UK TV Licence

[soldar]

I have known of the existence and requirement but never really thought about it. Now I have just seen several videos on Youtube of police and "inspectors" entering people's homes to check for TVs.

I just can't wrap my head around this. I can't understand it but that is because in all of the countries I have lived in none had this.

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

And, really, police go into people's homes to search for TVs? The chance that a resident is not paying their TV tax is considered a crime of such level that it requires police visits to investigate? Really? Judges issue warrants on suspicion that someone has a TV?

And just having a screen is enough that you have to pay for the licence even if you never watch TV? What if you can prove the tuner has been disabled to receive the BBC? What if you only play DVDs or streaming movies?

Do radio receivers pay too?

How are the fines handled? Can they be appealed? I just cannot imagine having to pay such tax.

I guess it is a cultural thing but I just have a hard time understanding it or maybe I am just not well informed on how it works.

Can anyone explain it? Does this exist in other countries?

[cdev]

It does exist in other countries, here in the US, the TV shows are just a wrapper around the commercials which are the real payload.

[Sparky49]

It exists in many countries from Japan to Denmark, Italy to Pakistan. I think the Germans also have a radio licence, but I only vaguely remember learning that years ago in school, so could be totally wrong. 

[KaneTW]

Germany has a pretty awful system. Every office, car and flat is basically obligated to pay that tax, regardless of whether they have a TV or radio or not. It's extortion.

[tggzzz]

Easy.

In the UK we consume the product, i.e. the BBC TV shows. The shows are of above average originality and we get 60 minutes of programme for every hour we watch. For this we pay the licence fee.

We can also watch TV programmes which are interrupted and sparse, with only about 40 minutes of programme per hour. For the other 33% of the time our eyeballs and brains are being sold to companies. The companies pay money, we pay with the only thing that cannot be replaced: our remaining life.

Most people are very happy to pay a little money, but gain good programmes and some non-wasted lifetime.

The same is true in other countries: witness the rise of Netflix.

Always remember, if you aren't paying, then you are the product being sold.

[KaneTW]

Paying isn't the issue. The way they go about it is.

[booyeah]

Same scenario here in Ireland, but unlike in the UK where the BBC is advertisement free, here we get adverts too.

You often read in the papers/online about people not only having the cops get a warrant and search their house but it goes further to court and prosecution.
Some people even get sent to prison but usually they get released an hour later as the prisons haven't enough space for the genuine criminals.

[RoGeorge]

Here, in Romania, the same.  The Radio-TV tax was enforced by the law, and it was taxed on the electricity bill, by the gov.  There were many debates about the Radio-TV tax being non-constitutional, and I have no idea if I am still paying it or not.  I didn't watch TV or listen to radio for decades now.

There was an option to not pay for those who can prove they have no receiver, or they have a sealed receiver (no idea how to seal a radio or a TV) but the tax was very, very small, so most of the people didn't bother to opt out.  In theory, the "TV police" could come and inspect a home for any radio or TV receiver, in practice, it doesn't happen.  Most of the mobile phones can receive broadcast radio too, same for the radio in the cars, and so on.

The justification for such a law was that a country needs an independent and unbiased TV and Radio to inform the people.  That was very debatable, too, especially because national radio/TV still use to broadcast commercials (don't know if they still do it, probably yes).  Even more, it doesn't matter if one choose to tune to the national radio or TV broadcast or not.  If there is an unsealed receiver, the tax must be payed.

It applies for companies, too, where the tax was slightly bigger and the bookkeeper put it in reports.

No idea if that law still applies here, I think it is, but again, the tax was negligible small.

Never heard from someone known about a private home Radio/TV inspection, thought.

[NiHaoMike]

We can also watch TV programmes which are interrupted and sparse, with only about 40 minutes of programme per hour. For the other 33% of the time our eyeballs and brains are being sold to companies. The companies pay money, we pay with the only thing that cannot be replaced: our remaining life.

The smart ones will fast forward or skip the ads. That's if the content is worth watching in the first place...

[wraper]

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

Because it's a legal robbing. All of the money goes to BBC only regardless of what you watch. Even if you use satellite dish or cable TV. Only legal way to not pay is disconnecting any antenna/cable whatsoever.

[Red Squirrel]

It's kind of messed that it's even a thing.    Yet another example of government overreach into our lives.   What happens if you just need a TV for a purpose like just displaying something like security cameras or using it as a monitor?  Still need a license I bet? 

Speaking of the ridiculousness of needing a license for stupid stuff,  here in Canada they are introducing a law as of June 1st and you need a license to operate RC aircraft and each one has to be individually registered. Like guns back when there was a registry.   At what point is it going to apply for anything else like RC cars or just toys in general etc.   Governments don't like people to have any kind of fun, and if they do, they better pay up in some form or the other.    Some will even have extra taxes on things related to entertainment.  I guess the way they see it, if we have time to do things that entertain us it means we arn't working. They want us to work more so we can pay more taxes.

[Brumby]

The smart ones will fast forward or skip the ads. That's if the content is worth watching in the first place...

That's OK if you've recorded the program, but it's a bit hard on standard TV.

We had that licensing here in Australia for years, but it was discontinued in 1974.

[Brumby]

Governments don't like people to have any kind of fun ...

That's not it at all.  Blame the ones who abuse the privileges they have.

[Red Squirrel]

Governments don't like people to have any kind of fun ...

That's not it at all.  Blame the ones who abuse the privileges they have.

That's part of the issue too instead of punishing the few that cause problems they just punish everyone with overreaching regulations.  This goes with everything in general really. 

