NationStates Jolt Archive

http://oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html
I just got another final notice through the door telling me that I have to pay €155 for a god damed television licence to fund our state broadcaster despite the fact that I rather put a ciggie out in my right eye than watch the crap.Does anyone else find this nuts...

The part about not being able to apply for refunds seems harsh. I know in the UK you can claim back any months that are completely unused. I personally don't have a TV license as I don't have a TV.

The part about not being able to apply for refunds seems harsh. I know in the UK you can claim back any months that are completely unused. I personally don't have a TV license as I don't have a TV.
I don't have one either but am wiling to take my chances.I am up for the fight.

wtf is a TV license?


sorry for my ignorance.


EDIT: sorry I missed the link


If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.

now that is just messed up, how much does one cost?


I am happy being ignorant of how much of my taxes go to NPR and PBS

I don't have one either but am wiling to take my chances.I am up for the fight.Remember they have to get a warrent before they can search your house, and until they have a warrent you have no obligation to let them into your house. So when they do come knocking for the first time it's time to deprogram all your channels and pack the TV into a box in the attic. So when they do come round with a warrant they have absolutely no proof that the TV in your house is used to recieve TV signals.

Alternatively you could just deprogram your channels and leave the VCR hooked up to the TV. They can't get you for that.

It's really important that you deprogram the channels though, otherwise that's pretty substantial proof that you use your TV to recieve signals.

And DO NOT let your TV screen face a window.

Those are the TV license dodging tips as I'm aware.

edit: seems like Ireland has harsher TV licensing laws than the UK.

wtf is a TV license?


sorry for my ignorance.
In the UK and Ireland, we have to pay for a licence if we want to watch tv. Sucks, doesn't it? In the UK, the money goes to the BBC. Don't know about Ireland. It's about £120 (approx. $200) per year. People complain about it, but considering how much tv some people watch, it's a bargain really (as we *have* to buy it).

wtf is a TV license?


sorry for my ignorance.


EDIT: sorry I missed the link




now that is just messed up, how much does one cost?


I am happy being ignorant of how much of my taxes go to NPR and PBS
€155 .. to fund state television/ broadcasting

wtf is a TV license?


sorry for my ignorance.

basically, exactly what they say on the tin. a licence to watch tv.

in a little more detail, here in the UK, they are the primary source of funding for the BBC (one of our tv networks; their other sources being merchandise and selling shows to other networks). You have to have one to watch any tv, even if it's not the bbc. In return the BBC doesn't have any advertising and i believe there are certain amounts of certain types of programming (like regional, educational etc.) that they have to put out.

It seems a small price to pay to avoid adverts, even on just a couple of channels. Ive lost count of the number of shows ive missed the end of cos I changed the channel during the adverts and forgot to change it back, or got into a show on the other side.

Philips have apparently invented a way to stop people changing channels during teh ads, or fastforwarding through them. If that ever takes hold thatl be the end of TV.

Remember they have to get a warrent before they can search your house, and until they have a warrent you have no obligation to let them into your house. So when they do come knocking for the first time it's time to deprogram all your channels and pack the TV into a box in the attic. So when they do come round with a warrant they have absolutely no proof that the TV in your house is used to recieve TV signals.

Alternatively you could just deprogram your channels and leave the VCR hooked up to the TV. They can't get you for that.

It's really important that you deprogram the channels though, otherwise that's pretty substantial proof that you use your TV to recieve signals.

And DO NOT let your TV screen face a window.

Those are the TV license dodging tips as I'm aware.

edit: seems like Ireland has harsher TV licensing laws than the UK.
Oh but they dont need a warrent.If you refuse access they fine you anyway.Its a catch22 in that regard.Its the same here if you refuse a blood of breath sample if your pulled over in a car and asked to do so..

Philips have apparently invented a way to stop people changing channels during teh ads, or fastforwarding through them. If that ever takes hold thatl be the end of TV.
Surely that would be illegal? Besides, you could just miss the last few seconds of a show before the ad-break, and change channels.

Philips have apparently invented a way to stop people changing channels during teh ads, or fastforwarding through them. If that ever takes hold thatl be the end of TV.It that ever comes mainstream technology then I foresee the end of all sales of TVs and VCRs. People will stick to the hold units without the fancy tech inside them.

Oh but they dont need a warrent.If you refuse access they fine you anyway.Its a catch22 in that regard.Its the same here if you refuse a blood of breath sample if your pulled over in a car and asked to do so..
you don't have the right to refuse the police access to your house without a warrant? man, that is double messed up.

you don't have the right to refuse the police access to your house without a warrant? man, that is double messed up.

It is not even the police but their own enforcement officers. Though I do believe issuing a fine like that in the UK is illeagle under the Bill of Rights or Declaration of rights. That is because only courts have the power to issue fines (though the government keep ignoring this because people usually are'nt willing to go to court to challenge this).


An interesting tid-bit I heard about the Declaration of Rights is that parliament does not have the power to revoke any part of it due to some querky way it was set out when the Monarchy had most of the power.

An interesting tid-bit I heard about the Declaration of Rights is that parliament does not have the power to revoke any part of it due to some querky way it was set out when the Monarchy had most of the power.

Couldn't be true; one of the foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that a Parliament can't be tied by the actions of a preceeding Parliament.

Couldn't be true; one of the foundations of Parliamentary Sovereignty is that a Parliament can't be tied by the actions of a preceeding Parliament.

That is the point, it was enacted outside of parliament between the Monarchy and the people direct I believe. It is also one of the few parts of our un-written constitution that is written down.

It is not even the police but their own enforcement officers. Though I do believe issuing a fine like that in the UK is illeagle under the Bill of Rights or Declaration of rights. That is because only courts have the power to issue fines (though the government keep ignoring this because people usually are'nt willing to go to court to challenge this).

surely you are allowed to refuse access to your house to a "regular person", for example if the child services people show up I don't have to let them in, in fact for them to come in without my express permission they have to have a police officer who has to have a warrant.

surely you are allowed to refuse access to your house to a "regular person", for example if the child services people show up I don't have to let them in, in fact for them to come in without my express permission they have to have a police officer who has to have a warrant.

I believe you are allowed to refuse access like some had already said, though they said that if you did this you would be fined which is where my point comes in.

I believe you are allowed to refuse access like some had already said, though they said that if you did this you would be fined which is where my point comes in.
but why do they fine you if you have the right to refuse access? it seems like extortion for them to be able to do that.

That is the point, it was enacted outside of parliament between the Monarchy and the people direct I believe. It is also one of the few parts of our un-written constitution that is written down.
That's beside the point; even if it was done outside of Parliament, Parliament would still have the ability to change it, because Parliamentary Sovereignty says Parliament can do anything. In the words of one seventeenth century politician, "Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man."

Of course, all this is irrelevent with the fact that no such document as the "Declaration of Rights" exists (at least not to my knowledge).

That's beside the point; even if it was done outside of Parliament, Parliament would still have the ability to change it, because Parliamentary Sovereignty says Parliament can do anything. In the words of one seventeenth century politician, "Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man."

Of course, all this is irrelevent with the fact that no such document as the "Declaration of Rights" exists (at least not to my knowledge).

