>>>>>>>>http://www.betanews.com/article/Latest-move-by-broadcasters-to-mandate-implanting-radios-into-cell-phones/1288110047
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How can there be any legislation forcing a manufacturer to include a part in one of their products? Geeze what's happening to my country?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My take on the article is it's horse trading between lobbyists for broadcasters vs. those for musicians, over royalties. Neither gives a damn about the consumer. No doubt it's all tied into the music-industry equivalent of Hollywood accounting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Over here you have to pay a subsidy/misnamed tax for government created radio and tv if you own a receiving device. Under certain circumstances you have to pay twice for portable devices, for instance car radio or laptops as they are considered TV's and radios...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Horse trading is honest compared to that...
>>>>>
>>>>>No kidding. I have relatives in the UK, years ago I was surprised to learn you have to purchase a "license" for receiving devices: currently 145.50GBP per year.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/detection-and-penalties-top5/
>>>>>
>>>>>"If you inform us that you do not watch television, enforcement officers may still visit you to confirm this." Oh joy - I don't watch TV, don't even own one (never have). I would call the cops on any such "enforcement officers" who tried to "visit" me.
>>>>>
>>>>>If any jurisdiction in North America tried that stunt, there would be riots - literally. But I suppose Euro-sheeple are long accustomed to being drained through that vein, and Eurobureaucra-parasites are addicted to that source of easy funds.
>>>>
>>>>The 'rights' of 'enforcement officers' are, in practice, non-existent. A friend of mine who lives a hermit-like existence did not own a TV set. They wrote to him a few times and, eventually, someone (presumably an 'enforcement officer') turned up at his door and asked to be allowed into the premises to ascertain that he did not indeed possess a TV receiver. My friend refused admission. The 'enforcement officer' came back a couple of times and got the same response. Eventually my friend received a court summons for non-payment of the license fee. Turned up in court and asked that the prosecution provide proof that he owned a TV set. None was forthcoming so the case was dismissed with costs in his favour......
>>>
>>>Government in action (perhaps more accurately, bureaucracy). It probably cost more than 145 quid for an "enforcement officer" to visit 3 times, and almost certainly more than that to process and issue a court summons. Then several times that amount to hold the trial.
>>>
>>>As for your friend, I hope the awarded costs included reasonable amounts for his time, travel expenses etc.
>>
>>The license fee is really a form of tax and it pays for some excellent broadcasting.
>
>An order-of-magnitude estimate: if you have 40m households in Blighty each paying roughly 150 quid a year, that's 6 billion quid a year. Yes, the little I've seen of the Beeb is good, but is it that good?
>
>We Canadian taxpayers cough up $1B a year to our CBC and get very little in return. The CBC has become a political fiefdom where nabobs deem themselves to be overlords of "culture" and try to mold public opinion in their left-leaning image.

Revenue was £3.45 billion in 2009 2010.

And you're right of course its all part of a left wing conspiracy to deny access to back to back advertising, sport and women taking their clothes off.