[vk6zgo]

I have known of the existence and requirement but never really thought about it. Now I have just seen several videos on Youtube of police and "inspectors" entering people's homes to check for TVs.

I just can't wrap my head around this. I can't understand it but that is because in all of the countries I have lived in none had this.

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

And, really, police go into people's homes to search for TVs? The chance that a resident is not paying their TV tax is considered a crime of such level that it requires police visits to investigate? Really? Judges issue warrants on suspicion that someone has a TV?

And just having a screen is enough that you have to pay for the licence even if you never watch TV? What if you can prove the tuner has been disabled to receive the BBC? What if you only play DVDs or streaming movies?

Do radio receivers pay too?

How are the fines handled? Can they be appealed? I just cannot imagine having to pay such tax.

I guess it is a cultural thing but I just have a hard time understanding it or maybe I am just not well informed on how it works.

Can anyone explain it? Does this exist in other countries?

The TV/Radio licence dates back to the beginnings of Broadcasting, when "encryption" was not practical.
Also, up to 1955, if you wanted to listen to British Radio, or watch British TV, you watched the BBC.
It seemed quite fair to the authorities, to apply the "user pays" principle, hence Radio & TV licences.

By and large, as it was only a small cost, the "Great British Public" didn't consider it something worth "going to the barricades about", so it became part of the British culture.

As people were mostly law-abiding, there wasn't a lot of need for a lot of enforcement, although there were dark mutterings back in the1960s/70s about DF vans driving around listening for TV set local oscillator leakage.
Latterly, licensing has become the responsibility of the BBC, who under the trading name "TV Licensing" have outsourced it to a number of private contractors.

To forestall the "barrack room lawyers" who maintained that if they didn't watch the BBC, or indeed, any FTA TV, in 2006, the licence was reclassified as a "tax", which you pay no matter what kind of TV you watch.

Most of the comments I've heard about over-zealous enforcement has been levelled at the private contractors.

I don't live there, this is basically information I've picked up over the years as an interested observer.

Australia had a similar Radio/TV licence, but the ABC never had a broadcasting monopoly like "the Beeb".
It was dumped in the 1970s on the basis that collection & enforcement cost more than the income.

[wraper]

although there were dark mutterings back in the1960s/70s about DF vans driving around listening for TV set local oscillator leakage.

Those vans were a total hoax. They were not listening anything, the only purpose was to scare public that they will be discovered.

[Brumby]

That's part of the issue too instead of punishing the few that cause problems they just punish everyone with overreaching regulations.  This goes with everything in general really. 

It's not a matter of punishment - but of implementing a mechanism to control all those who would otherwise play games dodging any "reasonable person" benchmarks.  The result is that in order to establish an effective framework we end up with a bureaucratic construct that will do this - but one that has to be applied to everyone to make sure the recalcitrants are constrained.  This means the bulk of the population are set boundaries meant for the hard-nosed.  Understandable - but it does suck and we don't have to like it.

[tsman]

What happens if you just need a TV for a purpose like just displaying something like security cameras or using it as a monitor?  Still need a license I bet? 

No and no.

[james_s]

As someone who has not watched broadcast TV in ~20 years the TV license is a concept I've always found very bizarre. They should either encrypt the signal and require a subscription, or make it public and just roll the costs into the taxes that everyone pays. The tuner in my main TV has never been hooked up to anything, the one downstairs is connected only to vintage video game consoles. I would not want to alter the equipment nor would I want to pay for a license for something I don't use. The idea of allowing authorities into my home without being served with a search warrant is a rather foreign concept to me too.

[wraper]

The idea of allowing authorities into my home without being served with a search warrant is a rather foreign concept to me too.

Well, actually they can't. But they convince most people that they can. Actually you can say BBC inspector to sod off, say you don't use TV,  and they won't be able to do anything about this. The only way they can catch you is if you show it them by yourself due to your own stupidity or if TV displaying live broadcast is visible through the window.

[all_repair]

We, Singapore, inherited the UK system as a formal colony of GB.  It was a tax of a TV set, monitor excluded and regardless if you are watching local channels.  This was removed few years, and lately household is given a Free digital TV tuner as the analog TV signal is being cut off.  Personally I am not watching the local TV channels, just plain propoganda amplify to very high DB in the local cahnnels.  But a smart move by the government to use tax payer money to get more eyes and ears to the government propoganda.   

[soldar]

The TV/Radio licence dates back to the beginnings of Broadcasting, when "encryption" was not practical.
Also, up to 1955, if you wanted to listen to British Radio, or watch British TV, you watched the BBC.
It seemed quite fair to the authorities, to apply the "user pays" principle, hence Radio & TV licences.

By and large, as it was only a small cost, the "Great British Public" didn't consider it something worth "going to the barricades about", so it became part of the British culture.

As people were mostly law-abiding, there wasn't a lot of need for a lot of enforcement, although there were dark mutterings back in the1960s/70s about DF vans driving around listening for TV set local oscillator leakage.
Latterly, licensing has become the responsibility of the BBC, who under the trading name "TV Licensing" have outsourced it to a number of private contractors.

To forestall the "barrack room lawyers" who maintained that if they didn't watch the BBC, or indeed, any FTA TV, in 2006, the licence was reclassified as a "tax", which you pay no matter what kind of TV you watch.

Most of the comments I've heard about over-zealous enforcement has been levelled at the private contractors.

I don't live there, this is basically information I've picked up over the years as an interested observer.

Australia had a similar Radio/TV licence, but the ABC never had a broadcasting monopoly like "the Beeb".
It was dumped in the 1970s on the basis that collection & enforcement cost more than the income.