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~lhstalrs/Survey_2001/Declaration_of_Rights.pdf

The Declaration of Rights is enshrined in the Bill of Rights though it is not dependent on the bill. It is a contract where the Monarch promised to defend the peoples religion, rights and liberties from all other attempts.

"Having therefore an entire confidence, that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect a deliverance so far advanced by him; and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted; and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties;"

http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~lhstalrs/Survey_2001/Declaration_of_Rights.pdf

The Declaration of Rights is enshrined in the Bill of Rights though it is not dependent on the bill. It is a contract where the Monarch promised to defend the peoples religion, rights and liberties from all other attempts.

"Having therefore an entire confidence, that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect a deliverance so far advanced by him; and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights, which they have here asserted; and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties;"

Ah yes, I get you now. That was the Declaration William and Mary made (written up by Parliament) before being acclaimed King and Queen by Parliament, but that's all it was; a declaration. It was never itself passed into law. It's tenets, however, were enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

And the Bill of Rights was supplanted by the Act of Settlement (although it remains law).

So, no, it can't be altered by Parliament because it was just a declaration made for the future King and Queen, but the statute that made its tenets law can be altered by Parliament like any other statute.

At least, that's my understanding of the thing, going on the relatively sketchy lecture notes I have on it.

but why do they fine you if you have the right to refuse access? it seems like extortion for them to be able to do that.

No. Think of it this way, it might be easier:

It is their television. They own it and are only leasing it to you. Via this t.v you have the ability to watch as many stations as you want. Now, if you default or refuse to pay them once a year, they simply come around and take their television back. (Or in this case, the ability to watch said stations)

Ratod, quit your bitching. It is actually a very good deal considering the amount of television that is watched and the tiny amount of ads there are (compared to US television stations). It is once a year and it helps fund the national broadcaster (3 television stations and 4 radio stations available across the country- 1 station of each is in the national language).

If you don't want to pay- then you don't have to have a t.v.

Personally I'm quite happy to pay a TV licence. It pays for six or seven ad free TV channels and a whole host of radio stations as well as a few UKTV channels which have limited ads on them. All in all it's cheaper than cable and the programs tend to be better as well. Especially the news channel and programs.

We get BBC broadcasts over here for free, although you have to stay up late to watch them. Us Yanks are big-time smoochers. :D I like the stylized clip of the woman blowing a kiss. Cool logo.

Ah yes, I get you now. That was the Declaration William and Mary made (written up by Parliament) before being acclaimed King and Queen by Parliament, but that's all it was; a declaration. It was never itself passed into law. It's tenets, however, were enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

And the Bill of Rights was supplanted by the Act of Settlement (although it remains law).

So, no, it can't be altered by Parliament because it was just a declaration made for the future King and Queen, but the statute that made its tenets law can be altered by Parliament like any other statute.

At least, that's my understanding of the thing, going on the relatively sketchy lecture notes I have on it.

Ok you may be right, it just that the declaration involved a promise by the King to defend the rights, liberties and religion from all attempts and in return parliment swore allegence to the crown. My impression of this is that the Monarchy is duty bound to defend the rights in the declaration which also includes from parliament.

As the current labour government has shown, parliament is not above attacking the rights and liberties in the declaration.

I have never heard of television licences before. The whole idea is rather foreign to me. I understand the logic behind it, but I don't think I would ever agree to such a thing. Taxes and donations pay for NPR and PBS. Cable channels are paid for privately, and often have few ads. Ads on other channels really don't bother me, unless I watch more than an hour of programming at a time. (If I watch that much TV at once, something is not right.)
Neither I, nor anyone in my family watches more than maybe four hours of television per week. About half of that is public programming. We don't have cable or satellite or any other extranneous channels. Our television is mostly for watching videos and playing video games.

No. Think of it this way, it might be easier:

It is their television. They own it and are only leasing it to you. Via this t.v you have the ability to watch as many stations as you want. Now, if you default or refuse to pay them once a year, they simply come around and take their television back. (Or in this case, the ability to watch said stations)

Ratod, quit your bitching. It is actually a very good deal considering the amount of television that is watched and the tiny amount of ads there are (compared to US television stations). It is once a year and it helps fund the national broadcaster (3 television stations and 4 radio stations available across the country- 1 station of each is in the national language).

If you don't want to pay- then you don't have to have a t.v.

But we bought the telly.

And it is now classed as a tax.

But we bought the telly.

And it is now classed as a tax.

Yes, you pay for a service (a state run television and radio broadcaster). Shocking isn't it.

Being charged for using the television is not an infringement on your human rights. A television is a luxury. I hate when people bitch and moan about wanting everything for free and not wanting to pay anything back- and then expect a good service in return!

Insanity.

The TV-fee here is 1.968 kronor = circa 211 euro per year. We used to call it a tv-licence, but they changed the name to 'fee' as it's more clear.

I don't think it's bad value, it goes towards Swedish public service Sveriges Television tv, Sveriges Radio public service radio and educational programmes from Utbildningsradio that are broadcast on SVT and SR's channels.

Like you say though, if you don't pay the inspectors can't force themselves into your house without permission.

Alternatively you could just deprogram your channels and leave the VCR hooked up to the TV. They can't get you for that.

It's really important that you deprogram the channels though, otherwise that's pretty substantial proof that you use your TV to recieve signals.

Not enough around here. You may have to pay the fee even if you don't have a television but you could watch it through your computer. If you have any kind of technology that COULD recieve signal -you pay.
I don't :D
I think the cost should be covered with tax money, not fees. Anyway I'll pay happily -when I get caught.



Philips have apparently invented a way to stop people changing channels during teh ads, or fastforwarding through them. If that ever takes hold thatl be the end of TV.
I bet it's designed to compete with moviechannels. They let you watch new movies for free if you just watch few (as if) ads first.

I'm not a huge fan of state-funded television to begin with, but the idea of licensing seems ludicrous, for both the consumer and the government. Why not just work it into Income Taxes like every other tax-happy government? It makes it easier for gov to collect, and eliminates the need for inspectors. And most people remain blissfully unaware.

I'm not a huge fan of state-funded television to begin with, but the idea of licensing seems ludicrous, for both the consumer and the government. Why not just work it into Income Taxes like every other tax-happy government? It makes it easier for gov to collect, and eliminates the need for inspectors. And most people remain blissfully unaware.

I much prefer it the way it is at the moment (in UK) as the only people paying for it are ones who have a T.V. which I don't. Though I wonder because the T.V. lincense goes towards funding radio as well if people with a T.V but no radio resent that fact.

I much prefer it the way it is at the moment (in UK) as the only people paying for it are ones who have a T.V. which I don't. Though I wonder because the T.V. lincense goes towards funding radio as well if people with a T.V but no radio resent that fact.

The government could also tax cable/satellite providers directly, which the cable companies could in turn pass on to the consumer. That way, the government isn't hiring people to stare into your living room to see if you're watching TV or not. Better yet, make the publicly funded channels optional with the cable companies, so that people can opt out of them.

