TV License In Countries

[KneeSid]

Here in the USA we don’t pay a license fee to have a TV, but I know other countries like the UK do. What is the cost of the licenses in other countries you know of? Also what happens if you’re too poor to afford one. Is there like a “food stamp” program to give TV to poor people? And what about computers that get TV? Do they have to pay a TV or radio license?

[njtt]

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/

[TBG]

Is it true if you don’t pay they come in and physically break the antenna connector on the back of your TV? That’s ridonkulous if so.

[SciFiSam]

No discounts for being poor. I do dislike that it’s a solely per household bill, so that Richard Branson in his mansion with loads of staff pays the same as a single person on benefits, but I think it would probably be ineffective costwise to means-test it.

@TBG

Is it true if you don’t pay they come in and physically break the antenna connector on the back of your TV? That’s ridonkulous if so.

Not so in the UK. But if you want to have a TV set but not receive TV and just use it for gaming or whatever, you can permanently disable the connection yourself. I have known people who’ve responded to a TV license demand with ‘I have no aerial and you can come and check it for yourself’ and heard nothing back.

[SanVito]

@KneeSid

Here in the USA we don’t pay a license fee to have a TV, but I know other countries like the UK do. What is the cost of the licenses in other countries you know of? Also what happens if you’re too poor to afford one. Is there like a “food stamp” program to give TV to poor people? And what about computers that get TV? Do they have to pay a TV or radio license?

The UK TV licence costs £145.50. I pay by monthly direct debit, which is £12 per month.

No relief for the poor, as SciFiSam said. But then I guess £12 per month (c. $19) is hardly onerous and TV isn’t regarded as an essential, like food, water or electricity.

I know that some people in the US regard a TV licence as scandalous, but very very few people in the UK feel like this, as what we get from the BBC is so great. The BBC is a much loved institution and the lack of ads is a bonus.

[SanVito]

@TBG

Is it true if you don’t pay they come in and physically break the antenna connector on the back of your TV? That’s ridonkulous if so.

Haven’t heard that one! According to the official TV Licensing website:

It’s against the law to watch or record TV programmes as they’re being shown on TV without a valid licence. This includes the use of devices such as a TV, computer, mobile phone, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

Watching TV without a valid licence is a criminal offence. This can lead to prosecution, a court appearance and a fine of up to £1,000 (not including legal costs). The exceptions are in Guernsey where the maximum fine is £2,000 and Jersey it is £500.

[jjimm]

@SciFiSam

No discounts for being poor.

Though free if you’re 75 or over, and 50% off if you’re blind. What they’re saying is that the sound is worth 50% of the programming…

[Ximenean]

“As they’re being shown” is an important point that I don’t think everybody realises (not referring to any previous posts). You don’t need a licence just to own a TV, or to watch pre-recorded things on it, or to watch already-broadcast shows on, for example, BBC iPlayer. You only need a licence to “receive” (watch or record) TV shows as they are being broadcast. There’s also no actual need to physically disable your TV from being able to receive signals. But if the matter comes to court, it might help your case if you can show, say, that you have no aerial or dish or whatever.

Another thing is that the BBC, under their trading name TV Licensing, have no special legal rights of investigation. They have no right to enter your home and snoop around, for example. Their officers don’t necessarily tell people that when they turn up, though. They can be quite… assertive.

[Shakester]

I think it’d be more realistic if Americans look at UK TV as similar to US cable. Americans pay the cable company, the company provides the content. What you’re buying there is a licence to watch certain TV stations. Same thing, more-or-less.

If you look at US laws concerning cable TV, the laws against stealing cable access are also pretty scary-sounding.

[Grumman]

@Shakester

I think it’d be more realistic if Americans look at UK TV as similar to US cable. Americans pay the cable company, the company provides the content. What you’re buying there is a licence to watch certain TV stations. Same thing, more-or-less.

But the US has non-cable TV, I assume? And even if it doesn’t, I assume the Cable Police don’t go around insinuating that people are criminals just because they don’t buy their product.

