TV licence moan

PR was saying up-thread that this allows us to "opt-out"... but why does it have to be all or nothing.... I'd like to opt-out of mandatorily funding BBC but still be able to watch basic tv!!!

That's what I was trying to get at earlier, don't think of the licence as some kind of BBC subscription; think of it as a tax on watching TV.  You can only go down to a certain level of granularity with taxes before it gets silly.  For instance I pay road tax, which is fine as it pays for upkeep of the roads I drive on but it also pays for cycle lanes, 'toucan' crossings for horses and all sorts of other stuff I have no interest in.  I would love to opt out of subsidising little Jemima's pony club outings but it doesn't work that way.

I find it hilarious that people actually see television as a necessity of life!  Quite disturbing too.

Vicky

For argument's sake, if one was to buy a TV just to watch DVD for example, you're still supposed to pay the licencing fees.

As noted already, the law demands that you obtain a license only if you install and use equipment to receive broadcast television, whether terrestrial, satellite or via cable.  No license is required merely to own a set, or to use it for watching anything else.

However, retail stores are required by law to report all sales of such equipment to TVL, so if you buy a TV, VCR, DVD recorder, or any other device which is capable of receiving off-air signals, you can expect the address you give to be sent through the system and if no license is in force for that address, it will trigger yet another round of threatening letters.   (Hint:  Cash & false address.)

I have been told repeatedly that this isn't the case, but here is what the TVL licence says about it:

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

You do not need a TV Licence if you only use your TV to watch videos and DVDs or as a monitor for your games console.

However, please notify us in writing that this is the case. One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

We've talked about this in other threads, but just to make this clear, you are under no legal obligation whatsoever to contact TVL in this case.  The law demands that you pay for a license if you receive broadcast TV, period.   

You are not obliged to respond to the letters, to write and tell them that you do not watch broadcast TV, to phone them to tell them that, or to allow a TVL agent into your home to "confirm the situation," unless he has a search warrant.

In fact it is pretty pointless to do any of those things anyway, since as plenty of people can verify, the way Capita behaves in operating this legalized extortion, it won't do you any good.   You might get a brief respite, but rest assured that the monthly "threat-o-grams" will soon resume.   Unfortunately, some of the TVL "inspectors" that Capita employs behave no better than hired thugs, and as a matter of principle you should refuse entry to TVL agents (without a warrant) and tell them nothing, except to get off your property. 

I just think the British TV license is an outmoded, archaic, and ridiculous concept to demand, and aggressively demand, that everyone in the nation should have to account for the entertainment equipment in their homes.

If -- and that is a big "if" -- there was ever any justification for the TV license fee, that justification ended in 1955 when independent commercial television started. 

I agree entirely that TV is not an essential like food and water, and one can argue that if you don't want to pay the fee you don't have to watch it.  But from 1955 onward, and even more so today with the plethora of stations, the effective situation is that one is legally forced to contribute to the BBC just to watch TV from some other source.

How would it be if you were obliged to buy a "groceries license" to be allowed to shop for provisions, with the money collected from that license being given solely to Tesco?   So even if you only wanted to buy your groceries from the corner family store, the law said that you must pay a fee to Tesco?

Hijack warning ...

In fact it is pretty pointless to do any of those things anyway, since as plenty of people can verify, the way Capita behaves in operating this legalized extortion, it won't do you any good.   You might get a brief respite, but rest assured that the monthly "threat-o-grams" will soon resume.   Unfortunately, some of the TVL "inspectors" that Capita employs behave no better than hired thugs, and as a matter of principle you should refuse entry to TVL agents (without a warrant) and tell them nothing, except to get off your property. 

And these are the lot that are going to run the gas installers registration and HSE gas safety schemes?  Oh, the coming joy!

one can argue that if you don't want to pay the fee you don't have to watch it.  But from 1955 onward, and even more so today with the plethora of stations, the effective situation is that one is legally forced to contribute to the BBC just to watch TV from some other source. 

And there you have it.... this pretty much sums up my objection to the TV licence... thank you for the simple and clear explanation... 

I wonder if it is time to take a historical view: when the BBC started TV transmissions in November 1936, television sets were rich people's toys. It is probable that most television sets were installed in clubs and hotels with only a handful installed in peoples homes. The licence was not introduced until 1946, when TV broadcasts resumed following the shutdown during World War II. The price was £2, equivalent to about £60 today. For the TV owners of the time, the annual licence was an easily affordable tiny fraction of the price of the set. This ratio has only really reversed drastically in recent times.

Another person here who resents having to pay so much for a TV licence.  I rarely watch the BBC, nor any of the "free" channels.  I do think it's bull to pay so much a year when only two of your channels are commercial free and I'm not even interested in them. 

Another person here who resents having to pay so much for a TV licence.  I rarely watch the BBC, nor any of the "free" channels.  I do think it's bull to pay so much a year when only two of your channels are commercial free and I'm not even interested in them. 

How would it be if you were obliged to buy a "groceries license" to be allowed to shop for provisions, with the money collected from that license being given solely to Tesco?   So even if you only wanted to buy your groceries from the corner family store, the law said that you must pay a fee to Tesco?

Hear, hear. The "fee to Tesco" analogy is particularly apt and points up how basically ridiculous the BBC licence has now been rendered in this day and age.

For the TV owners of the time, the annual licence was an easily affordable tiny fraction of the price of the set. This ratio has only really reversed drastically in recent times.

While I don't think it impacts greatly on the basic argument over whether a license should exist at all, that's certainly a valid comparison. 

Roll forward to the 1960s, and you could still expect to pay perhaps 40 gns. for a basic set, and double that for a good console model.  That was a few weeks wages at the time, so the license was still a relatively small portion. 

According to my references the first color (colour  ) license in the late 1960s was £10, but a color receiver would set you back several hundred pounds then.   Now you can buy a cheap "throwaway" TV in Asda complete with NICAM stereo, teletext, and a whole load of other extras for half the price of the annual license fee.

color (colour  )

*slight hijack: There's no need for that, thanks.  We can all make the leap between American and British spelling.

We can all make the leap between American and British spelling.

To be consistently pond-straddling it should have been "color (colour) license (licence)",  surely?

Well yes, it was the licence/license thing in the other recent thread I had in mind when I slipped that little joke about colo(u)r in.    I guess that one backfired then..... 

Well yes, it was the licence/license thing in the other recent thread I had in mind when I slipped that little joke about colo(u)r in.    I guess that one backfired then..... 

It was the fact that you were using the American version yourself and went on to use the American version again that I found particularly patronising.

*hijack over

          

Nevermind.....

What is the cost of a radio and television license?