Except you can't expect the state to collect less than it wants to...

http://oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html
I just got another final notice through the door telling me that I have to pay €155 for a god damed television licence to fund our state broadcaster despite the fact that I rather put a ciggie out in my right eye than watch the crap.Does anyone else find this nuts...

I feel your pain.

I was considering bringing harrassment charges against the TV Licensing authority because of the amount of intimidating post they send me.

Only as a joke of course.

Personally I'm quite happy to pay a TV licence. It pays for six or seven ad free TV channels and a whole host of radio stations as well as a few UKTV channels which have limited ads on them. All in all it's cheaper than cable and the programs tend to be better as well. Especially the news channel and programs.

Not all of us have TVs though, yet are still expected to pay it

(For peace of mind presumably)

In the UK and Ireland, we have to pay for a licence if we want to watch tv. Sucks, doesn't it? In the UK, the money goes to the BBC. Don't know about Ireland. It's about £120 (approx. $200) per year. People complain about it, but considering how much tv some people watch, it's a bargain really (as we *have* to buy it).

That hurts... do you still have to sit through commercials? For those who don't know, in the USA TV signals are free to the viewer, but the broadcasters make their money selling advertisement time, so we have about 20 minutes of commercials for every hour of viewing time.

That hurts... do you still have to sit through commercials? For those who don't know, in the USA TV signals are free to the viewer, but the broadcasters make their money selling advertisement time, so we have about 20 minutes of commercials for every hour of viewing time.
There are no adverts on any of the Swedish tv/radio channels funded by our tv-licence. The only exception is certain sports programmes which can have a sponsor, but they still don't have advert breaks.

That hurts... do you still have to sit through commercials? For those who don't know, in the USA TV signals are free to the viewer, but the broadcasters make their money selling advertisement time, so we have about 20 minutes of commercials for every hour of viewing time.

So 1/3 of your t.v time is taken up by advertisments! Bleugh.

In UK some stations have no advertisments (BBC for example- they only 'advertise' BBC programmes) and others only have about 8-10mins of ads per hour.

In Ireland it's the same, but more so on the latter of the above. A good deal IMO.

Why not just work it into Income Taxes like every other tax-happy government? It makes it easier for gov to collect, and eliminates the need for inspectors. And most people remain blissfully unaware.

It gives them greater independence from the government, meaning they are less likely to let themselves cowed by them just to maintain their cash flow. Occasionally they still do (like after the Hutton report whitewash, but that would have never come up in the first place if the BBC didnt have the courage to present news that which reflected badly on the Government.), but less often than would happen if they were completely reliant on government good will through grants from central taxation

I think the fee is a good idea. And it means we dont have to be bothered by adverts either, at least on the BBC. We normally get about 2 minutes between each programme, with none during a programme, and even then they are just advertising other TV programmes... ok, occasionally they advertise the odd BBC product, but not that often.

I was considering bringing harrassment charges against the TV Licensing authority because of the amount of intimidating post they send me.

Yes, as someone else who doesn't own a TV, the heavy-handed threats of prosecution that they regularly drop through my door are a tad infuriating.

That hurts... do you still have to sit through commercials?

The licence is so the stations can afford to run without commercials, so on the BBC there are no commercials to sit through (other than the standard 'this programme will be on at this time on this day' ads).

It gives them greater independence from the government, meaning they are less likely to let themselves cowed by them just to maintain their cash flow. Occasionally they still do (like after the Hutton report whitewash, but that would have never come up in the first place if the BBC didnt have the courage to present news that which reflected badly on the Government.), but less often than would happen if they were completely reliant on government good will through grants from central taxation

I think the fee is a good idea. And it means we dont have to be bothered by adverts either, at least on the BBC. We normally get about 2 minutes between each programme, with none during a programme, and even then they are just advertising other TV programmes... ok, occasionally they advertise the odd BBC product, but not that often.

So the BBC takes that cash directly from television owners? Doesn't the government facilitate the handover of funds? How does this eliminate 'cowing' by the government?

Better yet, why not make it reliant upon viewership and paid subscription? Government funded broadcasting gives me the willies (despite many years of Hockey Night in Canada on the CBC.)

There are no adverts on any of the Swedish tv/radio channels funded by our tv-licence. The only exception is certain sports programmes which can have a sponsor, but they still don't have advert breaks.

In the USA we do have the option for premium commercial free channels, but those are only available through satellite or cable TV providers. If you use a regular antenna you're stuck with commercials, and even most of the non-premium satellite and cable channels run commercials at about the same rate as on regular broadcast.

You know, when I first read this thread I felt badly for you guys in Europe that have to pay for TV licenses... but I'm beginning to think maybe you have it better. Someone said it was around 150 - 200 Euros... I'd pay that. It would work out to something like $300 US per year... hmmmmmmmm No commercials...

If I see that damned commercial for Kingdom Hearts II on G4TV one more time I may lose my mind...

Originally osted by Anarchic Conceptions
Not all of us have TVs though, yet are still expected to pay it

(For peace of mind presumably)
You only pay a TV licence if you have a TV. If you do not have a TV then you do not need a licence. Why are you paying for one?

So the BBC takes that cash directly from television owners? Doesn't the government facilitate the handover of funds? How does this eliminate 'cowing' by the government?

I believe it is paid directly to the BBC. Obviously enforcement is done by government, and as I said, cowing to government still happens (previously mentioned Hutton thing), as in the long run, it is still reliant on government support (as they are the ones who allow the fees to occur, and renew the charter every... how many years is it? Ten years? not sure.) It just reduces it significantly as it is not directly reliant on the government for funding. If it had to go to the government every year for a grant, it would make sure that it didnt piss them off, which the BBC has done occasionally, often leading to thinly veiled threats to change the charter next time round, commendably usually (though not always) ignored.


Better yet, why not make it reliant upon viewership and paid subscription?

Ah, it is the idea of public service content. If they had to compete for broadcasting with all the other channels, viewing figures would be its only goal, leading to entertainment being the main aim. This would threaten the quality of news output (which excepting the actual BBC 1 news broadcasts, which has dumbed down a bit, is very good, probably one of the best in the world), things such as documentaries (as only topics expected to get large audiences would be chosen. More things like "Did Hitler cheat on Eva Braun with his Dog?", or "Nazi history month") and programmes which might be risky to back would not get support, leading to less innovation. Many of the most successful and well loved British sitcoms would have never got funding if the BBC couldnt take the risk to back them.

Of course the BBC does still try to appeal to its audience, and make interesting programmes which people will want to watch, but they do not have to rely on this, allowing them to be more... well, good quality really. Some of what they do I really hate (eg. Strictly Come Dancing. Why? Why? Why?), but there are bits worth paying the fee for.

Some of my favourite programmes would probably never initially made it to British terrestrial (ie, non cable or sattelite, and free to view) without the BBC. Star Trek, Buffy, 24. And the bliss of no adverts. Now I watch the same programmes on Sky, the adverts just get annoying.

In the USA we do have the option for premium commercial free channels, but those are only available through satellite or cable TV providers. If you use a regular antenna you're stuck with commercials, and even most of the non-premium satellite and cable channels run commercials at about the same rate as on regular broadcast.

