The TV licence makes me rage.

[Funk]

Moonhawk said:

Eric Mc said:

How many other countries have a TV licence or a TV licence equivalent?

Loads - I posted a wiki link showing just that earlier in the thread.

Some countries go one further and have separate tv and radio licences (Austria) - and some counties require separate radio licences for car radios, with one licence per car (Belgium)!

The 'tv licence' in Denmark is required for any device capable of viewing broadcast media regardless of whether it is actually used for that purpose (so technically covers any internet enabled computer and even mobile phones).

Germany have a blanket tax per household - regardless of whether you even have a TV.

Can't remember the last time I voluntarily listened to any radio output. Why would you when you can stream stuff you like without the ads and flim-flam from presenters who all sound the same?

Regarding a 'flat-tax' levied across all homes I'd be entirely against this too. It's regressive and in the modern world it's easy enough to switch off channels people don't want. I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?

[Moonhawk]

Funk said:

I don't subsidise anyone's Sky subscription - why should I subsidise their BBC subscription? I don't want it, don't value it and will never use it so why should I pay for it?

Sky subscription isn't a tax though - so you can't really make that analogy. We are all taxed to pay for things we don't necessarily use.

It's less regressive than many other taxes - most of which you cannot opt out of. At least with the TV licence you do have a choice.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 26th May 13:35

[Boydie88]

Personally looking forward to this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32801726

Not really sure what's 'hipster' about the big weekend. Free festival with a very good variety of performers.

Well worth it for their sports coverage in my opinion and I'd happily pay more for advert free sports if the BBC started bidding for more sports events.

[Howard-]

I'm not sure I see it as such a big deal. It's hardly expensive (I'd happily pay twice as much in order to get every single other commercial channel ad-free) and if you don't watch TV, don't pay it. All you need to do is opt out on the TV Licensing website, and if someone comes to your house you politely tell them that you don't ever watch any TV as it is being broadcast, and they'll go away.

[soad]

Radio 1 is dreadful. Loud, horrible, monotonous rubbish.

[Funk]

soad said:

Radio 1 is dreadful. Loud, horrible, monotonous rubbish.

Corrected!

[mph1977]

Eric Mc said:

How many other countries have a TV licence or a TV licence equivalent?

Plenty, and many that don't use general taxation to fund certain boradcasters and /or infrastructure

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

I'm not sure there is anywhere in the developed world ( even including the USA In that ) that is solely commercial, rather than the use of general taxation in the absence of a licence...

[alock]

The reality is that more and more media content is moving on-line. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the next 10 years the TV license becomes a digital media license which will be required to use the internet. This is after all the modern day equivalent of receiving TV signals.

[Funkycoldribena]

Just add another box when we have a referendum,that'll stop the argument once and for all.

[threespires]

My views seem to be 100% opposite the OP's.

I always have a wry smile when I see people moaning about a tiny licence fee for what is generally considered to be the best TV/Radio/Web service in the world yet they seem perfectly happy to pay considerably more for 40 mins per hour of Sky output, a lot of which I believe is re-cycled US content.

[tobinen]

I think the licence fee is a bloody bargain. BBC radio and telly for £12 a month? Superb.

[mph1977]

threespires said:

My views seem to be 100% opposite the OP's.

I always have a wry smile when I see people moaning about a tiny licence fee for what is generally considered to be the best TV/Radio/Web service in the world yet they seem perfectly happy to pay considerably more for 40 mins per hour of Sky output, a lot of which I believe is re-cycled US content.

because of their massive confirmation bias and the general immaturity associated with being a libertarian and/or some what sociopathic

[hunton69]

tobinen said:

I think the licence fee is a bloody bargain. BBC radio and telly for £12 a month? Superb.

Agreed

With sky you pay 6 times as much and spend most of the time watching adverts.

Most things gets repeated on free view at a latter date

[dub16v]

tobinen said:

I think the licence fee is a bloody bargain. BBC radio and telly for £12 a month? Superb.

I have to agree with this.

Personally, I feel that I get good value from the annual £145 fee...I don't begrudge paying it to be honest.

I do begrudge the fee for allowing certain presenters access to my ears (Nick Grimshaw, Scott Mills, oh and that annoying lady that used to do the Top 40 on Radio 1 etc.) but then, within a split second, I'm able to flick over to another radio station.

[Moonhawk]

alock said:

The reality is that more and more media content is moving on-line. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point in the next 10 years the TV license becomes a digital media license which will be required to use the internet. This is after all the modern day equivalent of receiving TV signals.

Indeed - much like Denmark which has a general media licence fee covering all devices capable of receiving TV media broadcasts (and it costs almost double that of the UK TV licence).

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 26th May 15:19

[Cotty]

threespires said:

My views seem to be 100% opposite the OP's.

I always have a wry smile when I see people moaning about a tiny licence fee for what is generally considered to be the best TV/Radio/Web service in the world yet they seem perfectly happy to pay considerably more for 40 mins per hour of Sky output, a lot of which I believe is re-cycled US content.

The TV licence is to watch "live" TV regardless of who provides it. If the BBC ceased to exist you would still have to pay the licence fee. Would you be happy then?

Its like being required to have a licence to ride a bicycle, even if you don't ride one. You might have a bicycle in your shed that you have not used for years, you need a licence to ride it even though you are not riding it. Arr but you have a bicycle so you have the ability to cycle so you need to pay.

fk you pay me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XGAmPRxV48

[Moonhawk]

Cotty said:

Its like being required to have a licence to ride a bicycle, even if you don't ride one. You might have a bicycle in your shed that you have not used for years, you need a licence to ride it even though you are not riding it. Arr but you have a bicycle so you have the ability to cycle so you need to pay.

I really don't get your analogy.

If you own a bike but don't ride it - then you wouldn't have to pay your hypothetical "bicycle licence" - just like if you own a TV but don't watch live broadcasts - you don't have to pay a TV licence.

The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence (which is the way your "bicycle license" analogy makes it sound)

[marshalla]

Cotty said:

Its like being required to have a licence to ride a bicycle, even if you don't ride one. You might have a bicycle in your shed that you have not used for years, you need a licence to ride it even though you are not riding it. Arr but you have a bicycle so you have the ability to cycle so you need to pay.

I have car in the garage. I haven't paid the "licence fee" to use it on the roads for 3 years because I haven't wanted to drive it - until last week, when I contacted the "licence fee" agency and paid the fee. Now it's in the garage waiting for me to have time to drive it. If I only ever wanted to use it on a track and had a trailer to take it there, I wouldn't need to pay the "licence fee" for it.

The TV licence is not a tax on possession of the equipment - it's tax payable for the receipt of live broadcasts (use of infrastructure). If you never watch live, you don't need to pay the tax.

[Cotty]

Moonhawk said:

The simple act of owning a TV does not necessitate paying for a TV licence.

Tell that to the people who received threatening letters every month. Telling them they will be taken to court if they don't pay. Regardless whether they watch live TV or not.

[Cotty]

marshalla said:

I have car in the garage. I haven't paid the "licence fee" to use it on the roads for 3 years because I haven't wanted to drive it

That's called SORN (Statutory Off Road Notification). If you had a TV in your garage whether you watch it not you they will pursue to to pay for a TV licence. A little different.