Yes, it is a tax and IMHO should be paid as such, according to income and ability to pay. It seems very unfair to me that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" and makes them pay BBC tax equally too. Taking it further you could just have a flat capitation tax equal for everybody. You live in the UK then everybody pays the same amount in tax. The beggar and HM pay the same. You cannot get any more equality than that. And the pauper and the beggar would be so proud to be contributing as much as everyone else to the maintenance of the realm.

I have no objection to HM Government paying for TV but it should come out of the general fund and not indiscriminately out of the pockets of people who are already having enough problems getting by in life. And, as you say, collection and enforcement cost a pretty penny too.

And collection goons going around spying on people and entering their homes? Really? Really?

In the UK this is considered a good use of police efforts? Police have no worse crimes to investigate?

It seems to me that the British will put up with anything as long as it is "traditional".  I mean, yes, encryption was impractical in 1945 and hanging trespassers might be considered appropriate then but, come on, we are, I have been told, in the 21st century. It seems to me the transition to digital TV would have been a good moment to change the system to encrypt broadcasts or just pay the darned BBC of of the general funds.

Any comparison with TV funded by commercials is just nonsensical. You have the freedom to watch such a channel or not. The goon police do not kick down your door and come into your living room at the break and assume you have been watching the program and hold you down on your couch forcing you to watch the commercials and preventing you from taking a bathroom break. Well, at least I have not heard of it yet.

[soldar]

Most people are very happy to pay a little money, but gain good programmes and some non-wasted lifetime.

The same is true in other countries: witness the rise of Netflix.

You don't see the difference between the BBC tax and Netflix? Does "voluntary" mean anything to you?  I have never seen the Netflix goon van unload a search and destroy party into someone's living room.

[Towger]

Same scenario here in Ireland, but unlike in the UK where the BBC is advertisement free, here we get adverts too.

But we get to watch the BBC for free, when fedup watching the local channels. :-)

Actually in recent years the BBC has managed to extract some money from cable/satellite companies in Ireland.  But there is nothing stopping you from sticking up your own antenna or watching on Freesat.

[ebastler]

...
They should either encrypt the signal and require a subscription, or make it public and just roll the costs into the taxes that everyone pays.

...
The idea of allowing authorities into my home without being served with a search warrant is a rather foreign concept to me too.

That is part of the rationale why the German system was changed. It used to be "you pay when you own a working TV", which implied potential visits by inspectors. (Who did not have a legal right to enter your premises, IIRC, but could be pushy.) It was changed to a "per household fee" a few years back, where you pay a fixed fee per household, regardless of whether you own a TV or not.

Unfortunately this happened at a time where an increasing number of (mostly younger) people do indeed no longer have TVs; and many of them probably don't watch public broadcasting contents online. So the new approach is not necessarily perceived as more fair.

[tggzzz]

We can also watch TV programmes which are interrupted and sparse, with only about 40 minutes of programme per hour. For the other 33% of the time our eyeballs and brains are being sold to companies. The companies pay money, we pay with the only thing that cannot be replaced: our remaining life.

The smart ones will fast forward or skip the ads. That's if the content is worth watching in the first place...

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

[tggzzz]

It's kind of messed that it's even a thing.    Yet another example of government overreach into our lives.   What happens if you just need a TV for a purpose like just displaying something like security cameras or using it as a monitor?  Still need a license I bet? 

That is an ignorant comment. It makes readers discount and/or ignore all your other points.

[tggzzz]

Yes, it is a tax and IMHO should be paid as such, according to income and ability to pay.

Oooh! Politics on this forum.

Apart from that your comment is ignorant and wrong. Firstly many taxes hit those least able to pay, VAT being the prime example. Secondly, not everybody does have to pay.

I have no objection to HM Government paying for TV...

I'll do you a deal. You stop telling us what is valuable to us, and I won't tell you what is valuable to you Must. Not. Mention. Bull.....ing

[CJay]

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

Because it's a legal robbing. All of the money goes to BBC only regardless of what you watch. Even if you use satellite dish or cable TV. Only legal way to not pay is disconnecting any antenna/cable whatsoever.

Well, ~90% does, there's a bit left over to pay for other 'stuff' but it's a bit of a job to work out what it goes on.

I'm happy with it though, I reckon the BBC entertainment offering is worth it, the news and current affairs is another matter entirely.

[tggzzz]

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense.

Because it's a legal robbing. All of the money goes to BBC only regardless of what you watch. Even if you use satellite dish or cable TV. Only legal way to not pay is disconnecting any antenna/cable whatsoever.

Well, ~90% does, there's a bit left over to pay for other 'stuff' but it's a bit of a job to work out what it goes on.

I'm happy with it though, I reckon the BBC entertainment offering is worth it, the news and current affairs is another matter entirely.

Most people in the UK are happy with the licence fee concept. Of course if you ask them, they would rather pay less!

Every single person that I know that has experience of US broadcast TV, greatly appreciates the BBC and (to a lesser extent) the commercial channels. Why? Because they viscerally know how awful it is when you are the product being sold to advertisers. That especially includes the news; the sardonic comment is that US "foreign news" merely means "from another state"!

One example to illustrate the point, based on two lauded comedies:

• M*A*S*H: 256 episodes, laughter track to tell you when you should find it funny, and up to one smile per episode
• Fawlty Towers: 13 episodes, no need to be prodded into laughing (unless comatose), many belly laughs per episode

I don't know anything about Spanish TV. Perhaps the OP is basing his misapprehension on Spanish state TV?

