through TV presentations than through other means such as print media and radio, and thus end up relying on TV, the reception of which may end up being priced out of their reach;

Strongly expresses the determination that such "fees" are a form of discrimination against households with lower levels of education and those with learning and other disabilities, and creating an undesirable situation that is best addressed by member states acting collectively through the World Assembly, thus hereby requires, upon the passing of this resolution, that:

1. Such "fees" shall be prohibited in all member states of regardless of whether they are collected by a government on behalf of, or or directly by, a broadcaster, and regardless of whether such fees are for the right to receive TV, radio or other broadcast signals or other similar technologies used across the multiverse;
   
2. Unearned "fees" (such as prepayments on an "annual" basis based on a member's calendar) be refunded by member states to those that paid such "fees", on a pro-rata basis;
   
3. Cultural exchange being an important element of diversity in the multiverse, strongly encouraging all members that support TV stations through government funding to make their TV signals and content available to other countries, subject to commercial and technical considerations, through such means as each member may deem fit;
   
4. Knowledge and access to the latest technologies such as Internet streaming be strongly encouraged to be shared between those member states with access to such technologies with those that do not have such technologies.

[PotatoFarmers]

Against. I don't think that an outright ban on pay-to-watch shows is good for the television industy - this means an over reliance on advertisement, and it ruins the viewers experience. Take away the advertisement and the show producers, actors, etc are going to earn peanuts, so either way it hurts the industy rathet than benefit them.

I am more in favour of a policy where some basic channels must be free-to-air, but not complete abolishment.

[Kenmoria]

“I would like to swiftly declare the support of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly for this measure. Broadcasting fees are nothing more than an attempt to restrict access to a vital medium of information, all in the sad name of profit. There appears to be a scrivener’s error in the first article, a lack of finishing punctuation, which can be easily fixed.

My only real concern, and it is a minor one, is also about the first article. Where a nation has been collecting broadcasting fees for many decades, a refund of all of them might be extremely difficult, to the point of impossibility. Much as it would be theoretically desirable for all this unjust taxation to be returned, I feel as though some limitation based on the ability of the member-state to pay would be desirable.”

[Simone Republic]

Against. I don't think that an outright ban on pay-to-watch shows is good for the television industy - this means an over reliance on advertisement, and it ruins the viewers experience. Take away the advertisement and the show producers, actors, etc are going to earn peanuts, so either way it hurts the industy rathet than benefit them.

I am more in favour of a policy where some basic channels must be free-to-air, but not complete abolishment.

It's only pay to watch public broadcasting, ie basically BBC and NHK in Japan, ZDF/ADR in Germany etc. France scrapped it last year.

For those not familiar with what a "television license fee" is, I have added a primer above.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Countries are to immediately abolished all "broadcast license fees" (including fees that may be applicable to television as well as older technologies such as radios and other similar technologies employed across the multiverse), and that countries are free to fund their public broadcasting activities, if they conduct them, through any other means , such as direct government funding, advertising, charity fund raising, or such other means as they deem appropriate;

Believing firmly in the benefits to member countries ("countries") of the WA from introducing "free-to-air broadcasting", via technologies such as linear television, in fostering debate, entrenching democracy, promoting dialogue, improving education, and spreading knowledge across the populations;

Concerned that such so-called "fees" amount to a regressive form of tax on what is supposed to be "free to air" television in that it is frequently based on "per television set owned" rather than being assessed based on the ability to pay, thus reducing opportunities for poorer populations in member countries from gaining access to contents available through broadcasting if they cannot afford the tax, while wealthier members of the population may have access to more advanced but pricier technologies such as Internet streaming and other new forms of content;

OOC: Regarding the first quote I doubt that people would be willing to support a charity drive that gives money to news companies over a charity that supports the poor and vulnerable. Also, I made some minor grammar corrections above. Otherwise, I support this.

[Attempted Socialism]

I lobbied for the removal of the Danish fee (Because it's a regressive tax -- in practise a poll tax because any capacity to access the public broadcaster through TV, web, radio would make you liable, so any modern phone, computer, as well as any TV or radio), but I simply can't see how this is a matter for the WA, and even if it were, how would this resolution square with GAR#17, clause 8? Any state who wishes to keep the fee can rename it to a flat tax, after all.

[Heidgaudr]

I lobbied for the removal of the Danish fee (Because it's a regressive tax -- in practise a poll tax because any capacity to access the public broadcaster through TV, web, radio would make you liable, so any modern phone, computer, as well as any TV or radio), but I simply can't see how this is a matter for the WA, and even if it were, how would this resolution square with GAR#17, clause 8? Any state who wishes to keep the fee can rename it to a flat tax, after all.

+1 to everything said here (except I didn't lobby for the removal of the Danish fee). The subject as it stands is too niche and conflicts with #17's blocker.

I definitely see merit in subsidizing the creation and running of public TV, radio, and news in members with the caveat that such mediums must remain truly free and public in order to qualify for WA funds.

[Tinhampton]

I preferred the old title.

