<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: TV licenses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 20:05:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/#comment-57</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:03:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.russellquinn.com/?p=51#comment-57</guid>
		<description>I received a reply today from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport:

Dear Russell,

Thank you for your e-mail of 19 October regarding the cost of TV licence payments. Your e-mail has been passed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which has policy responsibility for broadcasting and I have been asked to reply.

It may be useful if I provide some background information in answer to your query. Historically, the discrepancy in the licence fee for colour and black and white televisions arose as colour televisions were originally considered, in the 60&#039;s and early 70&#039;s, as luxury items. It was thought that a higher licence fee was therefore appropriate.

Today, the black and white tv licence operates as a type of informal concession to the licence fee, where people can still have access to television even if they are unwilling to pay, or cannot afford the full licence fee. Currently, less than 1% of people own black and white and the Government sees no reason to alter the difference between the cost of the licence fee for black and white and colour televisions.

I should also point out that the Government believes that the current licence fee settlement is fair and realistic and will allow the BBC to maintain its existing services and fulfil its obligations under the Charter and Agreement.


Central Information and Briefing Unit
Nick Pellegrini</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I received a reply today from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport:</p>
<p>Dear Russell,</p>
<p>Thank you for your e-mail of 19 October regarding the cost of TV licence payments. Your e-mail has been passed to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport which has policy responsibility for broadcasting and I have been asked to reply.</p>
<p>It may be useful if I provide some background information in answer to your query. Historically, the discrepancy in the licence fee for colour and black and white televisions arose as colour televisions were originally considered, in the 60&#8242;s and early 70&#8242;s, as luxury items. It was thought that a higher licence fee was therefore appropriate.</p>
<p>Today, the black and white tv licence operates as a type of informal concession to the licence fee, where people can still have access to television even if they are unwilling to pay, or cannot afford the full licence fee. Currently, less than 1% of people own black and white and the Government sees no reason to alter the difference between the cost of the licence fee for black and white and colour televisions.</p>
<p>I should also point out that the Government believes that the current licence fee settlement is fair and realistic and will allow the BBC to maintain its existing services and fulfil its obligations under the Charter and Agreement.</p>
<p>Central Information and Briefing Unit<br />
Nick Pellegrini</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/#comment-56</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Oct 2007 10:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.russellquinn.com/?p=51#comment-56</guid>
		<description>The reply:

Dear Mr Quinn,

Thank you for your email.

TV Licensing are responsible for collecting and administering the licence fee. We do not set the licence fee, this is done by the UK Government and is laid out in law which is approved by Parliament.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for setting the licence fee and you may be able to find useful information about the licence fee amounts on their website at http://www.culture.gov.uk.

I hope that this is helpful and I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Yours sincerely

TV Licensing</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reply:</p>
<p>Dear Mr Quinn,</p>
<p>Thank you for your email.</p>
<p>TV Licensing are responsible for collecting and administering the licence fee. We do not set the licence fee, this is done by the UK Government and is laid out in law which is approved by Parliament.</p>
<p>The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for setting the licence fee and you may be able to find useful information about the licence fee amounts on their website at <a href="http://www.culture.gov.uk" rel="nofollow">http://www.culture.gov.uk</a>.</p>
<p>I hope that this is helpful and I would like to thank you for taking the time to contact us.</p>
<p>Yours sincerely</p>
<p>TV Licensing</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Russell</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.russellquinn.com/?p=51#comment-55</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a possible reason for its introduction (although I&#039;m not sure environmental awareness in the late 60&#039;s was great enough to affect policies in this way), but it doesn&#039;t explain why it still exists or why it survived the recent reworking of the licensing scheme.

Maybe they do have a good reason though. I&#039;ve just emailed them to find out :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a possible reason for its introduction (although I&#8217;m not sure environmental awareness in the late 60&#8242;s was great enough to affect policies in this way), but it doesn&#8217;t explain why it still exists or why it survived the recent reworking of the licensing scheme.</p>
<p>Maybe they do have a good reason though. I&#8217;ve just emailed them to find out :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lucy</title>
		<link>http://www.russellquinn.com/blog/2007/10/16/tv-license/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>lucy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.russellquinn.com/?p=51#comment-54</guid>
		<description>perhaps the B+W discount was introduced to reward everyone who didn&#039;t just scrap their old sets when colour versions came along - which almost constitutes recycling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>perhaps the B+W discount was introduced to reward everyone who didn&#8217;t just scrap their old sets when colour versions came along &#8211; which almost constitutes recycling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

