[IshKebab]

I mean, most of those make sense - a 'car licence' (I assume you mean road tax?) pays for roads (in theory). A TV licence pays for the BBC. A radio licence presumably paid for the BBC before there were TVs. Passport fees pay for embassies and other foreign services.

It is hard to see how an expensive drone licence would be justified though.

[joaodlf]

TV licence is a big nuisance, and to me it's just old media clinging on to the power it holds. I go home and accidentally start streaming through the BBC iPlayer (I wanted to watch a catch up program but my finger slipped), am I breaking the law? Am I considered a criminal by the state?

If they want to enforce this properly they need to do it at the device level. If I'm not supposed to watch TV then make it impossible for me not to do so, put a login behind it or something.

Not to mention the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television (in my case, I don't even own an aerial cable), every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing, letter telling me about my crimes and that I will just end up in court.... If I kept these letters I'd have to rent a garage just to store them, have these people ever heard about saving trees? :)

It's a silly tax, with silly regulations and silly enforcement that needs to go.

[orf]

We have a national TV network which is an absolute national treasure and produces some awesome TV. The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it. I'm happy to pay for a TV license for this reason. Also, lots of channels with no adverts on is pretty good.

As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them?

For iPlayer, they are bringing in a BBC account which will be tied to your license fee, so you can't accidentally stream it.

[Fifer82]

National Treasure? It is literally state media, you only had to watch the BBC during the Scottish Indy Ref to show how far it will go to tow the government line. I think it is a disgrace so no longer have a licence. When Trump branded it FakeNews, people in the UK were outraged but it is one of the few things I agree with.

[orf]

Is there any specific criticisms of the indy ref coverage you can give? None of the major broadcasters where particularly unbiased, because nobody wanted to see the union break up.

Trump brands a lot of things fake news. They rarely are.

[pbhjpbhj]

>As for the letters, just tell them you aren't eligible to pay. How do they know if you don't tell them? //

Or they could stop accusing people of being criminals without any evidence.

I've had one of these letters and they start from a position of extreme prejudice against the recipient; it's not a pleasant reminder that you may need a license it's an accusation that you're a criminal and will get a big fine.

You have to pay to tell them you don't own a TV too, there's no freepost envelope and no freephone number. It's a small thing but given the aggressive nature of their accusation I refuse to pay even 40p to let them know we had no TV on the premises.

[cromon]

You can do it online.. no need to spend anything. Why not do that and stop the tree wasting yourself, as they aren't going to. You only need do it every 2 years or so.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/no-licence-needed/about.app

[gaius]

The TV license just ensures that the government doesn't hold the purse strings and therefore effectively controls it

Like they hold the purse strings and control every other channel?

The recent revelations of BBC presenters salaries reveals that they don't want to compete with other stations on a level playing field, but they do want to pay themselves competitive salaries. Well you can't have it both ways...

[orf]

The other channels are beholden to advertisers and only produce profitable content regardless of its value.

Also the BBC salaries for the most part are on-par with ITV and C4.

[gaius]

The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat it is why.

Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

[IeyePh7o]

Disclaimer: I am employed by the BBC, but not in PR, hence the throwaway

> The whole point of the TV tax is that the BBC can take on projects that are > "worthy" but not commercially viable. Why does it have big-name stars at all? > Why is it competing for ratings at all? They want to have their cake and eat > it is why.

No, the BBC has to compete against commercial content, and therefore has to pay to hire talent that is competitive with the talent hired by commercial broadcasters. There are good reasons for this:

- Making popular content that is of high quality increases the quality of commercial offerings, as it has to compete for viewers.

- If the BBC did not make popular content that most people want to watch, it would not be perceived as good value for money, and therefore you would lose the benefits of having a strong public broadcaster.

This is made clear in the charter:

"The BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and internationally."

> Working for the BBC is a privilege; one of the few cases where people really > should be doing it "for the exposure" and not paid at all.