[coppice]

Every single person that I know that has experience of US broadcast TV, greatly appreciates the BBC and (to a lesser extent) the commercial channels. Why? Because they viscerally know how awful it is when you are the product being sold to advertisers. That especially includes the news; the sardonic comment is that US "foreign news" merely means "from another state"!

Most Brits who experience US TV appreciate UK commercial TV just as much as the BBC. The UK regulations and practices of showing ads in infrequent bursts makes UK commercial TV a far more enjoyable experience than the US practice of very short bursts of actual programming between the ads. HBO must have been a really easy sell when it first appeared, offering the opportunity to sit back and enjoy the show.

[bd139]

Not a fan of the BBC or the license fee if I'm honest. Bar some of the original programming that is quite good, a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions [1] and a lot of air time for minority opinions which are quite frankly fucking batshit insane. On top of that we have the whole pedophile scandal [2] cover up. Thirdly we have a lot of nearly brainwashing content about in demand industries aimed at smaller children [3].

On top of that pile of shit, the license enforcement is horrid. When I was a student we didn't have a license becase we all had computers and VCRs didn't give a shit about that sort of stuff. We watched video rentals and spent the rest of our time listening to David Gilmour. Alas one fine Thursday afternoon in 1992 we had the inspectors turn up and force their way in past my mechanical engineer friend into the property followed by a load of verbal threats. When they found no TV antenna in the property they left but the whole point is they are a private organisation who think they can behave like that. We reported them to the police and the police said they would do nothing because we couldn't prove they forced entry (despite the huge dent in the wall where they slammed the door open and the handle went though the paint).

On top of that the Police these days are generally "corporate enforcers" and the problem has got worse resulting in some interesting overreach situations (look up crimebodge as an example). Fortunately our justice system basically said "what the fuck?" to this.

At this point the TV is there to consume me, not for me to consume it when I choose so it stays off. All I watch is streaming media. I have a license for the benefit of a few programmes that my wife thinks is worth wasting valuable hours of life on and that's it.

If it's on commercial TV I tend to download stuff that is ripped off from US releases with the ads stripped and that's it. I won't wait 6 months for it to appear here or sit through ads here. I will pay for this if someone makes it available but it hasn't happened yet.

So criticism is valid if you ask me.

Edit: also to note I was a BBC contractor for a short period of time and the whole organisation is bent as fuck inside. It was seriously hard squeezing the invoice cash out of them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases
[3] Nina and the fucking Neurons.

[ebastler]

a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions and a lot of air time for minority opinions

So you are complaining that they (a) give too much airtime to the majority, and (b) give too much airtime to the minorities? 

[Monkeh]

As someone who has not watched broadcast TV in ~20 years the TV license is a concept I've always found very bizarre. They should either encrypt the signal and require a subscription, or make it public and just roll the costs into the taxes that everyone pays. The tuner in my main TV has never been hooked up to anything, the one downstairs is connected only to vintage video game consoles. I would not want to alter the equipment nor would I want to pay for a license for something I don't use. The idea of allowing authorities into my home without being served with a search warrant is a rather foreign concept to me too.

The inability of certain groups to check facts is something I've always found very bizarre.

There is no need to pay a license or modify equipment if you don't watch TV.

[richard.cs]

If you don't watch live broadcast TV, or (recent change) watch the BBC catchup service then you don't need it even if you have devices capable of it. Saying "I have a TV, I only use it for Netflix and gaming" is fine and normal.

Enforcement basically consists of them asking you if you have a TV and sending threatening letters until you either pay up or make an "I don't need a license" declaration which causes them to leave you alone for 2 years. The police have nothing to do with it, there are private TV licensing people who go knocking on doors but they have no power to enter your house without a court order, which they can pretty much only get if they've seen you watching live TV through the window. If they do get a court order then, like debt collectors and similar, they can ask the police to attend to "keep the peace" - basically stand there in case you get violent.

You can have a political argument over whether it's a good way to fund some advertising-free channels that not everyone necessarily watches, but it's not the heavy-handed enforcement that some seem to think it is.

[bd139]

a lot of it shows distinct political bias towards the political party of the hour and thier prevaling opinions and a lot of air time for minority opinions

So you are complaining that they (a) give too much airtime to the majority, and (b) give too much airtime to the minorities? 

The legal mandate of the BBC is to present an unbiased view. That can only be done by presenting all of the facts. Giving no airtime strategically for things that are politically inconvenient and giving too much time to minority views which support political thought are the status quo at the moment.

A documentary they released a few years back was a fine example. They went through the Srebrenica massacre in detail but forgot to mention that the Muslims were the victims there and the Dutch UN operatives turned a blind eye. This was in the middle of the current terror propaganda.

[vealmike]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

[coppice]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

I received some of those letters after moving. They seem to be worded to alienate people, and minimise their cooperation.

[vealmike]

:nod:
I'd be quite happy to help them, if they stop fibbing to me about what I have to do and threatening me with legal action if I don't dance to their tune.

For the record, I do have a telly at my residence, I do watch it and I do pay a license fee there. Both because I'm required to and because I believe in the license fee system of funding the BBC.

[richard.cs]

I own a rental property in the UK, it currently has no tenant, no furniture and definitely no TV.

The number of threatening letters that I get from TV Licensing and the tone of the letters is offending. Not courteous, not informing me of my rights, not one "please".
Instead I have repeated demands to either tell them I have no TV, or to pay up for a licence for that property. They threaten court action if I do neither of the these.

In reality, I am obliged to pay for a license if I watch any TV, whether terrestrial, satellite or internet streamed. If I do not do this, I am not liable for a license and I am not required to inform "TV Licensing" explicitly that I don't watch TV. As and when they send a politely worded, non threatening letter, I'll happily go on line and tell them I have no TV at this property. Until then, they are being ignored.

