[PaulRobinson]

No, you can own a TV without a license.

You must have a license to watch broadcast TV or use the BBC iPlayer (the online BBC-only streaming service). If you only use your TV(s) with a games console, to watch recorded content or streaming content over the Internet, you don't need to pay it. You are not required to provide access to an inspector from TV Licensing to confirm that your TV isn't hooked up to an aerial or satellite box, but it makes life easier if you do.

The license fee costs £154.50 a year, or £52 if you only have a black and white TV (lord knows how given we're now 100% digital), but the government pays it for you if you're over 75 years of age.

This produces an income of ~£3.5 billion a year, and broadly breaks down into 55% spent on TV broadcasting, 17% radio broadcasting, 10% for the BBC World Service and the rest of it goes on the website, various apps, collecting the fee itself and the transmitter network across the country used by all terrestrial broadcasters, not just the BBC. It also pays slabs of cash into the EBU who produce the Eurovision Song Contest, amongst other things...

This results in nine national TV channels, 10 UK-wide radio stations, six national (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland, NI only), and 40 local radio stations. The BBC website, iPlayer, apps in the App Stores, etc. are all paid for through this as well. If you're outside the UK you will see adverts as it can't subsidise access for non-UK citizens, but inside the UK all this content is 100% free of all advertising other than to cross-promote BBC content.

In recent months the Government have suggested that it's an unfair burden. There are two sides to this truth:

1. Most magistrate courts seem to spend a significant amount of their time dealing with non-payers, and there are people in prison for non-payment. IIRC, it's the most common crime committed by incarcerated women in the UK. For context, it's worth noting that the incarceration rate in the UK is about 1/5th of the USA's so the actual number is still quite low, but still...

2. Most people think scrapping it is a political move, because there are weird power dynamics between Downing Street, the execs in charge of BBC News and the rest of the BBC who seem to have problems with the News division and their friendliness with Downing Street and the PM in particular.

As a result, I think most people would prefer that the license was cheaper, the penalty for non-payment could not include prison and that we keep it.

[flurdy]

I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget.

Like Norway did last year. Now they have it as part of your income tax. [1] This will save a lot of expenses in informing, collecting, organising, prosecuting etc.

I know that means everyone pays even though you don't own a TV, but that is fine by me. You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well.

(Note, their license fee was about £300 per year last year.)

Scrapping the BBC license fee and not fund it the same via a budget, but instead, a subscription-only will be awful. It will then join the other commercial channels which is 99% reality TV and gameshows.

* [1] https://info.nrk.no/faq/the-tv-licence-will-cease/

[rickdeckard]

> I wish the UK would just scrap it as an independent license, and just include it as part of the government budget.

This would mean the funding of the BBC would be under direct control of the ruling government, which creates a conflict of interest (no positive coverage -> no money next year).

> Like Norway did last year. Now they have it as part of your income tax.

Norway TV isn't funded by government budget, they just streamlined the calculation and payment process into your income tax procedure. The budget is still dedicated to TV licensing and owned by the broadcaster.

That's a big big BIG difference. In one case only the financial process is optimized, in the other case you turn the broadcaster into a "national propaganda station".

As a citizen, keep an eye on this distinction on every proposal that is made, and speak up against every step the government takes to gain more control over the budget.

[thu2111]

The idea of arms length funding doesn't make sense. The conflict of interest already exists. The government can and does control the license fee, hence the recent kerfuffle about decriminalisation (many more people just won't pay if there's no consequence to not doing so). Ultimately the BBC is funded by government mandate. What government giveth, government can take away.

Additionally, the BBC has lost the argument that the license fee makes it neutral and independent to the betterment of all. More than half of the British population perceive it as being untrustworthy and biased (in favour of London metro media studies grad type viewpoints). This phenomenon is especially strong amongst the kinds of people who voted Tory for the first time and gave Boris his big majority, so their views are seen as very important.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/1...

