Licences

[Jolly_Roger]

@somepumpkin

Yes, money generated from the sale of fishing licenses is used to fund management of the game species, and in some cases, improvements and maintenance on facilities (boat ramps, piers, etc). The license database can also be used for data collection. The same is also true of hunting licenses here in NC, but elsewhere YYMV. One could argue that those fishing without a license are “stealing” the resource (see: poaching).

Please tell us more about a license to watch TV. For all channels, or just some of them? Everyone has to have them… or just “professional” watchers?

Fishing and hunting makes sense. Heck, I had to pay 25 bucks for a permit to fish on Fort Bragg and you have to have a North Carolina fishing license to get that. (Total about 40 bucks)

[Spoons]

@acsenray

According to previous posts in this thread, the license is issued to a location, not to a person. It seems to me that a hotel would have to pay the license fee for the televisions on its premises.

You’d be correct. I’ve stayed in London a few times. There was never an extra license charge for the TV in my hotel room. Although I do imagine that some of the cost of my room went towards the hotel’s license fee, just as it would towards any other cost (electricity, heat, staff salaries, etc.).

[cckerberos]

Japan has a similar television licensing scheme, although its paid monthly rather than annually. You’re legally obliged to pay the fee if you own a TV but there’s no actual penalty for failing to do so, so a fair number of people just refuse to pay.

[chowder]

@Ximenean

The detector vans/hand-held units were more for show than actually detecting signals. I’ve never seen one, and rumour has it that they drove around in a small fleet of vans that looked the part but contained no actual TV-detecting equipment.

**

Oh no they were not just for show.
I used to work for Royal Mail and the detector vans were sometimes based at our delivery office, believe me they were packed full of stuff to detect TV sets in use

[PaulParkhead]

@jtgain

None of you answered my question: what about the poor who can’t afford the fee? No TV for them? Or is there a government welfare program?

What about vacationers? Do I have to purchase a license at the airport?

If you absolutely cannot afford the licence fee then you can’t (legally) watch TV. In this sense, it’s just the same as anything else poor people can’t afford. There are payment plans available - I pay mine at a few pounds a week, for example.

And no, you do not need to buy one at the airport. Your hotel has already taken care of things for you. The licences relate to premises, not people.

[robby]

@Ximenean

They have no right to enter your home, although the inspectors do sometimes try to get themselves invited in. The detector vans/hand-held units were more for show than actually detecting signals. I’ve never seen one, and rumour has it that they drove around in a small fleet of vans that looked the part but contained no actual TV-detecting equipment. They have long relied on the simple assumption that everybody watches TV…

If it is assumed that “everybody watches TV,” wouldn’t it be easier to simply appropriate the funds from the general fund, rather than this elaborate system of licenses and associated enforcement?

[chowder]

This has all been very educational but as yet nobody has answered the question in my OP.

Who came up with the idea of licences in the first place?

[yabob]

@chowder

This has all been very educational but as yet nobody has answered the question in my OP.

Who came up with the idea of licences in the first place?

The tv license seems to have been created in 1946. They were apparently already using the model for radio powered by household current, dating from 1904:

Television licensing in the United Kingdom | History

I don’t think we need to look any further than what wiki says about television licensing in general:

The early days of broadcasting presented broadcasters with the problem of how to raise funding for their services. Some countries adopted the advertising model, but many others adopted a compulsory public subscription model, with the subscription coming in the form of a broadcast licence paid by households owning a radio set (and later, a TV set).

The UK was the first country to adopt the compulsory public subscription model with the licence fee money going to the BBC, which was formed by Royal Charter to produce publicly funded programming yet remain independent from government, both managerially and financially. The licence was originally known as a radio licence.

[chowder]

You misunderstand me yabob I meant who came up with the whole idea of licences, not just for TV

[Thudlow_Boink]

This may go a little way toward answering the question:

@Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

In Europe much of the land once hunted upon was owned by the aristocracy, and gamekeepers were employed to regulate the amount of game that could be hunted in a given area. By the 1800s the land hunted upon was not or had never been privately owned, and there began to develop a “tragedy of the commons,” in that no one hunter had any motive to limit the number of animals killed; certain species were hunted to, or very close to, extinction. To counter this development, ethical codes were established that give the quarry a fair chance to escape; attempts were made to minimize the suffering of wounded game; and game laws, licensing, and limited hunting seasons were established to protect game stocks.

I’m tempted to speculate that, back in the day when the aristocracy did own most of the hunting land, the only people who could hunt there were the landowners themselves and those to whom they had given (or sold) official permission, in which case they might say, “I give you license to hunt on my land” (the word “license” meaning official permission or freedom to do something), and that this may be where the term “license” in this context originated. But that’s just speculation.

[Jormungandr]

In California, there’s an exception to the fishing license. None is required if the person is fishing in the ocean on a public pier. (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/fishing/sportfishingfaqs.html) It’s actually part of the state constitution, Article 1, Section 25.

[chappachula]

@robby

If it is assumed that “everybody watches TV,” wouldn’t it be easier to simply appropriate the funds from the general fund, rather than this elaborate system of licenses and associated enforcement?

nowadays, you would be right.
But I think the original reasoning was exactly the opposite. NOT everyone watched, or wanted, a TV…
Think of the TV tax like a toll booth on a highway: If you want to drive that road, you pay the toll. If you don’t use the road, you don’t pay. Perfect freedom of choice, right? Why force someone to pay for something he doesn’t use?