Apparently they have now opened an investigation.

I received some of those letters after moving. They seem to be worded to alienate people, and minimise their cooperation.

Agreed, the tone of the letters is unnecessarily unpleasant, and probably counter-productive in the long term in that it most likely erodes public support for the whole TV license system.

[mikeselectricstuff]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

[bd139]

Doesn't quite work like that. The police are sometimes called by the inspectors because the householder was being threatening. The police have very little knowledge of the actual law as it stands, relying on the CPS to cover their arses if they get it wrong, so are leveraged to gain access to keep the peace. When two police officers and a license officer turn up, you feel disempowered. This is a very common tactic used by debt collectors as well.

People who end up doing these jobs do so because they enjoy the intimidation aspect.

[tsman]

The extreme aggressiveness is because TV Licensing administration has been outsourced to Capita and they've got an incentive scheme. They've gotten into trouble before for their intimidation tactics and specifically targeting vulnerable people for easy cases.

[Ian.M]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

Unless you can prove that you've got an audio only receiver, a timestamped audio recording with appropriate chain of custody could be pretty good proof you were watching broadcast TV.     Beware of inspectors stuffing microphones through your letterbox!

Also the BBC used to have the capability to detect  exactly what program you were watching on any CRT TV at  range of several hundred meters.  However  it was never accurate enough to distinguish between TVs back to back on either side of a party wall or even between floors of an apartment building.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking

That's got a *LOT* harder with digital TV and flat panel TVs as there are no longer standard analog high amplitude scan coil and beam intensity signals to detect and spurious emissions from the tuner's local oscillator are both lower (due to better screening and miniaturisation) and harder to correlate with a specific channel.

That makes it a lot cheaper in the short term to employ a goon squad to door knock and intimidate rather than well equipped highly trained electronic surveillance operatives to actually gather proof of unlicensed TV viewing.

If you don't watch TV and aren't easily intimidated, do your bit for freedom and human rights by wasting as much of their time as possible, but don't let them in!   If you've really got big brass balls, and a large movie library, while talking to them, consult the TV schedule and if there's a movie on you own a copy of, cue it up, fast forward to your best guess of how far in the broadcast is, turn it up and hit play!

[NiHaoMike]

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

The free app mpv allows seeking with a buffer if you're too impatient to wait for a whole recording. You can either start it paused and go do other things for a few minutes to build up the buffer or just pause it and do something else once the ads come, then skip through the ads once you're back.

[DDunfield]

Most people have forgotten (or never knew), but we used to have licensing for broadcast receivers here in Canada. I believe it ended sometime in the 50's.

I still have one tucked into the back of a old floor model receiver. (photo attached)

Dave

[madires]

Germany has a pretty awful system. Every office, car and flat is basically obligated to pay that tax, regardless of whether they have a TV or radio or not. It's extortion.

It's a fee, not a tax.

[madires]

That is part of the rationale why the German system was changed. It used to be "you pay when you own a working TV", which implied potential visits by inspectors. (Who did not have a legal right to enter your premises, IIRC, but could be pushy.) It was changed to a "per household fee" a few years back, where you pay a fixed fee per household, regardless of whether you own a TV or not.

There was also a reduced "radio only" fee. The change to "per household" got rid of the inspectors, but it was actually a hidden mark-up, same fee but more payers. They didn't lower the fee accordingly. BTW, the total sum is about 8 to 9 billion Euros a year.

[tggzzz]

Does your television have a fast forward button?

When you press it, do you lose 20 minutes/hour of your life, e.g. by becoming comatose? Yes, I do realise that's what happens to those who can only see US broadcast TV.

The free app mpv allows seeking with a buffer if you're too impatient to wait for a whole recording. You can either start it paused and go do other things for a few minutes to build up the buffer or just pause it and do something else once the ads come, then skip through the ads once you're back.

You are, presumably deliberately, missing the point and avoiding the question.

[KaneTW]

Germany has a pretty awful system. Every office, car and flat is basically obligated to pay that tax, regardless of whether they have a TV or radio or not. It's extortion.

It's a fee, not a tax.

Same deal really. Unless you can somehow opt out of it.

[james_s]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

I have a TV and watch it frequently, but it is 100% streaming and discs, I have never bothered to hook up an antenna and never had cable or satellite for as long as I've lived here.

Even if cable was free I wouldn't want it. Every channel has a stupid logo constantly hovering in the corner now which triggers my OCD and makes it unwatchable. Worse yet are the animated banners that come up during a show, and then there's the ever increasing ad load to the point that (in the US at least) reruns are often sped up slightly and/or have bits cut out in order to squeeze in another commercial. It's all garbage.

[tggzzz]

In practice the only people that get prosecuted are those who admit  it, or can clearly be seen watching TV through a window from outside.
Their inspectors have no right of entry, so they just rely on threats and bullshit to get the gullible to cough up or allow them in.

I have a TV and watch it frequently, but it is 100% streaming and discs, I have never bothered to hook up an antenna and never had cable or satellite for as long as I've lived here.

Even if cable was free I wouldn't want it. Every channel has a stupid logo constantly hovering in the corner now which triggers my OCD and makes it unwatchable. Worse yet are the animated banners that come up during a show, and then there's the ever increasing ad load to the point that (in the US at least) reruns are often sped up slightly and/or have bits cut out in order to squeeze in another commercial. It's all garbage.

Yes, US broadcast (and satellite) TV is barely worth watching. I have less experience of US cable TV.