Working for the BBC is a privilege, but if it did not pay its staff, it would not have any. There is a balance to be struck -- people are willing to work for less than they could be paid elsewhere, but if the difference is too big then they will leave.

The amount being paid to talent and execs is high, but at least in some cases is a lot lower than people are being paid on commercial channels, and therefore it is possibly justified.

[tome]

> I wanted to watch a catch up program but my finger slipped

You're required to have a TV licence to watch catch up programs: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/help/tvlicence This rule has been in force for some months now.

> am I breaking the law? Am I considered a criminal by the state?

I imagine the case law on this issue is very well understood by now. I don't know the answer but I doubt there are any legal uncertainties.

> the ABSURD methods they go to intimidate you into paying, even when you don't watch live television

I'm not sure what it's like for those like you who have device but no aerial. I have no device. Once every two years I get a letter asking me to fill in a web form to confirm I still have no device. It's annoying, sure, but your reaction seems massively over the top.

[joaodlf]

Oh great, the rules have changed. Guess I should just uninstall the piece of software that came with the TV.

As for "over the top" - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one?wt.mc_id=... clearly states a device could be pretty much any electronic device at this stage, not just TVs - So how does this work? How is it proven you don't actually benefit from a TV programs? Not having a TV doesn't seem to be enough in the eyes of the law. I don't necessarily want my details attached to a private company I have no business with, as I understand it they are just outsourced enforcement and there is no legal obligation to provide them with any of my details (the letters aren't even addressed to "me" as a person, but simply the "occupier"). I'd rather keep getting the letters than give them information they have no right to.

It's all ambiguous and nonsensical to me. If there is anything I actually enjoyed in my southern European origins is that governmental funded extortion was at least direct.

[DanBC]

I have devices, I have an aerial, and there's a dish bolted to the wall. I don't have the devices connected to the aerial or the dish. I fill out the form, and I get a letter once every two years.

> but your reaction seems massively over the top.

Yes. There are a bunch of youtube videos of people saying the best thing to do is to never respond to the letters, but those channels also have people complaining about multiple letters and visits from TVL.

[tome]

> the best thing to do is to never respond to the letters

Yeah I tried that strategy for a while and got pissed off with how many letters I was getting. Then I filled in the web form and it's a once-in-two-year thing for me now. Much better!

[nicky0]

I get a letter from the BBC every month threatening me with court action if I don't buy a TV license.

[EliRivers]

Is it from the BBC? They outsourced licencing many years ago.

[nicky0]

Parts of the operation are contracted out to Capita, who act as agents for the BBC under the "TV Licensing" trade name.

[DanBC]

Have you filled out the web form?

[nicky0]

No I quite enjoy the threatening letters, they tend to repeat after about 6 months but every now and again you get a new one.

[DanBC]

Watching anything on BBC iPlayer, even catch up programs, no requires a licence.

The BBC iPlayer service will warn you about content that needs a licence - it will ask before playing "do you have a licence?".

> every month I get a threatening, amateur looking, in red writing

Have you told them that you do not watch tv as it's broadcast or anything on iPlayer? Once you tell them they should stop writing to you for two years.

[yrro]

Why don't you take five minutes to type your post code into the TV Licensing web site? You won't hear a peep from them for three years. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, unless you enjoy being offended by their letters.

[branchless]

Agreed. I didn't have a tv in the UK for years and I registered as such. I never had a single letter or knock on my door. I wasn't avoiding the license, I really did not have a TV. It worked.

[madaxe_again]

What many don't realise is that the TV license is collected and administered by a private entity, serco, who make a substantial profit in operating it.

Last I checked the BBC receive something like 40% of the collected revenues.

So, while it ostensibly pays for the BBC, it's really just another arm of the octopus like serco, who run everything from prisons to call centres (in prisons!) to the dvla to the inland revenue.

They're the biggest company nobody has ever heard of.

[ubercow13]

Do you have a source for that 40% claim? I can't find anything about that

[DanBC]

Do you have a source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...