YouGov figures show British trust in the press to tell the truth has fallen, with less than half believing BBC news journalists are honest and impartial.

The loss of BBC market share to other services is being raised as a justification for attacking the license fee here, but the ground is filled with kindling. Both the Tories and Labour see the BBC as ideologically opposed to them now.

[wccrawford]

IMO, it's even better to be in the government budget, because those who can't afford the TV license probably already don't end up paying much taxes in the first place, putting more of the burden for the TV on the people who can afford it, instead of the people who use it.

Normally I'd say that's a little backwards, but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing, and that firmly belongs in the "benefits everyone" category, IMO.

[dependenttypes]

> but the BBC is definitely a culture and education thing

Before the the dawn of the internet, sure. Now not so much, I would say it is more of a political tool that sometimes produces some low quality educational content.

[vixen99]

'You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well'. Yes but that's not by itself an argument to bung even more services, used or not, into the mix.

[PaulRobinson]

As a Brit, I consider the BBC to be at least as essential as most schools. Life without it is really hard for some of us to imagine.

[dependenttypes]

This might be fine with you but I do not think that this would be fine by everyone else paying taxes.

> You pay taxes if you don't use every road, hospital, school, opera house as well.

And this is a bad thing. No need to make it even worse.

[duckmysick]

You can vote for people who set the budget. If the issue (let's say defunding a local opera house you don't attend) is important enough, you can form a voting bloc and get your way. You might need to spend some time and money on raising awareness among local voters. And you will definitely face some opposition, but it's doable.

[nicky0]

Never let a TV license inspector into your house, do not talk to them and never sign anything they ask you to sign. Simply say no thanks and close the door. No matter if you think you have nothing to hide. Do not communicate with them at all. All prosecutions are based on people signing "confessions" after letting inspector into their house. Non-communication is the best approach when you genuinely do not need a license.

[arethuza]

"Never let a TV license inspector into your house"

Or you could just pay the license fee - which I am happy to do given the quality of content I get from the BBC.

[nicky0]

It's good that you enjoy the BBC's content, I'm aware that many do.

One may love BBC's programmes, or one may not hate them — that is irrelevant. If you watch any TV at all then legally you must buy a license.

The issue is whether you and I should be compelled by government, under threat of criminal prosecution, to pay for the BBC whether we consume its content or not. (As you know even watching commercial TV requires a BBC license, and it is a source of stress for the legally license free to ensure that one does not accidentally infringe when legally using a TV for other purposes.)

My comment was just practical advice for for all those who legally choose not to purchase a TV license yet remain pursued by the BBC with their threatening letters, cards through the door, inspectors etc.

[michaelt]

I've filled out the no-license-needed form [1] for five different homes, every time the letters have stopped and I've never been visited by anyone.

If what you want is the letters to stop, IME filling out the form will prove more effective than strict non-communication.

[1] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/t...

[nicky0]

They only stop for 2 years and then you have to fill in the form again like a good little boy. That's not the end of the world. The BBC says jump we say how high — fine. But the presumption of criminality (you have read the letters they send, right?) and the fact that you have to proactively contact an organisation on a regular basis to make an agreement with them that you DON'T want to be a customer of theirs, just to avoid being harrased and accused on a monthly basis, is absurd.

[jmnicolas]

> the penalty for non-payment could not include prison

You mean people really go to prison in the UK because they didn't pay their TV license ? I'm speechless !

[dazc]

They don't go to prison for not having a TV licence. They are fined (I believe incarceration is an option but the courts apply a modicum of common sense in this regard).

However, some people still don't pay and ultimately end up in prison for non-payment of the fine.

[nicky0]

Well that makes it all OK then.

[dazc]

There has to be a sanction for non-payment of fines though. I think the proposal to change the status from criminal to civil is very sensible however. The worst that can happen then is you have a judgement against your name for 6 years.

[jmnicolas]

Seize the TV or other things, but you don't put people in prison for a £150 TV tax in a "democracy" !