You know, when I first read this thread I felt badly for you guys in Europe that have to pay for TV licenses... but I'm beginning to think maybe you have it better. Someone said it was around 150 - 200 Euros... I'd pay that. It would work out to something like $300 US per year... hmmmmmmmm No commercials...

If I see that damned commercial for Kingdom Hearts II on G4TV one more time I may lose my mind...
Whilst it is certainly an advantage not to have adverts, the licence ensures that the public service broadcasters are well funded so that they can provide programmes that advertising-funded channels would not produce (as they would not be high advert-revenue generating). This is the major advantage.

Swedish commercial tv channels have far less adverts than American ones. Swedes would never put up with 20 mins of adverts per hour of programme, and it would be illegal in any case. We have strict laws governing adverts on tv, e.g. it is illegal to have adverts directed at children. For this reason, many channels aimed at Swedes are broadcast from other countries, especially from the UK.

Some of my favourite programmes would probably never initially made it to British terrestrial (ie, non cable or sattelite, and free to view) without the BBC. Star Trek, Buffy, 24. And the bliss of no adverts. Now I watch the same programmes on Sky, the adverts just get annoying.

Of course, when the aforementioned (ST, Buffy, 24) show on BBC channels, they take up only 45 minutes (possibly slightly less, with usual continuity padding at each end). Which, in the case of "24", each episode supposedly being a realtime hour, can be quite amusing. (No. We don't get to see what Jack does during the periods of time commercial-station audiences are watching adverts... So there's still a possibility that this is when he takes a comfort break... ;))

Oh, and is it true the Simpsons have two ad breaks in the states?

It's simply coercion. You should never comply. Every time you pay separately for a public service gives the government more leverage for making you pay for already tax-funded services.

And, obviously, many people don't *have* such money. It's positively absurd that someone living on a student grant should give about one fourth of their actual spending money back to the government.

It's simply coercion. You should never comply. Every time you pay separately for a public service gives the government more leverage for making you pay for already tax-funded services.

And, obviously, many people don't *have* such money. It's positively absurd that someone living on a student grant should give about one fourth of their actual spending money back to the government.I agree in principle, but how does that relate to TV licencing/fees?

The BBC might be called a public service, but it's paid for only by those people who have TVs (give or take the fact that it's so rare that people don't that it might be initially disbelieved if you claim not to have any TV reception equipment). It's not funded by the government (with the caveat of government involvement in agreeing certain aspects of the system .e.g licence costs) and is not so much a 'stealth tax' as a 'stealth subscription' (and not very stealth at all).

If you don't have the money for the licence, where did you get the money for the TV? (Ok, I'll allow that the licence is annual, whereas TVs are perpetual, breakdowns and imminent discontonuation of analogue broadcasts excepted.) And, again, the money doesn't go to the government.

Personally, I should be able to do without a TV quite easily, if push came to shove. And I'd still be able to listen to radio (also funded by the licences paid by everyone else).

I don't subscribe to a TV service (Sky, etc), nor have I bought (as a one-off cost) a Freeview-compatible box. I merely pluck the analogue TV signals out of the air (and both analogue and digital radio signals, I listen to a vast amount of Radio 7 for example) and I certainly believe I get more than the ~35p of cost/day for the licence back in value from the BBC channels (plus the option to watch/listen to commercial stations, knowing that advertisers obviously feel it worthwhile to pump money into them for product/service exposure to the masses).

You only pay a TV licence if you have a TV. If you do not have a TV then you do not need a licence. Why are you paying for one?

The TV licencing authority sends quite frankly openly hostile and impolite letters to all addresses where a TV licence is not registered: there is the expectation that everyone has a TV, and thus that everyone must pay the licence. I don't believe AnarCon is actually paying for a licence, but just confronted with the expectation that he must.

The TV licencing authority sends quite frankly openly hostile and impolite letters to all addresses where a TV licence is not registered: there is the expectation that everyone has a TV, and thus that everyone must pay the licence. I don't believe AnarCon is actually paying for a licence, but just confronted with the expectation that he must.This, I think, is a social problem.

First of all, I in no way wish to justify unjust harrassment of truly TV-free households on the presumption of "guilty until proven innocent", so please do not read the following as doing so.

The fact is that TVs have become so saturated in society (for better or worse) that I suspect that the number of households that have a TV but declare they have not (licence-dodgers) far outnumbers the number that genuinely do not have an TV equipment (those that do not wish to own a TV, those that cannot afford to keep a TV, those for whom TV reception is impossible[1] through reasons of local geography, etc) and thus legitimately do not subscribe.

Given these basic statistics, I can see someone at the appropriate monitoring organisation taking the view that they should target all non-subscribers at the cost of pointlessly expending resources on investigating the claims of the few non-viewers in the sample, rather than encourage actual licence-dodgers to think they can get away with it.

I found some of the excuses reported from the (probably biased, but still relevant) horse's mouth (http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/mediaandcommunity/mediapressreleases.jsp?archive=8).

As I understand it, long before you get anyone even considering breaking down the door and searching your house for the TV you have hidden under the floorboards, the following (or similar) process will occur:
List of addresses known to have been associated with TVs in the past (plus addresses given by those buying TVs and possibly all new home addresses) is compared with list of addresses known to have an active licence and possible offenders pinpinted.
Cursory contact made. For example, I know that one year I didn't get a reminder, and they phoned me just before the expiry of the existing licence, and I was able, and happy, to pay them right there and then.
If they can't make contact, or some sort of flat denial is made, they probably send out the ground troops on recon. They'd see if the house wasn't there any more/unnoccupied/whetever. They might even have hand-held detectors to pick up the inevitable RF leakage from any relevant tuning equipment that exists (and thus requires licencing).
If there's further cause to investigate, then they'd go door-knocking to say "are you sure you don't have a TV?" and/or bring in the accurate and highly directional (van-based?[2]) detectors to back up any suspicions.
As to if/when big guys with battering rams come along and gain forced entry, prior to calling out the police to investigate suspected criminality (supposedly with recorded proof of an offence), I wouldn't know.


Maybe the system isn't as idealistically employed as I put it above, but my point is that it'll be rare indeed that a non-viewer will get to the stage of having to barricade your doors against the TV licencing people, within the system as I know it/extrapolate from what I know.

Really, a 'threatening letter' isn't worth the paper it's written on if they don't have any reason to believe you have do have a any of the inclusive equipment. If you really do not have a TV, video or whatever broadcasting the particular brand of RF that gives away its existence and nature, then the threat is just a threat.

Of course, if you have hidden your TV away, even if you've put it in a aluminium-foil lined room and bought a £200 device to shield the aerial cable and prevent it broadcasting its existence (which probably doesn't work, unless it's a sophisticated optically-isolated system) then 'They' will have probably have good reason to keep pestering you. Personally, if I were an enforcement officer, I'd give every opportunity for mistakes to be corrected (genuine misconceptions on behalf of the equipment-owners, blatant attempts to shield the TV being found out or even a non-viewer showing the authority how the plan of the building means the placement of a neighbour's TV initially appears to be inside their own appartment) before there was any approach to the courts for prosecution.

