Started by Paul Johnson · · 👁 10 views · 256 replies
…
slycyclist342 said:Well, if you claim you possess it—even if you argue it belongs to a corporation as others suggested—you’ve essentially made a confession.🙂
slycyclist342 said:Well, if you claim you possess it—even if you argue it belongs to a corporation as others suggested—you’ve essentially made a confession.🙂
Taylor Roberts3 said:Since I'm pretty sure I'll be heading to court soon, I figured I should clear some things up first.
The infamous Section 34 (1):
Anyone who owns or
possesses a radio or television
receiver or any other device for
receiving radio or audiovisual
programming (hereinafter referred to
to as a receiver) within the territory
of the United States covered
by a broadcast signal is required to pay
PBS a monthly fee as established
under Section 35, subsection 2 of this
Act, unless otherwise provided
for by this Act.
Look, maybe I'm just being an idiot, but my argument in court would be that I actually own a TV. It’s an old model—doesn't have an antenna hooked up, nor do I own a digital converter box. In my book, that doesn't count as a TV receiver if it can't actually pick up a signal. Am I wrong here?
Along with the TV, I’ve got a high-end component amp with speakers and a deck, while the tuner is just sitting in the closet. Even though I don't use the tuner, I'm not tossing it; that'd tank the resale value of my hi-fi setup if I ever decided to sell it one day.
And then there's the smartphone, which technically has FM hardware built-in, but I deleted the app. I'm guessing it'd be best to mention that too, right? o_o
Also, that second part of Section 34, subsection 1 is bugging me. "any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereinafter referred to as a receiver)." Why did they write "audiovisual" instead of just saying "radio and TV"? Does that mean if I listen to a song on YouTube, watch a short documentary, or even a comedy sketch, I've basically created my own audiovisual programming and now I owe them tax money?
Michael Perez5 said:Just think about it... you don't actually HAVE anything in your house. Amen.
Sam Ramos85 said:If you admit 🙄
I mean, seriously—if you don't even acknowledge that you own a TV, how are they supposed to prove you have one in the first place to justify charging you those fees?
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
Elizabeth Price2 said:First off, why the attitude? We're on the same side here! 😉
Secondly, the public service fee is paid because you own a device capable of accessing the internet—that’s just a straight fact. I didn't make it up; it's right there in the Public Broadcasting Act, and the collectors enforce it.
So, let me say it again: if a device can access the internet, it can receive PBS radio and audiovisual programming. Period. Nowhere in the Law does it say the programming has to be received exclusively via radio waves. Get it now?
If you want to be extra clear, go read Article 3 of the Public Broadcasting Act where it defines what counts as PBS radio and audiovisual programming. And finally, check out that famous Article 34 (1): Anyone who owns or possesses a radio or television receiver, or any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereafter referred to as a receiver) within the United States of America covered by a broadcast signal is required to pay PBS a monthly fee as determined by Article 35, paragraph 2 of this Act, unless otherwise specified herein.
Wait, what do you mean your TV isn't a receiver (since it doesn't have built-in digital tuner)? If you don't even have an antenna, you aren't paying anything. You're totally mistaken there.
Elizabeth Price2 said:First off, why the attitude? We're on the same side here! 😉
Secondly, the public service fee is paid because you own a device capable of accessing the internet—that’s just a straight fact. I didn't make it up; it's right there in the Public Broadcasting Act, and the collectors enforce it.
So, let me say it again: if a device can access the internet, it can receive PBS radio and audiovisual programming. Period. Nowhere in the Law does it say the programming has to be received exclusively via radio waves. Get it now?
If you want to be extra clear, go read Article 3 of the Public Broadcasting Act where it defines what counts as PBS radio and audiovisual programming. And finally, check out that famous Article 34 (1): Anyone who owns or possesses a radio or television receiver, or any other device for receiving radio or audiovisual programming (hereafter referred to as a receiver) within the United States of America covered by a broadcast signal is required to pay PBS a monthly fee as determined by Article 35, paragraph 2 of this Act, unless otherwise specified herein.
Wait, what do you mean your TV isn't a receiver (since it doesn't have built-in digital tuner)? If you don't even have an antenna, you aren't paying anything. You're totally mistaken there.
nimblelynx7 said:Corporations have to pay a subscription fee for every single receiver. So, if you’re looking for a loophole, you could always just run it through your business.
mistybear10 said:What does any of this have to do with what I actually said? Absolutely nothing.
I was just following up on that nonsense about paying the fee for a work phone. It’s my responsibility because it’s in my possession. My company covers the service for that device 24/7, all year round—not just during some arbitrary 7-to-3 window! Honestly, how can anyone on this forum even argue otherwise? It's embarrassing.
I don't know who specifically wrote that, so I didn't quote anyone. And if you think I was calling you out, pirate, but you didn't write it—my bad. But if you did? Step up. 😬
Sent from iPhone using Reddit
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).
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).
nimblelynx7 said:Corporations have to pay a subscription fee for every single receiver. So, if you’re looking for a loophole, you could always just run it through your business.
mistybear10 said:Spirou, you think it's totally fine that I'm paying a wireless tax on my work phone when my company already covers the fees? You seriously don't see the massive paradox there!?
Sent from iPhone using Reddit
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
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.
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).
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).
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).
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).
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. 😁
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. 😁
mistybear10 said:Spirou, you think it's totally fine that I'm paying a wireless tax on my work phone when my company already covers the fees? You seriously don't see the massive paradox there!?
Sent from iPhone using Reddit