TV was brand new in 1953-ish, and VERY expensive. The first couple of years, not everybody had it.( even in America.) It was a brand new technology, not yet a major part of society, and nobody knew how quite what to do with it*. So it seemed logical to take a fee directly from the users, but not from non-users…

And just like toll roads, once the fee collection starts, no government ever stops…

• (Radio had a similar problem in the 1920’s. Nobody quite knew what to do with it, and in particular, nobody knew how to pay for it. The first radio stations (run by the Westinghouse company) were financed by the sales of Westinghouse radios. What a stupid idea that is: after a couple years, sales slowed down because every household already had a radio. Then somebody had the brilliant idea of selling advertising.Well, duh!!! …But it actually took several years before the best minds in the business could come up with the concept that seems so obvious now.)

[sailor]

I am also of the view that I do not like the idea of TV licenses and I would rather it just come out of the general budget.

[Bear_Nenno]

nevermind.

[Dahu]

@robby

If it is assumed that “everybody watches TV,” wouldn’t it be easier to simply appropriate the funds from the general fund, rather than this elaborate system of licenses and associated enforcement?

At least one of the reasons behind this is the aforementioned impartiality of the BBC. Having the government pay out of general taxation could be seen as compromising this, hence the licensing system.

[Mangetout]

One thing about the BBC that I consider to be a distinct advantage, brought about by the funding model - they’re not absolutely beholden to the collective whim or averaged desire of the general public - they can actually afford to do stuff that nobody would have chosen for them, if it were just a matter of trying to make the best ad revenue.

They can afford to take risks that commercial enterprises might shy away from. They can experiment with fringe stuff without detriment to their budget (and there may be gold in there, or not); they can afford to be provocative and pioneering (not they they necessarily always prevail with this, but there are notable examples where they did).
The result is the potential to break out of those Abilene Paradox type situations where everybody ends up getting what nobody in particular wanted, due to the (non)dynamics of apathy.

[constanze]

@chowder

Here in the UK we have to have licences for:

Watching TV
Driving
Gun Ownership
Angling…yes we do

These are just a few.

I’m not British, but I’m mostly sure that the TV “licence” is a fee and not a licence like the others. Driving, gun ownership and angling all require licenses where you have to show that you have the skill to do the activity, and the knowledge about the relevant laws.

To watch TV, you just need to pay the fee that keeps BBC running.

I got to wondering which bright spark first thought of the idea of a licence and in particular the one required before you can go fishing.

This has to be one of the silliest on record but if you’re caught fishing without a licence your tackle will be seized, you’ll be taken to court and fined a maximum of £2500.

The alternative of no license means that the number of people, their knowledge of fishing quotas, type of fish and use of equipment could not monitored, which would mean big damage to the enviroment. Several kinds of seafish have already been fished to extinction, several others are on the brink of extinction, because fishing licenses with quotas don’t work on the international level; do you doubt that if every idiot with a stick of dynamite or a stick with hooks could fish legally, that fish would be depleted pretty quickly?

We used to have to have a licence if you owned a dog, not sure if you still do

I don’t know UK laws, but I assume those were of the “pay the fee” type, not of the “have the skill and knowledge” type.

[constanze]

@Ximenean

Personally I think we overstate how bad American TV is. We stay at a motel in Florida that only has basic cable, and conclude that TV over there is “all commercials”. We tend to overlook the fact that many of the best programmes on British TV are American. But anyway, there is clearly a demand for commercial-free TV, and the only other way to pay for TV is subscription. Until fairly recently, the only viable way to have subscription TV was a legally mandated system such as the BBC licence fee. The downside of such as system is that everybody must pay, regardless of whether they want to watch the BBC channels, hence the “Gestapo”, as you so exaggeratedly call them.

Personally, I think the big problem with US TV compared to public financed TV in Europe (in this case, BBC and similar German TV) is not the commercials (our public TV started showing commercials, too, some dozen years back), but the quality of the programming. Public TV can afford proper journalists and reporters with in-depth reporting, on political and foreign issues, or wildlife/nature documentaries. This is very important for a working democracy, to get good information to the public, instead of either false news, or 30 min. of celeb gossip “because that’s all that people want to see”.
And they can do not only popular shows for the wide public, but broadcast many narrow-interest stuff to different segments: ballet and opera on some nights, Doctor Who for the Sci-Fi fans, etc.
Several good series that started in the last years in the US were cancelled quickly because rates apparently weren’t high enough in the segment important to advertisers. Public TV can look at whether people like the show, and if it’s good quality, and continue it.

[Mangetout]

@constanze

I’m not British, but I’m mostly sure that the TV “licence” is a fee and not a licence like the others. Driving, gun ownership and angling all require licenses where you have to show that you have the skill to do the activity, and the knowledge about the relevant laws.

Not really - you don’t have to be skilful to get an angling licence - it’s just a bit of paper that says you’ve paid for the privilege of hoiking fish out of the rivers, should you be so fortunate as to catch one. Similarly, we have ‘road fund licence’ (aka ‘tax disc’ - a licence to permit you to use roads - distinct from the drivers licence you get when you pass your driving test), until recently, we also had dog licences, but there was no test of responsible pet ownership.

A licence is not necessarily a certificate of competence.

[sailor]

I would say a fee is the money you pay to get a license.

And TV has gotten consistently worse everywhere. Twenty years ago the quality of Spanish TV was way above American TV and now it is just as bad or, probably, quite worse.