[Ximenean]

@Shakester

I think it’d be more realistic if Americans look at UK TV as similar to US cable. Americans pay the cable company, the company provides the content. What you’re buying there is a licence to watch certain TV stations. Same thing, more-or-less.

To make that analogy work, you’d have to say that if you subscribe to any cable service, it would also be mandatory to subscribe to a particular other service, regardless of whether you want the other service.
In the UK, if you want to watch Sky TV and have no interest in BBC programmes, you still have to pay the BBC. In practice, the BBC’s output is good enough that most people don’t mind too much. But it still sucks for the people who would opt out of BBC if they had the choice. They’re effectively subsidising the other people. The fee would have to be a lot higher if it were voluntary.

[amanset]

@KneeSid

Here in the USA we don’t pay a license fee to have a TV, but I know other countries like the UK do. What is the cost of the licenses in other countries you know of? Also what happens if you’re too poor to afford one. Is there like a “food stamp” program to give TV to poor people? And what about computers that get TV? Do they have to pay a TV or radio license?

Sweden

http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/

http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/

The radio and TV fee costs 2 076 kronor per year, or 173 kronor per month during 2012.

http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Customer-service/Frequently-asked-questions/

Is there a radio and TV fee rebate?

ANSWER: Since the radio and TV fee is fixed by law and the same for everyone, we do not have the possibility of offering any rebates on the radio and TV fee. So there are no student or senior citizen discount.

http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/

The term “television receiver” includes:

TV sets
Digital TV-selector
Computers with a TV-card making it possible to receive TV signals
Video recorders with channel selector
Video cameras with channel selector
DVD player with channel selector

And regarding what the inspectors can do:
http://www.radiotjanst.se/en/Radio-and-TV-fee/Fee-inspection/

Our radio and TV fee inspectors are out year-round visiting private persons and companies who do not pay the radio and TV fee. The visits are a good opportunity for us to tell about the TV fee and public service.

The inspectors use a list of those who already pay the radio and TV fee, and those not on the list are quite simply paid a visit. Our inspectors always show a personal Radiotjänst photo ID. They are not allowed to enter the household, not even if they are invited in. Neither do they accept any money when visiting. Instead, they document the information, which is then sent to the main office in Kiruna. There the decision is made whether one is required to pay the radio and TV fee, and if so, the invoice will arrive within a couple of weeks.

[drbhoneydew]

I haven’t paid for a TV licence for the last 8 years or so as I don’t watch TV. They don’t come round and rip your aerial out. They do send the odd threatening letter out warning you of the fines if you don’t stump up.
TV Licensing have been notorious for their hounding of those without licences - the letter used to effectively say we know you’re watching, you really wouldn’t like what happens when we catch you. However, in my experience this stops once you fill out a form stating that you aren’t watching live broadcast TV at your address. The letters start again when you move house or buy any equipment that can be used to watch TV (vendors of TV and video equipment have to take your address for exactly this purpose).

Up until last year I did own a TV, but only used it to watch DVDs and videos. Not wanting to have the Furies on my back I rang them up to find out what would make them believe that I wasn’t actually watching live TV. All I had to do in the end was position the TV well away from the aerial socket. Apparently an inspector would have a look at some point, but I never saw them. (aside: a fun student trick used to be to push the buzzers on shared flats and pretend to be TV licensing - panic and hilarity ensued)

Note that it is only an offence to to watch or record TV programmes as they’re being shown on TV without a valid licence, so time delay sites such as the BBC’s iPlayer are perfectly OK to use. In practice, I only use iPlayer for radio. Thankfully, the radio licence was abolished in 1971.

The perversity of the 50% blind persons’ discount is that the Black & White discount amounts to 66%, so colour is worth 66%. I’ve known a few blind people who’ve gotten black & white TVs, as their discount applies on top of that. It’s harder to get such a TV these days though.

[jjimm]

drbhoneydew I’m impressed! I didn’t really watch TV when I was in the UK but got free cable with my broadband so had to pay the licence anyway.

The entire setup is a libertarian’s worst nightmare, with issues of freedom and choice and overstretching of bureaucratic entities etc. etc. etc.

