mistybear10 said:It honestly blows my mind how these forum scammers try to play people. According to them, you should be paying some ridiculous fee a hundred times over for the exact same device! Give me a break.
It’s based on what, exactly? Just because I happen to have this official work phone? Sure, I’ve got it, but the company that actually owns the device already covered the fees. Case closed. End of story.
I can't stand this fee and I'm not paying it—not because I think it's unnecessary, but because I refuse to fund the massive salaries of a bunch of lazy bureaucrats and those lying collectors who lie the second they open their mouths.
Once they actually fix the public broadcasting system and start offering decent programming, then maybe I'll consider paying. Right now, they just take the money and give nothing back, since they wrote the laws to make sure they don't have to do a single thing while they just rake in the cash.
Sent from iPhone using Reddit
If you're already paying the TV license fee privately, then there's no issue. Obviously, you shouldn't be charged a license fee for an official work phone just because you have it in your possession. And you definitely don't owe anything for your personal phone if you're already paying a subscription; a private citizen pays for one receiver, regardless of whether they own fifty devices.
J. Knoxville Asks:
I’m sick of this tax. I don't even want to pay it—not because I think it's unnecessary, but because I refuse to fund the astronomical salaries of that entire pack of slackers and those lying collectors who can't even open their mouths without telling a lie.
I feel the exact same way, for the very same reasons—but that doesn't give me the right to follow the law of the jungle.
Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).
The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.
It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.
Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).
RF signals come from the house, and internet streams do too. Just like repositioning your antenna for PBS won't fix a bad signal, arguing that "on-demand streaming" solves the problem is useless. Furthermore, if you can pull up a YouTube video, you clearly have the right software to stream PBS. People used this exact same tired argument over a decade ago. (I have a TV, but I don't watch PBS—but once you say the part before the comma, anything else you say afterward doesn't matter.)
Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).
The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.
It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.
Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).
This is a stretch, but it might actually work. How are they going to prove you have internet access if you don't tell them yourself? And how do they even prove a computer is capable of streaming? Besides, if someone is stupid enough to let a collector walk in to check a computer, they should probably pay a stupidity tax too.
Even if they get data from the ISP showing internet service is active at a residence, that’s illegal—that kind of evidence shouldn't be admissible in court.
Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).
The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.
It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.
Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).
If you have the option to bring in a signal and you actually brought it in via DirecTV, then you have to pay.
Matthew Jackson2 said:That isn't actually written in the law; rather, it's just a convenient interpretation cooked up by PBS's legal department (which, if they wanted to sell such nonsense to grandmothers, would probably claim you need to pay a fee for dirty laundry too).
The radio signal hits your house regardless of whether you point your antenna left or right, but for an internet stream to reach you, you have to actively request it. And it isn't even just that—a computer, as mere hardware containing that stream, can't do anything with it, let alone decode and display it; you need software support for that. In the final analysis, even if they happen to notice you have a computer, that still doesn't mean it's capable of receiving and reproducing a stream, and a court cannot accept that as a fact unless a.) you admit to it or b.) they actually prove it.
It isn't located in an area where that specific type of signal exists to be received. It's like being in some remote hole in the middle of nowhere where there is absolutely no TV signal—you don't have to pay; the law is quite plain on that. If you have internet in that area, or the option to get satellite TV? Again, you don't have to pay because, even though you have the option to pay for signal delivery, you still lack a usable signal.
Wrong; that doesn't apply to devices used exclusively for business purposes. If you need a work phone for your job, then it isn't subject to the subscription fee. If you are off the clock, you aren't supposed to be using that work phone, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to possess it (say, for a morning meeting outside the office).
Yeah, I missed that detail. Since when are you forbidden from using a work phone after hours? Does that mean if my boss calls me in the afternoon, I just won't answer because I'm "off the clock"? Or better yet, should I just leave it at the office? Sure, you shouldn't use it for personal stuff, but who says you can't use a phone for personal reasons during work hours?
slycyclist342 said:That was me, so feel free to quote me and call me the forum tax collector
but before you do that, answer two questions
1. If ownership is the only thing that matters, why does the law state:
Anyone who holds title or possession
2. Can you provide the legal definitions for "ownership" versus "possession"? Then we can discuss whether you actually possess that work phone or if your company owns it.
Can you clarify who is considered the direct versus indirect possessor in the case of a corporate phone (you or the firm)?
I wouldn't quite agree (though that doesn't mean I'm right)
A radio signal hits your house, but you can't use it if you don't have an antenna or a TV, and if you don't request it (like switching the channel to ABC)
In my view, it's the same deal with the internet... I don't see much difference...
Rhode Island is almost 100% covered by cellular data (3G)
You plug a dongle into your laptop, surf the web, and that's that.
Actually, we could even talk about places like downtown metropolitan areas where you have free Wi-Fi... that would be the equivalent of freely available radio waves... there's absolutely no distinction there.
And finally, you can just head to an internet cafe with a laptop or smartphone and browse.