Last year, in my country (France) quite a few protestors have lost an eye due to Police violence.

And after that we try to give human right lessons to the rest of the world ... what we're good at is hypocrisy lessons imo.

[Lio]

Sorry, just to repeat the license fee is not a TV tax and is not a requirement for ownership or use of a TV.

It is a requirement if you are going to watch broadcast media with your TV.

If you just watch DVD/Blueray or play console games and don't have an aerial or dish you don't have to pay.

[dazc]

The people are put in prison for 'not paying a fine'. They are not put in prison for 'not having a TV licence'.

For someone not wanting to have a TV licence the options are simple:

1)Abide by the law and only watch TV that is not a live broadcast. Then be prepared to defend yourself if you are harassed by the authorities.

2)Don't abide by the law and take your chances. If someone knocks on your door and asks if you have a TV tell them to get lost.

3)Admit to having a TV, face prosecution and pay the fine.

4)If all above fails, and you don't pay the fine, do your time in prison for contempt of court.

None of this is comparable to losing an eye.

[mellosouls]

Think of it as tax evasion; same thing in other countries - if you don't pay your tax, then as a last resort - you go to prison.

If you don't want to pay the license fee, it's entirely your choice to not use the service for which it is mandatory.

[gadders]

Yes. The government is talking about making it a civil, rather than a criminal offence.

[lol768]

> the government pays it for you if you're over 75 years of age.

Also worth noting: from June 2020, this will only be the case if the individual is receiving pension credit.

[iso1631]

Not quite

It used to be everyone paid a TV license if they watched TV.

Then about 20 years ago the government offered a bribe to over 75s and said "we'll pay your tv license". This is basically was basically giving an extra £200 (in 2019 money) a year to every household with an over 75.

This cost something like £750m a year - something like 20% of the BBC budget (a budget that has dropped 25% in the last 10 years)

Then the government said "we don't need to bribe old people any more because brexit", and removed that subsidy. However they then said "The BBC will pay it", and old people lapped it up and blamed the BBC

The BBC then said "ok, we will pay for over 75s who have low income, but we won't pay for a license for millionaires who are living off final salary pensions". This was apparently still outrageous.

In parallel to this, the "left" of the country are rather annoyed by the BBC for their perceived bias towards the government and brexit, and thus they are saying "it's time to turn off the BBC"

There is, and always has been, a fundamental unfairness in the license fee. Someone living on their own on minimum wage pays the same as a family of 5 on £500k a year.

Worth noting that today it's easier than ever not to have a license fee, simply use the internet, subscribe to now TV for whatever junk is on sky. There are very few people consume no BBC services and only watch ITV.

[PaulRobinson]

> In parallel to this, the "left" of the country are rather annoyed by the BBC for their perceived bias towards the government and brexit, and thus they are saying "it's time to turn off the BBC"

It's the right that are currently advocating for the removal of the license fee and therefore de facto, the end of the BBC

[iso1631]

The loudest defenders seem to be backbench Tory MPs! The BBC is a true conservative institution, but the shamble in government aren't true conservatives

The "left", certainly the "remain" left, are publically saying the BBC should be shut down because of Question Time alone.

[Karishma1234fff]

> You are not required to provide access to an inspector from TV Licensing to confirm that your TV isn't hooked up to an aerial or satellite box, but it makes life easier if you do.

They have a TV license inspector ? Who actually enters your house to inspect ? What happens if you are found watching Doctor Who without her highness' permission ?

> but the government pays it for you if you're over 75 years of age.

What do you mean by government pays it for you ? You mean the BBC tax is waived off if you are too old. (That way I think the Queen and half of her family does not need license).

> and there are people in prison for non-payment.

Sorry for the first question.

This whole system is incredibly stupid. BBC has like this free revenue stream backed up by coercive power of the government. (Imagine Netflix could send people to jail for sharing their subscription or torrenting their shows).

