Two-thirds of TV Licensing prosecutions at one London court targeted women

RE:Confused of Canada

So to try to answer your question: there is very specific wording that governs the TV licence. The BBC have a charter, which ensures it is at arms length from the government, is not wholey funded by the taxpayer, and also has rules governing how it is to operate such as being available to all. This also prevents it using general taxation or subscription methods to be funded (though this could change with a change in laws). The charter is renewed every 10 years, and has been deliberately set up to preserve the status quo.

The rules:

In order to watch TV programmes as they are being broadcast in the UK, you must have a TV licence. As of last year, to watch iPlayer (the video on demand service of the BBC) you must have a TV licence.

If you don't fall into those two categories, you don't have to have a licence. So for me, I have Netflix & Amazon subscriptions and only watch TV on demand and not iPlayer - i don't require a licence. I have TVs but they're all for console gaming or watching DVDs. I still don't require a licence.

Personally I would object to having to pay the BBCs bills because I don't use their content.

Would it work out cheaper if paid via general taxation? probably. But then I would have to pay and the selfish type of capitalist I am, I don't want to pay for something I don't use, nor, in my opinion, find of benefit to the public at large. (Though you'd find plenty of my countrymen willing to argue it is of public benefit)

If they went to a subscription model, you'd still have people like me not paying, the effect of general inertia of the populace and the lack of people succumbing to their threats so it would almost certainly raise costs for those who wanted it if the BBC wanted to maintain it's current level of funding. Not to mention that plenty of people don't watch the BBC but do watch other broadcasters and currently legally have to pay the BBC, and wouldn't have to under subscription.

So we're stuck in this ridiculous situation where it's an apparently optional cost, requiring significant knowledge of the loopholes to avoid (as I do), and using threats and legally powerless enforcement officers to shake down those who are suspected of evasion. It is very deliberately kept vague as to what rights their enforcers have (actually very few, though they give the impression they are the equivalent of the police with search warrants) and as such, hundreds of people are prosecuted every year when their only way of catching such people is to get them to self-incriminate themselves. Whilst I object to freeloaders, I object more to the enforcement methods which no other organisation would ever get away with, and thus, I (legally) do not pay for a TV Licence.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

I don't want to enter the realm of "ethnic stereotyping" but can we conclude from the "y'all" that you are the US?

In the UK we have a broadcasting system that provides 3 television channels (BBC 1, 2, & 4) that are transmitted sans advertising. (BBC 3 is now on - line only.) Those channels (along with something like 7 radio channels from the same organisation) have to be paid for and it is the licence fee that constitutes that payment. (Your "license" is perhaps another clue as to your whereabouts!)

If your alternative to our arrangement is the Merkin Model then for my money we'll just stay as we are, thank you very much. And FWIW if I'm going to be "controlled" by someone then I'd rather it was by a layer of government than by Rupert Murdoch and his like. The government does not control the BBC, although it would almost certainly like to; listen to or watch much of the BBC's output and the absence of government control is all too apparent.

Again FWIW the UK is not unique in requiring a licence.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

I don't think you quite understand the situation here; the license fee covers three terrestrial + one online TV channel and seven (I think) radio stations, all of which are advertising free; a one hour programme on the BBC lasts, pretty much, for an hour with no effort to sell me crap I've no interest in.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

But if quality advertisement-free broadcasting had to be funded from general taxation, then the broadcaster might rightly or wrongly be seen as being somewhat beholden to the government of the day. As things stand, governments have traditionally been afraid of the BBC ("Bolshevik Broadcasting Collective" is what the Conservatives used to refer to it as, and Labour always considered the BBC a Tory mothpiece) although recent events have embarrassed the BBC and emboldened the government.

Re: Big opportunity missed

The opportunity wasn't missed at all. It was avoided by a country mile.... Greg Dyke saw to that on purpose.

Freeview was deliberately designed so as to not support smartcards, making it easier for the BBC to resist any potential push to a subscription model.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/sep/17/broadcasting.digitaltv

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/why-sky-is-not-the-limit-112213.html

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?topic=2.5

.... And, of course, you could read his book. I wouldn't recommend it though.

Re: James May Reassembler

Nope. Either the YouTube advertising fees are going to BBC Worldwide, or it's an infringement of their copyright and will eventually get taken down in the perpetual game of whack-a-mole.

In the UK the BBC has no adverts at all - and no product placement either.

In other countries BBC programmes are sold by BBC Worldwide to various broadcasters, mostly advert-driven.

Re: who opens their door to strangers?

jesus, American paranoia, there's nothing like it...

Strangely enough, here in the UK I have no qualms about opening my metroland front door to complete strangers, just because they're strangers. The world's full of people I've not met yet, but I don't lie awake worrying that they're planning to murder me, because that would be insane. I don't actually know who's knocking until I open it, anyway, there's no spyhole. But that's because no-one don't knock on the door then burst in and beats up and/or robs the inhabitants. Does that happen in the US? Seriously?

Re: Why women?

(7) chance?

Re: fees and the like...

I live about 600 miles south of London.

I point a dish at the Clarke-belt and receive & watch around fifty BBC/UK non encrypted TVs signals.

I do not pay Crapita for a UK tv-license, the door-to-door guy hasn't been round recently.

It's called "FreeSat" and it is free. . . .some weeks there are three or four interesting programmes shown!

Re: Seems a good deal to me

"Try living in Au/NZ for a bit with only Sky at 50 quid/month that is 40% advertising by time."

SKY Subscription is optional. Do you get legally threatening letters because you don't subscribe to SKY?

Theres a difference between threats and marketing material.

If you did, you would just vpn/proxy to sites where the video material is available thereby evading the need for license. But what if you dont use TV at all except for DVD, computing and games console? You're sill liable to intimidation tactics.

You dont know how good you have it. Try living in the UK .

Re: Seems a good deal to me

$145/year

ha! you need to do currency conversion

as of right now: 3/3/2017

AUD $ 145 AUD = GBP £89.56 GBP

GBP £145 GBP = AUD $ 234.76 AUD

but its matters not. The consistent persecution is fundamentally wrong.

An out of date business model. If BBC want to be paid they need to keep with the times and switch to a subscription model, like most content providers nowadays.

That's demonstrably false. BBC income is holding up and they're still producing an enormous number of superb unique programmes with it. (Along with a lot of crap, yes, but, I'm a Radio 4 junkie, has a commercial model ever produced a channel of such quality, anywhere? ever?)