But thankfully we live in the real world where pragmatism trumps principle, and while the zealously dogmatic (of which there are rather a few on this board) may look at what we do with horror, the majority of Britons - happily or grudgingly - accept the situation, because the BBC is so damn good and ad-free.

As an expatriate I’m also extremely pleased that I can still get the World Service over my radio, and stream Radios 1, 2 and 4 when I have a good connection, without paying.

[Shmendrik]

@jjimm

the majority of Britons - happily or grudgingly - accept the situation, because the BBC is so damn good and ad-free.

Apparently not.

@Wikipedia

Meanwhile, in 2004, the Institute for Public Policy Research criticised the TV licence fee for its regressive impact, pointing out that it represents a much higher proportion of income for poor households, that evaders are most likely to be single parents, lone tenants, pensioners and the economically inactive and that the difficulties they have in paying the licence fee are compounded by the penalties enforced for non-payment.[6]

In 2004, the BBC reported that** “Almost 70% of people in the UK want changes to the way the BBC is funded”**, following an ICM poll for their current affairs programme Panorama, which showed that 31% were in favour of the existing licence fee system, 36% said the BBC should be paid for by a subscription and 31% wanted advertising to pay for the programmes.[20]

In 2006, the House of Lords Select Committee on BBC Charter Review criticised the reclassification of the licence fee as a tax, pointing out that the BBC was in consequence reclassified as a central government body, with “significant implications for the BBC’s independence”.[3]

In August 2008, the Guardian newspaper reported that “The BBC is facing an uphill battle to maintain support for the licence fee”, stating that according to an Ipsos MORI poll the newspaper had commissioned, 41% agreed that the licence fee is an “appropriate funding mechanism” and 37% disagreed but when asked whether the licence fee is “good value for money”, 47% disagreed, with more than half of them disagreeing strongly. The poll also showed that there is no longer a majority believing that the licence fee assured them of distinctive programming not available elsewhere ― which, the newspaper said, had long been one of the arguments for its existence: 41% of the population disagreed with only 30% agreeing. The poll also showed that opinion was split by a growing north-south and socio-economic divide.[21]

In September 2008, the BBC’s governing body, the BBC Trust, launched a review of TV Licensing’s methods,[22] following complaints about “heavy-handed” and “intimidating” tactics[23] and during December 2008, it was reported by the press that the chairman of the all-party Commons Culture, Media and Sport committee had accused TV Licensing of behaving “like the Gestapo”, employing “tactics that are outrageous”, saying: “The tactics used by TV Licensing in their letters are intimidatory and cause genuine distress. Their records are not always correct, but they write letters that assume members of the public are criminals”.[24]

In September 2009, The Guardian reported an ICM poll showing an increase in support for the licence fee to 43%;** “The fee is backed by 43%**, against 24% who think advertising should foot the bill and 30% who think people should pay to subscribe if they want to see BBC programmes. In 2004, only 31% backed the licence fee, 12 points lower than today.”.[25]

[Miller]

I think what throws a lot of Americans is that we tend to view licenses as things you need to engage in potentially dangerous activities, like driving a car, or owning a gun, or performing surgery on people. The idea of licensing a TV set sounds to us like you regard the television as intrinsically dangerous.

On the other hand, once you realize it’s just a way of subsidizing public television, it’s not that big a deal. In some ways, it’s a lot more fair than the way we subsidize PBS in the US, which takes a bit out of everyone’s tax dollar, even if they don’t own a TV.

[PrettyVacant]

Given we’re in an era where people, literally, can’t give away their old CRT tv’s, the License Fee feels quite the bargain.

[jjimm]

@Shmendrik

Apparently not.

I stand corrected - and very surprised.

[PrettyVacant]

Fwiw, I suport the License Fee but fairnesss (the regressive characteristic) is a major issue.

[grude]

@Shakester

If you look at US laws concerning cable TV, the laws against stealing cable access are also pretty scary-sounding.

And those laws are based on illegally accessing private property(the cable junction hookup) there is absolutely no way to passively steal cable. So it is a bit different from being penalized for watching TV signals received over the air in your home.