Article 1 should be split into two parts: the fee ban and the clarification that member states (acting individually) may otherwise fundraise how they want.

Will offer more detailed comments later.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

IC: This subject is inappropriate. Such things are the purely internal affairs of a member state that the WA has no business sticking its nose into, and may well run afoul of this assembly's entirely proper decision to not meddle in the taxation systems of its members.

OOC:

On the odd off chance that this makes it through a legal challenge:

The bothered clause talks about "television license fees" and explains what they are. However, the first active clause abolishes "broadcast license fees" which, to me, means something entirely different, namely a license purchased by the broadcaster for the right to use a specific part of the broadcast spectrum for its programming.

My understanding is you want to abolish fees on households/consumers for owning a television, not abolish fees on broadcast corporations for leasing the spectrum. I would suggest tightening and clarifying the language used.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I agree that the subject is perhaps too niche.

[Simone Republic]

All replies in a single message.

I preferred the old title.

Article 1 should be split into two parts: the fee ban and the clarification that member states (acting individually) may otherwise fundraise how they want.

Will offer more detailed comments later.

I changed it back. I changed it back and forth and it's now "prohibition on fees for owning television sets" again due to concerns that US and Canadian voters who don't know what a "broadcasting fee" is would be confused.

I agree that the subject is perhaps too niche.

It is indeed more of a matter for Europe and Japan and Africa than for the United States and the rest of the world: Germany, UK, Japan are the three main global north countries that still has a broadcasting fee. This plus much of Africa (Ghana, Nigeria, South Africa), so it's an issue that still affects over hundreds of millions of people.

France recently abolished it, so did Denmark, as Attempted Socialism pointed out.

The matter is trans-national because (for example) the broadcasting fee for the Republic of Ireland goes towards paying for the BBC as well, in an example of either (1) rampant colonialism or (2) cost sharing, depending on your point of view.

In the US, because PBS is indirectly funded through NET, CPB etc., this is less of an issue.

I lobbied for the removal of the Danish fee (Because it's a regressive tax -- in practise a poll tax because any capacity to access the public broadcaster through TV, web, radio would make you liable, so any modern phone, computer, as well as any TV or radio), but I simply can't see how this is a matter for the WA, and even if it were, how would this resolution square with GAR#17, clause 8? Any state who wishes to keep the fee can rename it to a flat tax, after all.

I lobbied for the removal of the Danish fee (Because it's a regressive tax -- in practise a poll tax because any capacity to access the public broadcaster through TV, web, radio would make you liable, so any modern phone, computer, as well as any TV or radio), but I simply can't see how this is a matter for the WA, and even if it were, how would this resolution square with GAR#17, clause 8? Any state who wishes to keep the fee can rename it to a flat tax, after all.

+1 to everything said here (except I didn't lobby for the removal of the Danish fee). The subject as it stands is too niche and conflicts with #17's blocker.

I definitely see merit in subsidizing the creation and running of public TV, radio, and news in members with the caveat that such mediums must remain truly free and public in order to qualify for WA funds.

This is a trans-national matter for some countries, such as the Republic of Ireland paying for the BBC's output.

I believe GAR#17 clause 8 is not an issue because it is (1) a fee (2) in many cases (such as Germany), not directly paid to the government, but paid to Der Rundfunkbeitrag, and therefore not a tax. NHK is also explicitly not a tax, the government mandates that owners of TV sets must sign a contract with NHK, but that's also not a tax but a contractual fee - a fee required to be paid by legislation to an independent entity (owned by the government) for usage of equipment is not a tax, in my view.

I am aware this interpretation probably invites a Gensec case.

Obviously a government can around that by imposing a tax or funding public broadcasting out of general taxation instead, as France and (as you mentioned) Denmark has done.

IC: This subject is inappropriate. Such things are the purely internal affairs of a member state that the WA has no business sticking its nose into, and may well run afoul of this assembly's entirely proper decision to not meddle in the taxation systems of its members.

OOC:

On the odd off chance that this makes it through a legal challenge:

The bothered clause talks about "television license fees" and explains what they are. However, the first active clause abolishes "broadcast license fees" which, to me, means something entirely different, namely a license purchased by the broadcaster for the right to use a specific part of the broadcast spectrum for its programming.

My understanding is you want to abolish fees on households/consumers for owning a television, not abolish fees on broadcast corporations for leasing the spectrum. I would suggest tightening and clarifying the language used.

Yes it's a fee on households for owning a television. It's called a "broadcasting fee" in many jurisdictions but I am going to change the name back to avoid the confusion as above, as the fee is not familiar to anyone in the US (which never had it), or Australia (which abolished it in 1974) or Canada (abolished in 1953), New Zealand (1999) or Singapore (2011) or India (1984).

It would be more familiar to continental European or Indian players, since Germany still has it (Euro 160 per year), France and Denmark abolished it last year (2022), along with the UK, Ireland, Japan.

[Simone Republic]

First bump.