So I'm an idealist. But I'm also a waffler, and I realise it's not an ideal world. All power to you if you are being illegitimately victimised. However, I'd advise anyone who was trying to cheat the system to pay up and stop being silly.

[A right little conformist, aren't I? ;)]

[1] Prior to satelite broadcasts, of course. And if BBC channels weren't available over satelite as well I might allow that lack of terrestrial signal was a legitimate reason to not pay, even while receiving commercial TV services.
[2] When TVs were rare, and the system new, I can imagine the value of sending a van round the streets to look for signals, then zero in on them, but these days the electrical noise from neighbouring houses/flats with legitimate sets probably swamps all but the most highl directional detectors.

If you really do not have a TV, video or whatever broadcasting the particular brand of RF that gives away its existence and nature, then the threat is just a threat.

Yes, but I don't appreciate being regularly threatened in my own home with prosecution on the basis of something of which I have no part.

IIf you don't have the money for the licence, where did you get the money for the TV?

Well, you can pick up a decent TV for twenty quid. The license fee is six times that.

Really, a 'threatening letter' isn't worth the paper it's written on if they don't have any reason to believe you have do have a any of the inclusive equipment.

The thing is, it isn't just one. But many many.

It really is infuriating.

How exactly do they stop you from watching tv if you don't have a licence?:confused:

The TV licencing authority sends quite frankly openly hostile and impolite letters to all addresses where a TV licence is not registered: there is the expectation that everyone has a TV, and thus that everyone must pay the licence. I don't believe AnarCon is actually paying for a licence, but just confronted with the expectation that he must.

I agree with your assesment, a few months ago I had to work away from home so I got a house to rent on a short-term contract. I was only there for two months but it semed I got letters from The TV licencing authority every other week. All the letters were hostile in the way they were written.

How exactly do they stop you from watching tv if you don't have a licence?:confused:
They don't. They send enforcers to take stuff from you that they can sell for the same price as the license. Same as if you refuse to pay a valid invoice.

Really, a 'threatening letter' isn't worth the paper it's written on if they don't have any reason to believe you have do have a any of the inclusive equipment.
Unfortunately that is not true. Many people pay as soon as it is demanded. There are many private frauds who use this too.

While I dont like the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the license fee letters (particularly with students), if you phone them up, and tell them you dont have a TV, they stop pestering you straight away... at least that was my experience. After that you should only get problem if they find you actually do have a TV.

While I dont like the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the license fee letters (particularly with students), if you phone them up, and tell them you dont have a TV, they stop pestering you straight away... at least that was my experience. After that you should only get problem if they find you actually do have a TV.


Did you know that over here(UK) , if you are a full time student living away from home, your parents licences also covers your TV/Video?

Did you know that over here(UK) , if you are a full time student living away from home, your parents licences also covers your TV/Video?

No it doesnt. They explicitly state that it doesnt. Many students think that, but it isnt true. If you live in a seperate abode, it requires its own license. And each seperate student room in a hall counts as a seperate abode.

I am British student, so "over here" is the same place as your "over here".

No it doesnt. They explicitly state that it doesnt. Many students think that, but it isnt true. If you live in a seperate abode, it requires its own license. And each seperate student room in a hall counts as a seperate abode.

I am British student, so "over here" is the same place as your "over here".

Then In that case I got it, wrong. I guess it used to be that way huh! If they specifcaly mention it then they have changed it. The bastards!

Ah, yes, they might have changed it in past few years. Definitley like this for the past 2 years, but I think it has been like that for a few years.

Ah, yes, they might have changed it in past few years. Definitley like this for the past 2 years, but I think it has been like that for a few years.


Yep it was certianly like that when my dad was a TV licence bloke. Talking of such thinks a lil tip for you. Heheh but perhaps this has also changed, if you have never broguht a TV lincence then chances are if you don't buy a new TV from a shop, then chances are that you'll never get caught. Having said that though these detector vans do work, and can pinpoint from which house, flat, room the signal is coming from, and they even have hand held devices now. When they knock on the door, don't let them in, you don't have to. Plead inocent even if they have detected a signal, make them go away and go get a warrent(which they cannot serve on their own, they have to be accompanied by the police) in the meantime, get the TV and video out of the house.

Other wise if you can prove that you do not watch any BBC channels you don't have to pay the licence.

Other wise if you can prove that you do not watch any BBC channels you don't have to pay the licence.

Yes... but that is very hard to do. And I like the BBC channels.

I havent got a TV this year, but I will next, and I suspect me and my mates will just pay the fee. What will it be £40-50 each, or something slightly more than that? Ah... I can afford that, and my friends certainly can.

Yes... but that is very hard to do. And I like the BBC channels.

I havent got a TV this year, but I will next, and I suspect me and my mates will just pay the fee. What will it be £40-50 each, or something slightly more than that? Ah... I can afford that, and my friends certainly can.


Seriously mate if you can get away with not having to get one do it. Once you buy one, they have you on record, and you will never get away with it again. Man the words I had to have with my wife a few years back for getting scared and crumbling. *sigh* that's life I guess, and I do love her and she is very sexy ;)

Other wise if you can prove that you do not watch any BBC channels you don't have to pay the licence.I understand that to be very tricky to do.

You'd have to provably sabotage the tuning of (say) channels 44 and 51 to prevent reception of BBC1 and BBC2 from the Emley Moor mast (which I'll use as my example, given it's the main mast in my region), while allowing channels 47 and and 41 to filter through for ITV and Channel 4.

Except that I get my signal from one of the many relay masts (due to geography issues) and while I'm technically over-including (because many of the 'slave' masts within the area aren't in Line-Of-Sight to me), the cummulative channels that BBC broadcasts on are:

21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 31, 33, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58 62, 63, 64 and 66

Whereas the channels that non-BBC broadcast on are:
21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 39, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67 and 68.

(I didn't find information on Channel 5, within a brief Google. But I only get a fuzzy signal here anyway, still.)

To review, after you (admitedly with overkill) somehow filter out of your aerial input (or mess up your tuner in some other way to prevent their selection in an irreversible way) you need to be left with some/all of the following pattern of frequencies:

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 65, 66, 67 and 68.

(Underlined must not be tunable, in case you can pick up channels from that mast by pointing the aerial in the right direction, Bold are ones you might be able to get a non-BBC channel from, depending on location within the region. How do you implement that restrictionin a frequency fliter, and in a manner that can be shown to deny you utterly of BBC channels?

You know what youre better off doing? Getting your neighbours (holder of a TV Licence) to host a tuning box that resolves the channels you want (BBC or not) to a non-UHF signal and pipes that ythrough into your house. It might be done as easily has hooking up a video to their aerial, taking a SCART/DV output from it through to your SCART/DV-only monitor (perhaps a colour security monitor, with no tuner) that is your only 'TV-like' device in the house, and hook up an IR extender so you can use the video's remote control in your house to change the channels on the video in theirs (so as to avoid drilling more than one tiny hole in the partition wall, or feeding of cables out of one window and into the next).

