It would really rankle an American

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

It would really Rankle an American to be forced once a year to write out a cheque to the Goverment for $271(£135.50) just for the right to use his own television receiver.

This is not a cultural thing at all — it Rankles people in the UK, where everybody has to do just that.

The “TV Licence” is a holdout from the theory that any use of the spectrum, either transmitting and/or receiving, makes the user into a “station” and its location should therefore be authorized with a bit of paper. Now, of course, it is just a tax. But it is a tax for a purpose.

The first Radio Licence was issued in 1922 at an annual cost of 10 shillings (two dollars at that time) and stayed at that level until 1946 when the first TV Licence (including radio) was issued for £2.
Contrast that with today's price tag of £135.50 and rising every year ignoring the rate of inflation.
The money that is collected pays for the BBC's programming on six TV channels, network radio services, and all the regional TV and radio production and engineering costs.

The anachronism is that it is not a license to watch BBC programming: It is a license to watch UK TV.

The separation of church and state between the BBC and the UK government has always been a cornerstone of the corporation — although there have been some really interesting shades of gray there over the years — and the original decision to fund the BBC from a license fee meant that the authorities could say that taxpayer money was not being used… an interesting exercise in logic.

For many years the money was collected by the Post Office and handed to the BBC through the home office. In 1991 the BBC took over the unpleasant task of collecting the fees itself and created the TV Licensing Authority to at least distance itself in name.

This group employs 1800 people to collect the money, issue licenses and enforce the law. Five hundred of those employees work away from the headquarters and the vast majority are inspectors who look to identify what averages about 1000 licence evaders every day. With over 28 million licences in force, at £135.50, there is clearly a very large amount of money involved. And with the number of households known to be over 31 million, the TVLA is very interested in the three million who are not licenced.

When you buy a TV, VCR etc..., the retailer is forced under law to report the sale to the TVLA. If that buyer's address is not in the database they get a letter. Even if you don't buy a product you are likely to get a letter anyway, often a lot of letters, because the authority just doesn't seem to believe that anyone can do without television.

Do you have a Second home? Get another licence. Are you a Student at college? Get another licence. Rent a room in someone's house? Get another licence. Use TV at work? Get another licence. Operate a hotel? Get a license for the first 15 receivers and then another licence for every five more.

Legally blind? You still need a license but you do get a 50 percent discount — such generosity !!.

So, after you buy that new TV with cash and give a false name and address, how do they catch you? If you are not in the database as being licenced, your residence may be visited by an inspector looking for the telltale flicker of a CRT, or you may be driven past by the all-scary “Detector Van”!.
It used to be that the post office would announce when one was going to be in an area and, magically, Licences would be bought in bulk. But did the vans even work? Yes, they did; picking up the TV's local oscillator, the operators could even tell the residents which channel they had been watching, but now they "claim" that their equipment is so sensitive that there are handheld units in service.

You don't need a licence if you don't connect a TV to an antenna, cable or satellite receiver and just use it to play back pre-recorded tapes or DVDs, nor if you only watch satellite TV originating 'outside the UK'. But how do you prove it?

The PC user with a TV card has been the most popular target in the last 18 months, but an even sorrier situation has arisen with a decision that a broadband user who is streaming video from the BBCi - Web site also needs a licence. But don't worry if you are streaming BBC television news in the United States, they are only going after UK users.

At the cost involved for the Licences there is inevitably going to be cheating or evasion. Those that propose taxing the Internet in some way should look at this as a cautionary tale… but that's another story

[Serena777]

I understand what your sayin about being basicly forced to buy a liscense to watch tv ,the cost of the liscense in quite high.after you purchase the liscense do you then have to pay for the cable stations you would be watching?Yes, in america we do not have to purchase a liscense to watch cable tv,we do howevr pay out the rear for the cable service, some services are close to $90. us dollars a month,if your happy with only 13 basic channels you can pay about 40 dollars amonth,all of which is taxed and the rates can sky rocket at any time with out pior notice.now if you would include this liscense to that amount then yes it would rackle americans, if there was a prior post that lead to your post i missed it, this is not a cultural isssue unless it is made one,my question to you is why pick americans when it would rackle anyone.in america we have the FCC, which over sees (basicly controls,and makes sure that everyone broadcasting has a proper liscense) all broadcasts radio and television, we pay federal taxes which in turn and not so stated and obviose to many that keep this federal company mantained.in essence we (americans) pay to keep the fcc liscenced so it can do its job.there are scammers everywhere who get away with not paying for their cable as im sure,and i dont see it as a far fetched idea that america might try this whole liscense to watch cable tv, over here it more like if you've got it then the government wants it,and i mean money.unless of course your related to bush!hehe

[Scotsgait]

How many more TV licence threads do you intend to start, NaRvIcK DeViL ?

I think we've got the message that you're against it.

[Polwarth]

He is? You think? Get away

[NaRvIcK DeViL]

If the SNP get their way and are allowed to let the Scottish Goverment contol the licences of the media in Scotland .
Alec Salmand then if he likes can say to the BBC/TVLA/Capita etc that your gravy train is now over and if you want to offer your product to the scottish people you will have to do it by either voluntary subscription as you do around the Globe BBC Canada ,BBC America, BBC Canada , BBC india etc or we can sell your airspace to someone else .

[Polwarth]

OK - we GET it. You don't want to pay a license fee. FINE, honest, we get it.

[ANDY-J3]

I agree that in this day and age a licence fee can no longer be justified but there is one positive advantage. We-the British public own the BBC. It is ultimately accountable to us and the government, its executives need to take heed of our opinions about what it broadcasts and unlike private companies it has an obligation to focus on quality rather than quantity. As a direct result of that it still produces some of the world's best news and current affairs programmes.