So, regardless of whether you have home internet or not, you have the capability to reproduce audio/visual content (and it doesn't even have to be an ABC program, since the law doesn't specify that... it's enough that you can watch a movie on YouTube)
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m allowed to own a phone but forbidden from actually using it?
The law is pretty straightforward.
He talks about ownership but fails to mention any exceptions—like how you aren't actually on the hook for a subscription if the device isn't even being used.
To me, the situation is pretty straightforward. Pollux offered the only sensible advice in that last post, and it’s honestly the only way to legally avoid paying for a subscription.
You don't own it, and that’s the end of the matter.
If you actually plan on walking into a courtroom to argue that you have Windows installed but somehow lack Windows Media Player—or that you own a smartphone but apparently don't possess it outside of business hours, or that one wave is somehow fundamentally different from another—then good luck to you. I honestly don't even know what else to say.
I personally know of a trucking company that stripped all the radios out of their fleet just to dodge subscription fees, then went as far as strictly forbidding their drivers from bringing any personal devices into the cabs.
People spend ten hours behind the wheel—including all the mandatory breaks, obviously—only to carry some equipment along and trigger a massive blowout over it. Apparently, someone ran into trouble, and one guy nearly lost his job just because he had a radio on him. I don't know the specifics, though.
By the way, how does the law handle legal entities?
If a company has a thousand employees equipped with laptops and smartphones, that should be the basis for their tax assessment. $53 Monthly subscriptions?
That's exactly why I don't buy into the idea that they're paying for every single receiver.
I'm sure there's some kind of cap on this, similar to how residential service works—one subscription covering an unlimited number of receivers.
Does anyone have any insight into the current job market and how companies are actually treating people?
Go ahead and try to educate a poor collection agent... I'm working on going bankrupt. 😁
Makes perfect sense. Though under those regulations, you could probably sue PBS for endangering lives. Having a radio in a vehicle, if used normally (kept at a reasonable volume), helps safety by keeping the driver alert and focused, which is especially vital in the situations described.
slycyclist342 said:That was me, so feel free to quote me and call me the forum tax collector
but before you do that, answer two questions
1. If ownership is the only thing that matters, why does the law state:
Anyone who holds title or possession
2. Can you provide the legal definitions for "ownership" versus "possession"? Then we can discuss whether you actually possess that work phone or if your company owns it.
Can you clarify who is considered the direct versus indirect possessor in the case of a corporate phone (you or the firm)?
I wouldn't quite agree (though that doesn't mean I'm right)
A radio signal hits your house, but you can't use it if you don't have an antenna or a TV, and if you don't request it (like switching the channel to ABC)
In my view, it's the same deal with the internet... I don't see much difference...
Rhode Island is almost 100% covered by cellular data (3G)
You plug a dongle into your laptop, surf the web, and that's that.
Actually, we could even talk about places like downtown metropolitan areas where you have free Wi-Fi... that would be the equivalent of freely available radio waves... there's absolutely no distinction there.
And finally, you can just head to an internet cafe with a laptop or smartphone and browse.
So, regardless of whether you have home internet or not, you have the capability to reproduce audio/visual content (and it doesn't even have to be an ABC program, since the law doesn't specify that... it's enough that you can watch a movie on YouTube)
Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m allowed to own a phone but forbidden from actually using it?
The law is pretty straightforward.
He talks about ownership but fails to mention any exceptions—like how you aren't actually on the hook for a subscription if the device isn't even being used.
To me, the situation is pretty straightforward. Pollux offered the only sensible advice in that last post, and it’s honestly the only way to legally avoid paying for a subscription.
You don't own it, and that’s the end of the matter.
If you actually plan on walking into a courtroom to argue that you have Windows installed but somehow lack Windows Media Player—or that you own a smartphone but apparently don't possess it outside of business hours, or that one wave is somehow fundamentally different from another—then good luck to you. I honestly don't even know what else to say.
I personally know of a trucking company that stripped all the radios out of their fleet just to dodge subscription fees, then went as far as strictly forbidding their drivers from bringing any personal devices into the cabs.
People spend ten hours behind the wheel—including all the mandatory breaks, obviously—only to carry some equipment along and trigger a massive blowout over it. Apparently, someone ran into trouble, and one guy nearly lost his job just because he had a radio on him. I don't know the specifics, though.
By the way, how does the law handle legal entities?
If a company has a thousand employees equipped with laptops and smartphones, that should be the basis for their tax assessment. $53 Monthly subscriptions?
That's exactly why I don't buy into the idea that they're paying for every single receiver.
I'm sure there's some kind of cap on this, similar to how residential service works—one subscription covering an unlimited number of receivers.
Does anyone have any insight into the current job market and how companies are actually treating people?
Go ahead and try to educate a poor collection agent... I'm working on going bankrupt. 😁
For legal entities, it follows exactly what’s laid out in Section 34, Subsection 4. That clause explicitly states "😳unless otherwise specified by law." Then in Section 36, it notes that you don't have to pay for receivers used specifically for business operations—which would include computers and cell phones. Is there some specific law that says otherwise?
The only exceptions are folks in the restaurant industry; they pay for one but are allowed to use three.