Not that I'm saying you should (also, depends on your neighbours. Maybe they'll want your half of their Licence, as well... ;)) and it won't stop them from possibly resolving the RF leakage from the monitor coils to reveal that your SCART-only 'home security' system is mysteriously showing Eastenders, if they have half a mind to check, but it's going to be easier than the major electrical engineering project needed to provably disable BBC channels on all your TV-range UHF receivers in the house. (And you'd have to disable the channels for the BBC multiplexes, too, on Digital reception equipment, but at least they're grouped in one lot, IIRC...)

While I dont like the "guilty until proven innocent" attitude of the license fee letters (particularly with students), if you phone them up, and tell them you dont have a TV, they stop pestering you straight away... at least that was my experience. After that you should only get problem if they find you actually do have a TV.

Well you were lucky then. I still get abusive post. A friend of mine had a tv licence, but was still sent the intimidating letters, even after he complained. My girlfriends flatmate from the first year continued to get the warning letters even after inviting them to come round and make sure. Someone I met at a party routinely gets the letters after nearly half a decade of living in the house and numerous complaints.

Bastards.

It probably depends on who the TV licencing people have contracted in your area. I bet I got Crapita :mad:

Other wise if you can prove that you do not watch any BBC channels you don't have to pay the licence.

Not true. I checked, (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, it says you have to pay the licence even if you don't watch the BBC. If you have anything that can pick up TV signals, you have to pay.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm

Not true. I checked, (The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, it says you have to pay the licence even if you don't watch the BBC. If you have anything that can pick up TV signals, you have to pay.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm

Recently there was a court case where someone managed to prove they never watch BBC (I dont know how) and he was let off and told he didnt need to pay the fine or the license.

But as most people will find it hard to prove they dont watch BBC, in most cases, even if you dont watch it, you will be liable for the fee.

Recently there was a court case where someone managed to prove they never watch BBC (I dont know how) and he was let off and told he didnt need to pay the fine or the license.

But as most people will find it hard to prove they dont watch BBC, in most cases, even if you dont watch it, you will be liable for the fee.


Do you have proof?

This sounds apocryphal and inconsistent with the law.

Do you have proof?

This sounds apocryphal and inconsistent with the law.

Well, no I dont have proof, I just heard it one morning on BBC radio news. Some time last year, when they had all those stories about excuses people had for not paying the fee.

It wasnt something I heard from a mate or something, but otherwise, no I have no proof.

Well, no I dont have proof, I just heard it one morning on BBC radio news. Some time last year, when they had all those stories about excuses people had for not paying the fee.

It wasnt something I heard from a mate or something, but otherwise, no I have no proof.

At least the BBC is trying to show it is impartial by reporting on a case that it is possible to evade them legally.

If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.
No for me in the UK, the licence guy came and saw a TV, I said it's broken, then 2 weeks later I received a letter stating OK you do not have a working TV, you do not have to pay the licence.

That was in 2003.

Now I've a TV, my wife bought a f*** TV licence, do I have to pay one for me, even if I say I don't watch that crap ?

Thanks for your time.

Ah, it is the idea of public service content. If they had to compete for broadcasting *snip*

Public broadcasting is at best, subsidized crap that the majority of people wouldn't watch if they weren't forced to pay for it, and at worst, a state propaganda machine.

Now, I'm being slightly extreme, but there is no reason for someone who doesn't watch the BBC to have to pay for the BBC. Rather than pay a license to own a tv, people can pay a subscription for access to the BBC. If people are so offended by commercials, then they can pay not to have them. At least give people the option to watch TV and opt out of the public channels.

There is a qualitative difference between the BBC and much of the other drivel out there. Maybe not in entertainment area (though, in some cases I would say there is) but documentary and news provision. And this would be threatened by not having a license fee. We dont want British news provision to become like the load of drivel entertainment programmes passing themselves off as news in the States thank you, which, if exposed to straight monatary competition, it is likely to become.

The reason the BBC has become the world wide respected news source is because of the license fee.

There is a qualitative difference between the BBC and much of the other drivel out there. Maybe not in entertainment area (though, in some cases I would say there is) but documentary and news provision. And this would be threatened by not having a license fee. We dont want British news provision to become like the load of drivel entertainment programmes passing themselves off as news in the States thank you, which, if exposed to straight monatary competition, it is likely to become.

The reason the BBC has become the world wide respected news source is because of the license fee.

But there are other state-funded news agencies that don't rely on a licensing system... Canada has the CBC, and granted, if you despise commercials, than you're out of luck. And I just don't buy that state-funded news agencies are going to be completely unbiased. Not when push comes to shove.

Public broadcasting is at best, subsidized crap that the majority of people wouldn't watch if they weren't forced to pay for it, and at worst, a state propaganda machine. I don't know whether our tastes vary ocnsiderably, or just that your own experience of public broadcasting is of a vastly different style than my own, but I honestly don't recognise any of what you say.

Tonight's BBC channels show some 'low-lights' (in my opinion) as "Strictly Dance Fever", but features (again, in my opinion) great programmes such as Doctor Who and (just starting) "QI".

Noted points of interest (for me) on the commercial channels include Ultimate Force (which I like) and The Perfect Home (documentary on architecture/design, a subject which attracts me).

I truly couldn't actually quantify my enjoyment of the various channels (the four and a half channels I see, without getting some sort of equipment other than the analogue TVs/videos I possess) and say with certainty exactly how much each channel is important to me, but the summary is as follows:

BBC1: Best news programmes. Good dramas and various documentaries.
BBC2: Good for alternative comedy, scientific programmes (Horizon, etc) and documentaries.
ITV(1): Some good Dramas. Known for its Soaps (Coronation Street, Emmerdale). I'm generally not in its demographic (though I'll watch The Bill, despite not liking how 'soapy' it now is).
Channel 4: Some good (alternative) comedies, some decent documentaries, often a decent choice of films.
Five: Fuzzy reception, here. Good for cult movies and the "new Channel Four" when it comes stuff like "Real Wife Swapping" (softer-than-soft-core titilation) and a hotch-potch of other things that might interest me if reception were better. Famous for archetypal "When Nazis go bad"-style programmes as well, come to think of it.
(All but BBC channels are commercial-supported.)

Summary: BBC1 & 2, well worth the licence fee, IMHO, but then I'm obviously the lap-dog of the Establishment, so please feel free to disagree.
ITV: With odd exceptions, not my cup-of-tea.
C4: Probably my favourite commercial station.
C5: Some truly awful stuff, some good stuff, but crammed into the radio spectrum so usually not brilliantly watchable on image quality alone...

(PS, QI has just finished. That's how absorbed I was by it - it took half an hour to write this... ;)

A television license? Sucks for you across the Ocean. :p

But there are other state-funded news agencies that don't rely on a licensing system...[quote]

But the license gives it a source of funding seperate from government taxation. It gives it a degree of independance.

[quote]
Canada has the CBC, and granted, if you despise commercials, than you're out of luck. And I just don't buy that state-funded news agencies are going to be completely unbiased.

Well, I am not saying it is completely unbiased, just less so than many other new agencies I have come across. And if anything, many in the BBC could be argued generally to be biased against the government. Not for it. No matter what Churchill tried in the 1920s the BBC is not the government propaganda service.


