Not in Arlington, VA you’re not. They charge you a tax even if you own a car parked on private property that you never, ever drive. And they’re very diligent about enforcing it. The law strikes me as very wrong for some reason that I just can’t put my finger on. I equate it to charging a tax on, say, a nice piece of jewelry that one happens to own and wear while in VA. “Hey! You have something nice! Give us money!”
Yes, at one point in life. But given the geography of where I live now and the fact that my landlord will not allow me to climb up on the roof to install anything. It’s cable or no tv at all, and my cable bill is much more than $20/month.
It seems to me that this is payment for a service. If you want to watch TV, you pay $20/month. If you don’t wish to watch TV, then you won’t buy one, and won’t have to pay. (And it seems that you can have a TV without a receiver and not pay).
Totally not seeing the problem here.
There are lots of newer antennas out now that do a much better job of picking stations up. With a bit of work I would find it hard to believe that in a major metro area one couldn’t pick up something. The new HD feeds come out either clear or not at all so there is none of the old crap pictures. If you look here then you can find out what types of stations you can pick up. It’s not 100% perfect, but it does tell you what’s out there. I can pick stations up in West Virginia where the nearest channel is 60+ miles away.
The objection is from people who are paying a hefty monthly price to get a 200-channel satellite package, who (claim to) never watch any BBC channels, and who nonetheless are obliged to pay the licence fee as well.
GORILLAMAN –
The OP’er posted about this practice for people to be informed of it and comment on it. I did, as have many others You don’t agree with my POV. In your own words, so what? Nobody’s asking you to give it up anyhow.
Used to be prison time too.
The UK system seems similar to what we have in Sweden. We pay roughly $250 or so per year for the pleasure of owning a TV. All devices capable of receiving or recording TV-signals are included in that definition. So if you own a computer with the possibility of hooking it up to the antenna you have to pay, if you own just a VCR (and no TV) you have to pay.
Avoiding the license is probably quite common here (I have no stats though).
What I think irks most people here (who avoid paying the license) is that you have to pay even if you do not watch the public service channels.
I also think it is somewhat strange that you should have to pay a license jeach year just for owning a piece of home electronic equipment. Similarly to the BBC the public service channels are advertising free and while they have some good quality programs there’s also a lot of utter crap on them.
Slight correction. The World Service is not paid for out of the licence fee. It is funded by a direct grant from the government which has no editorial control at all over the service. What the government actually does is suggest which languages the non-English parts of the service is broadcast in. Just lately, because of the end of the communist governments in Eastern Europe, programmes in languages such as Polish and German have ceased, with a corresponding increase in Middle Eastern languages, for obvious reasons.
Monthly cable bill - $60+ times 12 = $720. 
Correct, for World Service radio. It’s worth pointing out that BBC World, the TV equivalent, never managed to get funding, and operates commercially. With notable difficulty breaking into the American market in particular. For this reason, to avoid conflicting with the non-commercial requirements of the BBC’s charter, it’s not available on any UK broadcast network (although it’s not difficult to pick up satellite signals intended for mainland Europe, if you are so inclined).
A monthly subscription to a full-scale Sky package in the UK costs the equivalent of US$80 a month.
(Note that ‘Sky’ has become a brand-name metaphor for subscription television, which suggests an unhealthy dominance of the market. I have had the conversation with people before along the lines of “Have you got Sky?” “Yes, well, we’ve got cable”.)
You dismissed the principle, on the grounds that it wouldn’t hold sway “over here”. I objected to this.
GORILLAMAN –
Object away. I happen to live “over here,” and on that basis alone am fully entitled to reject the principle – even if I didn’t think it sounded like a load of crap anyway, as I also happen to do.
I don’t think I have to defend my opinion anymore than anyone else, especially in Cafe Society.
And if you don’t like it – “So what?”