[The Ice States]

"Opposed. This would be better addressed by mandating that all tax programmes are not overly burdensome upon poorer victims of the capitalist system, rather than imposing a blanket ban on taxing ownership of a certain item. We agree with other Ambassadors that it would be beneficial to instead require member nations to subsidise essential television channels."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

I believe GAR#17 clause 8 is not an issue because it is (1) a fee (2) in many cases (such as Germany), not directly paid to the government, but paid to Der Rundfunkbeitrag, and therefore not a tax. NHK is also explicitly not a tax, the government mandates that owners of TV sets must sign a contract with NHK, but that's also not a tax but a contractual fee - a fee required to be paid by legislation to an independent entity (owned by the government) for usage of equipment is not a tax, in my view.

Ooc: I am not on Gensec, but I don't think this is a colourable argument for legality when you explicitly refer to it as a "tax" in the proposal's preamble.

[The New Nordic Union]

Obviously a government can around that by imposing a tax or funding public broadcasting out of general taxation instead, as France and (as you mentioned) Denmark has done.

What is the point then? A nation taking a fee or a nation levying a (flat) tax have exactly the same implications with regard to poorer parts of the population being affected and the freedom of information, which seem to be your main concerns. If you can't prevent both forms, I'd say it's moot to just ban one.

[Heidgaudr]

I have posted a legality challenge of the current draft here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532467

[Simone Republic]

The draft has been updated in response to the legality challenge. (Obviously I carefully cleaned out all references to the word "tax").
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532467

The legality challenge is on draft 2, my revised draft is on draft 3.

As an aside, I do actually happen to vaguely know of an acquaintance who lives in the UK who specifically declined to pay the licensing fee, because she refuses to have a PC/laptop at home and uses a feature phone and a Kindle to read. Obviously her employer pays the fee for the computers at her office. She mentioned it before that she refuses to have a laptop at home to keep her home/work life completely separate and also refuses to use a smartphone for the same reason.

I would imagine that anyone following Amish traditions would not have to pay the fee either.

[Simone Republic]

Bump.

Reminder that this is still pending a legal challenge:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532467

The title has been shortened to "Prohibition on fees for owning TV sets" to fit the legal challenge's title.

[Simone Republic]

Bump

(IC on the (now heavily used) World Assembly official bumper)

[Simone Republic]

Second bump

[States of Glory WA Office]

Countries are to immediately abolished all "broadcast license fees" (including fees that may be applicable to television as well as older technologies such as radios and other similar technologies employed across the multiverse), and that countries are free to fund their public broadcasting activities, if they conduct them, through any other means , such as direct government funding, advertising, charity fund raising, or such other means as they deem appropriate;

Neville: 'Not only is this not an international issue but the suggested alternatives have their own problems.

'Direct government funding? Do I need to explain why that would be a disaster for impartiality? A government could easily cow a state broadcaster into submission by threatening to cut funding. Also, from where does a government get its money? Through taxes, usually. Therefore, the taxpayer will have to subsidise this service even if they do not own or intend to own a TV set, and I do not see that as being popular with a lot of people.

'As for advertising, give me a break, if you'll pardon the pun. The funds raised from such endeavours will rely on TV ratings, and I think it would be a shame for public service broadcasters to be beholden to such metrics. Also, do you not think that some nations may not want public broadcasting to be sold to the highest bidder?

'Charity has much the same problem as advertising in that it simply is not reliable. If viewers do not pay voluntarily then what? You might respond that perhaps public service broadcasters ought to broadcast what the people want so that they may receive donations, but surely, one of the benefits of public service broadcasting is that it avoids the populism that dominates editorial decisions in the sphere of commercial broadcasting?

'Subscription is another alternative that has not been mentioned specifically, and all we can say is that if the goal is to ensure that the poor can access public service broadcasting then requiring a subscription is obviously not going to help matters in that regard.

We are not saying that the television licence model is without its flaws, but every proposed solution has its flaws. It should therefore be left up to each member state to decide for themselves. Not every hot-button issue needs to be settled by the World Assembly and I think it's about time that some delegations realised that fact.'

[Simone Republic]

*bump* given that Gensec decided to rule that this resolution is legal after, um, ten months. (OK I didn't ask the Pink Brigade to expedite).

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=532467

[Comfed]

I concur with some of the people who have already posted in this thread that this is not a subject worthy of GA legislation.

[Simone Republic]

I concur with some of the people who have already posted in this thread that this is not a subject worthy of GA legislation.

It is admittedly not an American problem. It is largely now down to the parts of Europe including Austria, Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, plus Japan, Korea (South) and the UK. France and Denmark scrapped their fees recently.

[Bananaistan]

"The topic is not worthy of international attention and, in any case, this approach is bad policy. Public service broadcasting is a positive for any country, and doubly so when paid for by a revenue stream independent of the whims of whichever group of politicians happen to be in power at a given time.

"But anyway, seeing as how the powers that be have decided that this is not a tax, it would be a trivial process for member states to just replace this "fee" with a tax that achieves the exact same result."

[Anonymegg]

This is an issue that needs to be adressed