Not when push comes to shove.

True, in some cases it has been less independant, but no news agency can claim to be, and I would rather trust the so far good record of the BBC rather than a commercial station which panders to the political persuasion of its owner (Fox news being the best example of this).

Though in terms of actual standard news programme Channel 4 is probably better than the BBC TV news programmes (at least in my opinion), but thats not to do with bias, more standard of programme. But then the BBC has Newsnight, BBC online, and, most importantly for me, and personally I think it shows the BBC news at its best, the BBC radio news.

A television license? Sucks for you across the Ocean. :p

Nah... it aint that bad. Most people are perfectly willing to pay it... and when I have a TV I will be happy to pay it.

Okay... let me ask the British TV aficionado's this... how many channels do you have access to... some would leave me to believe that it is less than 10... it is slightly misleading... :)

Okay... let me ask the British TV aficionado's this... how many channels do you have access to... some would leave me to believe that it is less than 10... it is slightly misleading... :)Analogue Terrestrial, we get five:
BBC1 - Started as the one and only TV channel in 1936-ish, though took a short break during WW2.
BBC2 - Broadcast since 1967 and possibly one of the first channels in Europe to regularly broadcast in colour and 'modern' (at least prior to High Definition/etc) number of scan-lines.
ITV1 - previously just ITV (Independant TeleVision) but rebranded since they launched their further channels. Started in 1955-ish, but with regional variations.
Channel 4 - Since 1982 (In Wales, S4C, "Sianel Pedwar Cymru"/"Channel Four Wales", is broadcast instead of Channel 4).
Channel 5 (I think they prefer to be called "Five"), I think since 1997. The UK analogue broadcast spectrum wasn't really designed for a fifth channel, so reception isn't as universal/clear as all other channels.


[Put here in the 'popular' order on people's sets. ITV/ITV1 being "Channel 3" in all but name for many a year, now. Creation order was BBC1 (obviously just "British Television Broadcast" or something when first started), then ITV/regional commercial, then BBC2, and C4 and C5. Only the latter two were started in my living memory, I must add. ;)]


However, if you get 'traditional satelite you'll get all the Sky channels (who knows how many), and there's cable providers (not down my street, but I'm not bothered by that) and Digital Terrestrial, Digital Satelite and whatever gives us a whole host of other channels.

Personally, I watch the basic five (or, as I usually say, "four and a half") analogue terrestrial channels and find more than enough interesting stuff on them. See a prior post for my views on each.

If I were to utilise the satelite dish (from prior occupants of this house, though may need an upgrade) I'd have dozens of channels (including an interference-free Five?), as I would if I could pursuade a cable company to lay their wires down my street. I'm not too sure about digital terrestrial, experiments in the early days when OnDigital (later ITVDigital, later scrapped) was around showed I didn't get that good a signal, but things might have changed.

When the analogue signals get shut off in 2008-2012 (whatever part of the phasing this area is included in) the replacement digital broadcasts that will flood the now de-analogued areas of the spectrum might ensure that my reception of all multiplexes is flawless. Or it might already be that way, and there are some tempting channels out there.


From the BBC, as well as BBC1 and BBC2, I'd also get BBC3 (Comedy and Drama), BBC4 (Culture, Documentaries, good stuff like that), BBCi (interactive), Cbeebies (For young children), CBBC (For children), BBC News 24 (self explanatory) and BBC Parliament (likewise).

On top of ITV1, the ITV franchises provide ITV2 (complementary to ITV1 programmes, like "behind the scenes"), ITV3 (Dramas, new and old), ITV4 (Sport and so-called men's dramas), ITVPlay (interactive games and quizzes), CITV (for the kids)

Channel 4's contribtion includes the addition of E4 ('entertainment' shows, mostly from the US I think), More4 (more serious drama, documentaries, news, current affairs and related satire), and if you get S4C I think there's an S4C-2.

Then there's some Sky offerings (News, Sports News) and some music/lifestyle ones (TMF, QVC etc).


Then there's all the radio channels, but you don't want boring with that information (personally, I love the BBC ones, especially BBC7, I've never really got the hang of commercial radio, but maybe I'm a snob).


If you were to go for a full-blown satelite/cable package I'm sure that you could get a hundred channels or more, but personally I'm more than satisifed by the 4.5 channels I currently receive. There are hardly enough hours in the day already, I've got 9 solid days of recordings, dating back about a month, of things I'm trying to see. including Lost series 2 from Channel 4, several dramas and things from BBC1, The Bill (masochist as I am, given how it's deteriorated since it's golden days) and while I know there's stuff on BBC3, BBC4, E4 and More4 that I'd want to see (interestingly, not much on the ITV franchise), if it's good enough to not want to miss it'll be rebroadcast on terrestrial or repeated when I get around to converting to digital.



Sorry. What was the question again? ;)

It is possible to pick up massively more than ten stations. I don't. I'm not concerned about that (and could do something about it if I was).

But there are other state-funded news agencies that don't rely on a licensing system... Canada has the CBC, and granted, if you despise commercials, than you're out of luck. And I just don't buy that state-funded news agencies are going to be completely unbiased. Not when push comes to shove.

The BBC isn't "State Funded" (well except for the World Service, but that is slightly different). It is funded through the TV Licence, not the state.

http://oasis.gov.ie/public_utilities/telecommunications/tv_licences.html
I just got another final notice through the door telling me that I have to pay €155 for a god damed television licence to fund our state broadcaster despite the fact that I rather put a ciggie out in my right eye than watch the crap.Does anyone else find this nuts...


Don't own a tv?

if i had to pay a liscence to own or watch television, why the hell would i want to own or watch television? i almost never watch the damd thing as it is and i live where you don't have to.

on the other hand, if paying a liscence ment not having to be bombarded with advertising messages, i'd consider that a fair tradeoff. i probably still wouldn't see it as worth while, but i'd consider it a fair tradeoff.

of course if i had to pay a liscence and STILL had the damd commercials, well i'm sorry but forget it. i can damd well live without that. and do!

there's nothing but bullshit on there anyway where i live
not worth turning it on for even for free

=^^=
.../\...

The BBC isn't "State Funded" (well except for the World Service, but that is slightly different). It is funded through the TV Licence, not the state.

The license is enforced by the state, is it not? And collected by the state? And then handed over to the BBC by the state? Or, does the BBC, as a 'state' broadcaster, have exclusive right to the funds from television licences? Are there any private broadcasters in the UK, and if so, why aren't they getting access to the funds from television licenses?

Changing the methodology of funding doensn't change the fact that it's still funded by the state. Unless I'm missing something here...

Who 'owns' the BBC if not the people? That would make it a state company.

*snipped*

Sorry. What was the question again? ;)

It is possible to pick up massively more than ten stations. I don't. I'm not concerned about that (and could do something about it if I was).

That was a very thorough and detailed answer!

How do you go through life channel surfing through 4.5 channels?

(I have to admit, in all my ranting on state tv and such, I don't actually watch a lot of it. If there's a really good show on TV, I tend to wait until I can watch it on DVD in my own time, otherwise if I've resorted to watching TV, I flip through the guide on my tv and select something that seems to be on 24/7; like the Simpsons or just turn it to a music or movie channel.)