But, since the thread is about one broadcaster in the UK, what's the relevance of your local experience?

[james_s]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Doesn't quite work like that. The police are sometimes called by the inspectors because the householder was being threatening.

Again, people getting caught due to their own stupidity. If they simply refused to open the door there's nothing that they can do

[German_EE]

EEVBlog members may find the following link interesting when it comes to this subject:

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

This guy has been getting a letter a month since 2006 from the TV licensing people and if you look carefully at the letters themselves you can see that they are churned out by a computer and no human is involved.

As for the 'Detector Vans' these are a scam. I saw one parked overnight and the blinds were not drawn across the windows. There were no equipment racks or desks of fancy equipment, just an empty space, although the fake antenna did look impressive. Think of it this way, is the first I.F. of your TV receiver 45 MHz, 21 MHz or maybe something else? They SHOULD be looking for a UHF signal +/- the I.F. frequency but without knowing what frequency a TV set uses the system will be impossible to use. Add to that modern sets where everything is screened and they don't stand a chance.

[james_s]

I didn't realize they had phony detector vans, that's pretty funny.

[mikeselectricstuff]

By law anyone retailing TVs must report name & address of buyer-that's the 'detector van'.

[LaserSteve]

As an American, I'd like to thank UK Citizens for the following that have made the US Public Broadcasting System affiliate in my neck of the woods the "Go To" TV channel for our family:

Fawlty  Towers
Black Adder
Mr. Bean
Are you Being Served?
Dad's Army
Anything Helen Mirren..
Anything Lucy Worsley  (Love that snarky attitude)
Sherlock
Inspector Morse
Inspector Lewis
Mystery
Father Ted,
Wallender
RED DWARF
Victoria
Allo Allo
Keeping Up Appearances
All the Science Stuff from Oxford Films Ltd.
Downton Abby
And the first two seasons of Balleykissangel.

Your taxpayer money was well spent..

You Aussies, I'd like to thank for :
A Place to Call Home
The beautiful and sweet Dr. Lisa  in Pet Vets
800 Words

The Poles here get a thanks for
Wataha / The Border


The Swedish get a Thanks for:
Beck
The Bridge

And the Germans get a thanks for
Commissar Rex
Cobra 11, (love those car chase scenes/ explosions for ANY excuse,)

You Dutch, I will some day forgive for the Plague of anything Endemol has created for the US Market.
Especially "Big Brother".

I apologize for our forcing Survivor, NCIS, and Law and Order onto the world stage.. 


Steve

[tsman]

By law anyone retailing TVs must report name & address of buyer-that's the 'detector van'.

They don't do that anymore. The requirement to report TV sales was part of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 which was repealed in 2013.

[KJDS]

I pay £10 a month for the BBC, and about £60 a month for Sky so I can have another 500 channels with (almost) nothing on.

[tggzzz]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

[tggzzz]

As an American, I'd like to thank UK Citizens for the following that have made the US Public Broadcasting System affiliate in my neck of the woods the "Go To" TV channel for our family:

Glad to be of service

But the US also provides many excellent programmes, in amongst the dross.

But we are well aware the UK provides much dross alongside the good programmes. Count yourself lucky that you don't get the "opportunity" to see it!

I can't comment on TV from the OP's country, because I'm not aware I've ever seen any. There may be a reason for that, and it may be behind his bewilderment that we cherish the BBC (for all its faults).

[ebastler]

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Right. It's not a watermark, it's a "DOG":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/2011/04/digital-on-screen-graphics-res.shtml

 

[bd139]

I love their bullshit excuse as well. It’s so they can source where the TV rips came from.

[ebastler]

But with the arrival of 16:9, they have moved the DOG further to the left. That's something, isn't it? 

[james_s]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Well the number of BBC sourced shows I've seen that have a logo in the upper-left corner of the screen suggests otherwise.

[tggzzz]

It was a bit of a tangent, but my limited experience watching UK TV was that while the content was marginally better than the stuff at home and had bit less in the way of commercials, the channels had the same sort of obnoxious logos in the corner making it virtually unwatchable. If I lived over there I'd do the same thing I do here and set up a Plex server.

Sigh. That comment is also "a bit of a tangent"

This thread is about the BBC and the licence fee. The BBC does not have such "watermark" channel logos.

Well the number of BBC sourced shows I've seen that have a logo in the upper-left corner of the screen suggests otherwise.

But they weren't being transmitted on UK terrestrial channels, were they.... The channels paid for by the licence fee (see thread title).

[MT]

I have known of the existence and requirement but never really thought about it. Now I have just seen several videos on Youtube of police and "inspectors" entering people's homes to check for TVs. I just can't wrap my head around this. I can't understand it but that is because in all of the countries I have lived in none had this.

I mean, if you want people to pay why not just encrypt the signal like some channels do in other countries? And if it is going to be like just a tax on pretty much everybody why not just make it part of the general budget? That way you save all this collection effort and expense. And, really, police go into people's homes to search for TVs?
Does this exist in other countries?

Sweden just recently abolished the TV "reciever" licence, (payment was for the receiver part not the entire TV) for a tax based one.The reason was fewer and fewer watched the national broadcast also known among citizens as the socialist propaganda canal (Sweden has private owned broadcasts as well). Gov including all the different parties from left to right (except SD) voted for a tax based TV because as was said to the unwashed grey masses important to preserve democracy. Yes you heard right. Want more gov based BS?

The chance that a resident is not paying their TV tax is considered a crime of such level that it requires police visits to investigate? Really? Judges issue warrants on suspicion that someone has a TV?

