You’re not required to watch TV over here. And the government doesn’t pay for or do the collection; the licensing part of the BBC pays for it, and outsources the collection to another business.
You’re quite free to just not watch TV. Since (as far as i’m aware) you can’t get a TV that only lets you watch the non-BBC terrestrial (i.e. non-cable) channels (there’s three others; ITV, Channel Four, and Five) you do have to pay for just owning a TV that’s set up to recieve terrestrial signals.
The difference is that here, there isn’t any way of watching TV without paying for it. That doesn’t make paying for it a tax. I’m not even saying it’s a good system; just trying to dispel a little ignorance about how it works.
It is not imposed by the government. No money goes to the government. They do not collect it or store it. They do not take a comission for enforcing it, because they do not enforce it.
quote]In Britain, every home with a TV set must pay $US248.63 per year.
[/quote]
Oh my God…what horrors! Where will it end? Next thing you know, the government will force every home with a CAR to pay $248 per year.
The main difference is psychological. Nobody minds paying a car license fee, because the car is out on the street. The TV fee feels like an invasion of privacy, because the TV is in your bedroom.
Your car fee supports road development, your TV fee supports cultural development.
Yes. Those 3-6 channels that are all you can get in many areas. That wonderful reception – “I can’t tell if he’s squatting or if it’s an egret … turn it a little to the left …”
Heh, tell me about it. There are days, while I’m flipping through my 70 channels of crap, that I seriously consider cancelling my cable service. Three things keep me hooked up: The Home & Garden Network, The Sci-Fi Channel, and The Discovery Channel. Well, and my broadband access, but I could get that without cable TV if I really wanted to.
That’s exactly what I did. I rented Season 1 of the Sopranos from Netflix, just to see how I liked it. (It was pretty good, but I don’t think I’m going to keep following it.) I might eventually try Deadwood. Really, premium channels aren’t worth the money.
Sure, there are some things I like to watch that I have to pay for. (Several shows on Comedy Central, Cartoon Network, other things here and there, and of course ESPN and related sports channels.) But I’m pretty much paying for the dish for football. With the NFL Network showing games on Thursday this year I can get a lot of football without going all the way to a full NFL package. A lot of the other things I can find online. Daily Show? Often parts are on YouTube and I can always get them from iTunes for $10 a month. South Park? Well, I can live without it. Things like Robot Chicken and other stuff on Adult Swim? I can download them from Cartoon Network. PTI (the one show on ESPN I really missed)? Podcast. Sure, there are no pictures, but there are no commericals either. As I said, I’m pretty much paying for pro football.
It’s not just about the lack of adverts. Few people would claim the BBC could exist and produce what it does as a commercial concern, and that there’s a quality and particularly a breadth which can only come from a public-service operation. And note that the licence fee also funds other parts of the BBC, especially the national & local radio networks, which have a much larger audience than commerical competitors.
Do you consider it a tax when you mail a letter and the post office charges you thirty nine cents? If yes, than I suppose this is a tax for you.
Personally, I consider a television fee, like postage, to be a service charge. It just happens that in the United States you pay that charge to a private company and in the United Kingdom you pay it to a public company. If you don’t want to pay the charge, you just decide not to accept the service.
(a) Commercial free tv. (That’s consistently quite good)
(b) The nothing compared to basic cable. I pay way more than $20/month and live in an area that doesn’t get any service without cable. (NBC, kind of, and not 24/7)
So it doesn’t seem that bad. Different, but not bad. It isn’t as though they force you to own a TV.
I think the people bringing up satellite and cable TV are sort of missing the point. Satellite is available in the UK, but you still have to pay the license fee. Even if the TV is only for DVDs/videos, you still have to pay the license fee. If you watch TV on a mobile phone or a computer, you still have to pay the license fee.
There are detector vans covered in weird aerials that drive around checking to see who is receiving a signal (I do not know how it works), and if you don’t have a license and they catch you it’s a 1,000 pound fine.
I guess I might as well telegraph my intent here. I presume that if one fails to pay the fee, the collection agency places a lien of some sort on the householder’s assets. How would such a lien be enforced? One can only assume that it is through the power of the courts. On what basis would a court be likely to find that the householder in fact owes the money to the BBC? Did the householder enter into a contract with the BBC? If so, I expect it would be up to the BBC to produce a copy of the contract. If no such contract between the BBC and the individual exists, but the money is still held by the court to be owed, there must be a First Cause by which the obligation came into existence.
I submit that this First Cause is the government. In this sense, the government has, in fact, imposed the obligation to pay the fee to the BBC, making it a form of taxation.
On the other side of the coin, there is the requirement here in the States, that to legally operate a motor vehicle, one must purchase an auto insurance policy from a duly accredited insurance company. Does anyone care to make the argument that because the requirement to carry insurance is imposed by the government, the premiums paid to the insurance company amount to a tax?