The license is enforced by the state, is it not? And collected by the state?

Nope it is enforced and collected by a private company called Capita (http://www.capita.co.uk/) (frequently dubbed Crapita).

And then handed over to the BBC by the state?

No the whole collecting thing is contracted out, technically I suppose Capita pay for the TV licence then try and extract the money out of the TV (and non-TV )watching population.

Or, does the BBC, as a 'state' broadcaster, have exclusive right to the funds from television licences?

I'm not sure, maybe ITV get a bit. But the BBC isn't a "state" broadcaster since it is independent to the state.

Are there any private broadcasters in the UK, and if so, why aren't they getting access to the funds from television licenses?

Because they are seen as commercial companies, the BBC is seen as a public service broadcaster. Also, the majority of channels in the UK raise their revenue via subscription and advirtising.

Changing the methodology of funding doensn't change the fact that it's still funded by the state. Unless I'm missing something here...

No money comes from the state to the corporation, it isn't funded by the state.

Who 'owns' the BBC if not the people? That would make it a state company.

The Board of governers I think. But the people most certainly don't. If we did we wouldn't have to pay for the privilege to watch it would we?

If we did we wouldn't have to pay for the privilege to watch it would we?

Of course you would. I'm sure the people who work there would like to be paid. It costs money to run any company, regardless of whether it's privately or publicly owned.

The BBC is run by a board of governers appointed by the government, and the government sets the license fee. While a private company collects the funds and the state isn't actively involved in running the corporation, it's still a public broadcaster, meaning it's an apparatus of the state.

Nowadays, the BBC has very large commercial interests throughout the world. So at home they get a very large helping hand from the government who forces a 'license' system on the people (while any privately owned companies who have to compete with the BBC don't have that luxury) , while abroad they compete in a commercial system. It's essentially a highly subsidized media giant.

Because the funding is a 'license' and not a 'tax', I suppose you can argue that it's not a 'state company'. However, I think we're just playing word games.

With regards to the annoying letters that come through to each address, that is shown as not having a TV licence. If you write and tell them you do not own a TV they take you off their lists for two years. However after the 2 years grace you are put back on.

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/

This site has tips and genuine correspondence from people who have had a problem with the TV Licence "Police".

That was a very thorough and detailed answer!I aim to please (but I usually end up waffling).

How do you go through life channel surfing through 4.5 channels?I'm going to list today's highlights. It's a Sunday, which means an atypical schedule and no direct work commitments, but might explain my TV tastes and how it works for me.

07:00-07:20 BBC2, "Batfink" (cartoon, nostalia) - Recorded for later viewing, though in reality I was still awake from the night before...
07:20-07:30 BBC2 "Krypto the Superdog" (cartoon) - Recorded for later viewing
08:50-09:25 ITV1 "Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!" (cartoon) - Recorded for later viewing
[NB, the above programmes, possibly the immediately following one, pandering to the child in me ;)]
16:55-18:00 C4 "The Worst Jobs in History" (documentary/history-type thing) - Recorded for later viewing as I'm out at the time
18:00-18:25 ITV1 "Twisted Tales" (documentary/hsitory) - Recorded for later viewing, looked interesting last week but I don't know if I like it yet. Skip if I don't later like the one I recorded last week and haven't seen yet.
[NB: 18:00-19:40 C4 repeat of "Lost" (series 2, episodes 1-2) - Already recorded these last Tuesday, but if I'd have not managed to, this would have been another chance]
18:05-18:35 BBC1 "Last of the Summer Wine" (light-paced comedy) - Seen at the place I was out at (indeed, my schedule is partly based on this fact)
18:35-19:35 BBC1 "The Impressionists" (docu-drama) - Also seen at the place I was visiting
[NB 19:35-20:00 BBC1 "BBC News" (news(!)) - Would have seen, but I'm travelling back home]
20:00-21:00 BBC1 "The Perfect Shark" (nature documentary) - Currently watching, as I type this
20:00-21:00 BBC2 "Top Gear" (cars/entertainment show) - Being recorded for later viewing
20:00-21:00 C4 "Invasion" (SF drama) - Also recording for later viewing (I have two videos, sometimes wish I had more, but I'm also making my own Personal Digital Video Recorder.
21:00-22:30 BBC1 "Krakatoa" (docu-drama) - Going to watch this
22:30-23:20 BBC2 "Krakatoa" Revealed (drama, accompanying above item) - Going to watch this
23:10-00:10 ITV1 "12 Books That Changed The World" (literature) - Will probably be recording this, because of the 10-minute overlap
00:15-00:35 BBC1 "The Sky At Night" (astronomy magazine programme) - May record, may see
01:40-02:10 C4 "Air Race" (sports) - Will probably record

That's 11 hours 30 minutes of viewing today, and even without the 'vanity' stuff, we're talking around 7.5 hours.


Looking at the various channels that I could get access to (if I bought a set-top box or similar) I can count a few more hours of things that I might want to watch, but few of these are exclusively Digital at the moment.

"Smallville" is only available on E4 at the moment, but I'm guessing will come to Channel 4 (in a sci-fi slot on Sundays that isn't running today, but had contained Enterprise and Stargate SG-1 up until the break it took a few weeks back). "Invasion" will be repeated next Sunday on C4, "Lost" next Tuesday, likewise, "Supernatural" on tomorrow night, "Doctor Who" is being repeated from it's first showing last night on BBC1, "Ideal" is coming soon to BBC2, "Little Britain" is a repeat of series 2, which has shown on the BBC, "Grownups" is a new comedy series that I'm sure will make it to BBC2 if it hits the comedic spot with viewers. "Scrapheap Challenge" (UK's "Junkyard Wars") is either a repeat or will find its way to the Channel 4/Sunday slot between the Sci-Fi and the Hisroy slot, "The West Wing" will surely come to C4 in the future, "Green Wing" (uk hospital comedy) looks like a repeat of Friday's new episode.

To be honest, I'm not sure I'd have enough time.

Add on about 3.5 hours of radio brodcasts that interest me today from just one channel (BBC7), which is slightly below the average on weekdays, and you can see how I consider my life to be full.

If there's nothing live on the TV (like between 00:35 and 01:40, early tomorrow morning, if I'm still busy working away) I've got some stuff on video from 19th March (Time Team, Invasion, Planet Earth, Petrolheads, American Dad!, Family Guy) sitting on a video tape, as well as various recorded radio programes from when I was out today (the final part of the final third of the Silent Vulcan Trilogy, brodcast on BBC7, for example, if not one of the vintage comedy shows) that I can listen to on my headphones as I busy myself with work or play.


I'm quite adept at multi-tasking my broadcast viewing/listening habits with my other interests, you'll be pleased to hear. (I'm currently enjoying someone controlling the movements of a shark with electrodes, in a documentary... ;)

Welcome to my world. Now please move along so I can watch my 4.5 channels of TV... ;)

*snip*

Jesus, that's a lot of TV...

Where do you find the time? Do you watch TV professionally?