When TV was licence fee based Gov had Detection/bearing vans out on the land to try nail people who had a unpaid TV receiver, they ring on your door asks if you have a TV receiver, you reply you dont ,they ask if they may enter you apartment/house, you reply they may not, they reply we will come back later, you reply they are welcome back. End result they never show up again.

Point are, law prohibits them to enter your home without homeowners consent, nor would police ever bother , eventually proposed hypothesized crime just to small, yet your allowed to own a TV receiver for use to computer playing games they mumblyingly say, I.e you not watching Gov broadcast. So the whole process is pointless waste
if you know the law as a citizen.

When the detector van people (scoobydoo) came to visit me once i hadn't had a TV for decades, so why did they came?
Well, they dont drive around by chance  no, what they do is looking into a list of people who haven't pay'd TV licence
for a while and then drop by to pursue their so called case.

Sometimes the make score most times they just a waste of taxpayers money after all they are just part of the current regime in power propaganda outlet, often in Sweden the retarded totalitarian socialists (dont think for a second the totalitarian right wingers haven't used TV as their propaganda outlet when they where
in power). TV is just EVIL fake news!
 
So Sweden went from ashes to fire instead of ashes to water, i.e ad paid TV as they do in commie China.

[Bud]

That seems counter-intuitive to me. I'd thought the brainwashers should provide wide open free broadcast of the "materials" to reach and influence as many sheep as possible and even pay the sheep to consume it.

[0culus]

It's to artificially prop up an unsustainable business.

[vealmike]

It's to artificially prop up an unsustainable business.

No, it isn't. You're not UK based so, unless you're an ex-pat you can be forgiven for getting that wrong.

The BBC is a business, in that it does generate revenue from exporting both programmes it has made and programme concepts. The BBC's biggest earner is Top Gear. Both from the sale of the program made here and from franchising the concept to other countries.

Top Gear franchises include Australia, Germany, Italy, Russia, France, Korea & China. The UK show had 350 million viewers at one point.

But despite this, the BBC is a not for profit organisation. It is committed  to providing an unbiased viewpoint and producing excellent original content.
It is not funded through advertising, an important part of its impartiality. Instead it receives money raised from the license fee and from selling content.

So the license fee is not supporting an unsustainable business, it is funding an apolitical, educational, news and entertainment service that has no equal anywhere else the world.

[Zero999]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

[tggzzz]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.

[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!

[madires]

At least you can opt out. We are forced to pay for the public-service broadcasting and its "high quality" productions. Despite claiming to be independent and so on they deliver mostly entertainment for the elderly and have clearly political preferences. The newscasts are simplified for primary-school pupils and a lot is omitted. On the positive side they broadcast much less ads and rubbish/trash than free commercial TV programs. I barely watch TV.

[coppice]

[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!

That was a pretty easy prediction 2 decades ago. If it were made 4 decades ago it would have been very insightful.

[tggzzz]

[1] a couple of decades ago someone noted that in the future info that went over wires would transfer to wireless, and info that was wireless would become wired. A pretty good prediction!

That was a pretty easy prediction 2 decades ago. If it were made 4 decades ago it would have been very insightful.

"Couple" indicates a lack of precision. The prediction might well have been three decades ago, but not four.

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.

[coppice]

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.

In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

[Zero999]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.

I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.

[KaneTW]

Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?

[Zero999]

Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?

Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.

[KaneTW]

It's also on the internet, without ads and on demand. Shows that are worth watching and are TV only are a rarity.

[bd139]

Indeed. There's only so many times you can repurpose the main themes:

1. Overly long seasonal vanity competition.
2. People arguing in a town.
3. We really hate one class of people.
4. Science program with precisely no content other than insightful looks from Brian Cox
5. Celebrity only quiz because it's shunned to give money to the plebs.
6. Just! Breaking! News!
7. Social brainwashing for small children.
8. Make a hash of something and sell it for less than you paid for it.
9. Violent controverisal cartoon free of real story telling content.
10. People arguing in a house.
11. Film about someone dying of cancer.
12. Chef shouting at people trying to make something until they cry.
13. Your country's worst criminals, pedophiles, murderers, drivers or some old shit.
14. Muppets and a ball of some sort.
15. Repeats of the above on smaller channels in "best of" scenarios.

Turn it off. Read a book.

[Zero999]

It's also on the internet, without ads and on demand. Shows that are worth watching and are TV only are a rarity.

The shows are also available add free on the BBC website to all licence fee payers.

[Bud]

Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?

Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.

Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.

[tggzzz]

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.

In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.

[tggzzz]

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.

I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.

Shows, good and bad, get axed all the time - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

The BBC had to save money; chopping BBC3 was a way of doing that.

[Zero999]

Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?

Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.

Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.

That's true, but I often have my PC hooked up to my PC, so I can lie on the sofa to watch stuff: normally BBC dramas.

As much as I like the BBC and think a having TV without advertising is a good idea, I hardly watch any commercial TV, the TV licence is unsustainable. Some of the younger people where I work say they won't bother with a TV licence when they get a place of their own. They already have a NetFlix subscription and watch YouTube, more than broadcast TV, at their parent's place.

The most stupid thing the BBC have done is stop broadcasting BBC Three live. If they wanted to save money the should have cut BBC Four instead, which is crappy and didn't have as good ratings. Yes I know the whole point of the BBC is not to care about ratings, but cutting a channel aimed at teenagers and young adults was retarded. Keeping BBC Three would have helped to keep future licence fee payers, but now they've cut it, they'll go elsewhere.

The BBC will live for now, as it continues to have public support, but it's well and truly past its half life.