> It is expected that Capita will earn £1.10bn – £1.55bn from its contract with the BBC if it runs its maximum 15 years from July 2012

The BBC gets over £4b per year.

> Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk (77.5%) of the BBC's total income of £4.827 billion in 2015–2016.[2][3]

[oliwarner]

I make that as Capita taking 2.5% gross revenue. Who know how much that costs them to administer over 15 years either.

The licensing website puts it at 5.5%. Either way, 40% is a silly number to throw around.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/wh...

[DRW_]

Doesn't that mean they'll earn 1.10 - 1.55bn over the 15 years? Not every year?

[DanBC]

Yes, which is why I was asking for a source. I can't find anything which puts the figure any where near 40%.

[nicky0]

40% claim is ludicrous

[petepete]

Radio only licences existed until the 70s and would cover people who used a radio but not a TV. TV licences include radio.

[EliRivers]

The "car licence" connection to paying for roads was ended in 1937 [1], and the Road Fund itself in 1956 [1]. The Vehicle Excise Duty since 1936 has just been taxation, not earmarked for anything in particular.

[1] http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01482.pdf , page 6

[TheAceOfHearts]

What's a TV license? I've genuinely never heard of that being a thing, although I'm in the US.

I own a TV but I don't watch any public broadcasts or cable, so requiring a license for that seems weird at first glance.

[dan1234]

Basically, TV Licence pays for state run TV & radio services.

In the UK, this also means we don't have any advertising on the BBC channels or website, which is nice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

[Amezarak]

The US has public radio and television without advertising as well, but instead of licensing it is funded through personal and corporate donations, together with government grants coming out of the general budget.

On a few programs you might get the host of the showing saying at the end mentioning one of the sponsors, but that's the worst it gets. The website (for radio, I don't see any on the TV website)) does have a few non-awful display ads, but streaming everything is free.

In my personal opinion this is a more progressive model - poor people don't have to pay money for public television access.

[petepete]

It's more progressive, yes, but when you look at the quality of output that the BBC produces the two really aren't comparable.

In the UK, I think we take the BBC for granted. With a fairly-limited budget they produce extremely high-quality and varied ad-free programming, news and have an excellent web presence. So many shows are exported and shown across the world, it can only be a benefit for the country to have our culture, and values projected in such a way.

Additionally, my two favourite stations are BBC4 and Radio 4. BBC4 shows a large number of niche documentaries that simply wouldn't ever be considered, let alone funded, shot and aired for other channels, and Radio 4 is simply unparalleled in quality.

[petre]

Other (mostly European) countries rely on a tax to fund or partially fund state TV/radio so that the government doesn't broadcast government propaganda over state TV or control it by cutting their budget. It's also easier for them to make cultural shows as opposed to Oprah style reality TV that's the equivalent of clickbait and sells ads. In some of these countries state run TV is the most propaganda/advertising free TV. BBC is one example.

[Amezarak]

NPR and PBS neither air reality TV type content, or are outlets for government propaganda.

I understand that's one stated reason for the license tax, but the American model pretty well proves that it isn't necessary to get independent content that's not ad-driven.

[Renaud]

You seem to forget that the US is about 5x the population of the UK. Voluntary donations are nice but assuming generosity in the US and UK being the same, the UK would end up with 5x less funds than what PBS and NPR have (about US$550 and $270 yearly, respectively).

The BBC has about US$6.5B and produces a much wider array of programmes than PBS and NPR combined. So not relying on public's mandatory contribution would clearly not work.

[petre]

I don't know how it works in the US and whlile I fully agree with you about NPR (not familiar with PBS) I also know that it wouldn't work in my Eastern European country (an EU and NATO member). Our gov't tried to subvert national TV several times for their own corrupt schemes - with parliamentary backing. They just got rid of the TV tax, everybody and their dog voted for them and now they're indtrducing new and even more interesting taxes in place of the ones they got rid of to get the votes. Some people have a really short attention span.

[tome]

I started writing a response but then discovered I can't do any better than the first two paragraphs of the following :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Un...