[djmobley]

> If you only use your TV(s) [...] to watch recorded content or streaming content over the Internet, you don't need to pay it.

If it is recorded, you are correct, but if you are streaming live TV via any online service (not just iPlayer) you still require a license.

[foldr]

>and that we keep it.

Surely it would make more sense just to fund the BBC through general taxation. The cost of the license fee is set by legislation anyway, so it's not as if the license fee model gives the BBC any additional independence.

[flir]

The original idea was that by having a separate funding path, the BBC was at less risk of government control.

[mrkwse]

Another key tenet is the universality of the fee. Everyone pays the same rate regardless of background, so there should be no preference/bias to creating content for a wealthier demographic that may pay a greater proportion of the fee.

The funding is equally shouldered across the population, so the content should be created with equal consideration too. In practice doesn't always go that way, but that was the principle.

[epanchin]

I don’t think that makes sense. If everyone pays the same, most funding will come from the least wealthy, as there are more of them. Making the wealthy pay more would keep funding sources more equal.

[dependenttypes]

This would mean in theory that 10% of the population would pay 50% of the bbc fee and in turn would receive 50% of the content tailored to them.

It is not about teams being represented the same amount, but about individuals.

[newsgremlin]

The funding isn't controlled by the government but it may aswell be given how the BBC board is selected and their approval of the non-executives and the director of the BBC. The Queen (i.e. Ministers on her behalf) appoints all of them.

Those appointed from outside the BBC tend not to have any background in NGO or non-profits. Bit strange for a not for profit public broadcaster.

It's a very hairy arrangement and I don't think most of the public are aware of it.

[DiogenesKynikos]

In Germany, they tried for years to get people who own receivers (TVs, radios, internet-connected devices) to pay a fee for public media. They eventually gave up trying to identify who has a receiver and now just charge everyone who lives in the country.

[ck425]

> 2. Most people think scrapping it is a political move, because there are weird power dynamics between Downing Street, the execs in charge of BBC News and the rest of the BBC who seem to have problems with the News division and their friendliness with Downing Street and the PM in particular.

The context here is that the BBC is legally bound to be politically neutral. The problem is that in this modern partisan environment both sides think the BBC is horrendously biased. Tory's think it's full of left wing Londoners (not entirely untrue) and Labour think it's full of upper-middle class private school kids (again not entirely untrue).

With the current political divide no one can agree what politically neutral means and criticising the BBC is an easy politic win, as it's easy to 'other'.

Previously BBC was viewed in a similar way to the NHS, a British institution and one of our greatest exports as a country. Trying to shut it down or limit it was politically dangerous. Nowadays less folk are fussed,either they agree it's biased or they're like me and haven't watched it (bar Christmas trips home) since leaving home.

[throw3290]

Problem is not that BBC is biased, but doing horrible job and divides society.

During brexit referendum it would be very easy to debunk exiter's arguments (£350 million a week for the NHS etc). BBC instead called people racist, supremacist and priviliged. People voted for brexit just to spite BBC.

[JansjoFromIkea]

If they did vote for it just to spite the BBC, it was at least partially off the back of the BBC giving a huge amount of time to those nonsense arguments.

[M2Ys4U]

>The license fee costs £154.50 a year, or £52 if you only have a black and white TV (lord knows how given we're now 100% digital), but the government pays it for you if you're over 75 years of age.

The government stopped paying for it years ago, and forced the BBC to give out free licenses in order to hurt the BBC.

[tomatocracy]

To be fair, over 75s are one of the richest groups in the UK collectively. The government's argument then was not about hurting the BBC but about better targeting limited taxpayers money towards those who actually needed it, in the context of significant cuts being made to public expenditure more generally.

You could argue that not increasing the licence fee to offset the loss of income was about hurting the BBC I suppose though the government side of that argument would have been about not increasing the burden on the less well off who are forced to pay the fee if they want to watch TV.