I get BBC World (or BBC America or whatever it’s called) on my satellite dish and BBC World News is often carried on PBS. But yeah, that’s pretty much it for stuff from BBC World (and most everything else from the BBC is only on PBS.)
BBC World is a whole different creature to BBC America. One has news, documentaries and current affairs. The other has endless repeats of Are You Being Served?
I don’t understand this concept that one has to have cable to watch tv (in the US). Or else how did a hundred million people watch tv in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, before there even was cable?
I think this is it. Normally, you pay a service fee when you use a service. But in Britain, you pay the licence fee (basically a service fee) just because you might potentially use the BBC, and whether or not you actually do use it is irrelevant. That’s the part that seems wrong.
It sounds like Arlington, VA has gotten in on this scam with its car tax, but normally in America a car that is not driven on public roadways does not have to be registered. Granted, you couldn’t do much with it (unless you had a large tract of private land to drive around on) but by God that car could sit in your garage for years and you wouldn’t have to pay any taxes on it.
Like Jodi mentioned, property taxes are analagous. But as this Wikipedia aticle mentions, property taxes are basically a form of rent that we pay to our government “landlords.”
In the US, broadcast stations (free, over the air, thru an antenna) are many. Before the advent of cable, that was the only way you could get TV. But TV signals thru the ether are affected by terrain, buildings and distance. In populated areas and places where the signals are strong, simple rabbit ears will pick up an adequate signal. In more fringe areas, a rooftop antenna is necessary. More remote yet, a tower and a rotator to direct the antenna is a must. Even then, weather affects the quality of the signal.
Then along came cable. Cable not only offers a steady, strong, reliable signal, but many channels. Cable has become available in most of the US, wherever it is economically practical to string it, which excludes the most remote rural areas.
And now with phone service, Internet service and video on demand becoming available with cable, the free/antenna concept is taking a back seat to pay/cable. So one doesn’t have to have it, but it sure is nice when you do.
It’s not just Arlington. I believe it’s a state-wide “Personal Property Tax” on cars and other vehicles. (I too had to pay it when I lived there.)
It’s every bit as annoying as it sounds. And, not a common tax in the other states. So far as I know Virginia is the only one that does it.
I don’t see how this is functionally different than cable TV companies work in the U.S. If I purchase cable, I am obligated to select a package of channels, the vast majority of which are of no interest at best. Many are horrifying crap like hyper-religious proselytizing channels which I am loathe to support, even indirectly. It is NOT possible to pay for only the channels you are interested in; attempts at legislating such have been blasted to smithereens by cable TV and religious broadcasting lobbyists.
The only real difference is that in the U.S. it is a private company forcing you to pay for the package of channels, including all that dreadful stupidity, albeit with tacit government approval. For the consumer, I fail to see how it is different in practical terms, other than that in the UK you at least get a lot of ad-free programming.
As for me, I just buy the shows I want to watch on DVD. It’s cheaper that way, and NO ADS…
KNORF –
The key contingency here being, of course, “If you purchase cable” If you don’t purchase cable – which you have every right to decline to do – no one is going to drop by and charge you a fee just for having a TV set that can receive cable. And not just a one-time fee when you purchase the TV, which would be a form of sales tax, but a fee they’re going to charge you every year. Regardless of whether you want the servicie or not. Regardless of whether you use the service or not.
To me, it’s like having someone ring your doorbell to tell you they’ve dropped by for your mandatory contribution to ESPN. “I dont’ watch ESPN,” you say. “Yes, well, we’ve decided that ESPN provides a great benefit to the community, and since you have a device by which you could, theoretically, watch ESPN, you must pay the fee . . . .”
When you buy cable, they are selling you a package of channels. You are buying a package of channels. You know it; they know it. You’re not entitled to buy single channels if they don’t sell single channels, anymore than you can go into a clothing store and demand to buy just the trousers of a two-piece suit. But you can certainly decline to buy nothing. No cable, or no suit. In the UK, apparently that’s not an option. Everybody buys BBC.