The BBC very sensibly accepted some compromises when their charter and the licence fee last came up for renewal. They recognised the trends you mention above[1] towards the net, and the licence fee now covers viewing over the net.

The reason that BBC3 is not broadcast is because they recognised that its target audience (yoof) was more likely to watch on a computer than a TV. Smart move. Good test case for the future.

I see the point you're making about the youngsters watching on-line more these days and if that was the only change, it wouldn't have been as bad, but they axed some of the most popular TV programmes, such as Family Guy.

I still think it's a dumb move because young people still watch live TV and cutting anything popular reduces support for the licence fee.

Shows, good and bad, get axed all the time - sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.

The BBC had to save money; chopping BBC3 was a way of doing that.

Many good shows were axed when they cut BB3, again just to save money. Short term gain, for long term pain: fewer licence fee payers in future.

They could have cut back elsewhere and kept much more of their younger audience.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

The BBC's biggest earner is Top Gear.

Still is without the three? Or it's no more?

[vealmike]

Yes, I think it still is, because of the number of franchises and re-runs.

[G7PSK]

Tv detector vans were at one time real, they looked for the signal from the flyback coil which could be picked up a long way of. The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio. 

[james_s]

It would have been fun to build a 15kHz (or whatever it was there, 16kHz?) oscillator to troll the TV detector.

[rdl]

Most people I know in the 20-30s don't watch TV anymore. Why would you, when the internet exists?

Because there's still plenty of good stuff on TV.

Using a TV is easier and casual than using a computer to watch TV.

This year the Superbowl came to my 42" TV over the internet, streamed through a web browser. That's still TV, right?

[Towger]

The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio.

The Musk of this day :-)

Early wireless sets had to have a BBC/GPO Approved stamp/emblem on them. This generated the money pre TV licence. 
I have a nice double crystal set with it.  Probably dates from when Ireland was part of the UK.

Random example from the internet:
http://dighera.com/radio_archive/marconiphone%20v2%20plate_small.jpg

[G7PSK]

The licence fee can be traced back directly to the con artist Marconi who persuaded the GPO as it was then and the Government of the time that he should have a cut of every radio and TV set manufactured and a fee for all broadcasts signals, it is not even like he really invented radio.

The Musk of this day :-)

Early wireless sets had to have a BBC/GPO Approved stamp/emblem on them. This generated the money pre TV licence. 
I have a nice double crystal set with it.  Probably dates from when Ireland was part of the UK.

Random example from the internet:
http://dighera.com/radio_archive/marconiphone%20v2%20plate_small.jpg

I have several old receivers with the BBC/GPO tab inside along with some with the Marconi royalty payment badge with serial No. on them. One is a transistor unit from the late 60's so even that late the Marconi company was still claiming patent rights on receivers.

[LapTop006]

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.

In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.

WiFi dates older than you might think, quoth the wiki:

WaveLAN was a brand name for a family of wireless networking technology sold by NCR, AT&T, and Lucent, as well as being sold by other companies under OEM agreements. The WaveLAN name debuted on the market in 1988 and was in use into the mid-1990s, when Lucent renamed their products to ORiNOCO. WaveLAN laid the important foundation for the formation of IEEE 802.11 working group and the resultant creation of Wi-Fi.
...
WaveLAN was originally designed by COMTEN, a subsidiary of NCR Corporation, (later the Network Products Division of NCR) in 1986-7, and introduced to the market in 1988 as a wireless alternative to Ethernet and Token-Ring.[1] The next year NCR contributed the WaveLAN design to the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee.[2] This led to the founding of the 802.11 Wireless LAN Working Committee which produced the original IEEE 802.11 standard, which eventually became known popularly as Wi-Fi. When NCR was acquired by AT&T in 1991, becoming the AT&T GIS (Global Information Solutions) business unit, the product name was retained, as happened two years later when the product was transferred to the AT&T GBCS (Global Business Communications Systems) business unit, and again when AT&T spun off their GBCS business unit as Lucent in 1995. The technology was also sold as WaveLAN under an OEM agreement by Epson, Hitachi,and NEC, and as the RoamAbout DS by DEC.[3] It competed directly with Aironet's non-802.11 ARLAN lineup, which offered similar speeds, frequency ranges and hardware.

[madires]

Tv detector vans were at one time real, they looked for the signal from the flyback coil which could be picked up a long way of.

I remember that schools over here had the tuners removed from TVs and VCRs to circumvent paying the TV fee. A detector van would have had fun with that.

[tggzzz]

Don't forget that video streaming is relatively new; e.g. youtube started 14 years ago this month. Before that very few people had adequate bandwidth to the home, and many still don't.

In 1999 ADSL was being deployed. From that point a YouTube like business was inevitable. The extent to which people can watch YouTube while on the move (WiFi around the house, and LTE in public) might surprise someone from 1999, but it shouldn't surprise them too much, especially since OFDM was already establishing itself pretty will for TV broadcasts. No further breakthroughs were needed.

I first became aware of OFDM in the early 90s (i.e. before any 802.11). When my group at work heard about it we instantly thought it would be a very good candidate for WLANs and cellular systems, since it cut straight through the crap about CDMA-vs-TDM.

It is quite likely that I heard the wired/wireless quote around that time.

WiFi dates older than you might think, quoth the wiki:

WaveLAN was a brand name for a family of wireless networking technology sold by NCR, AT&T, and Lucent, as well as being sold by other companies under OEM agreements. The WaveLAN name debuted on the market in 1988 and was in use into the mid-1990s, when Lucent renamed their products to ORiNOCO. WaveLAN laid the important foundation for the formation of IEEE 802.11 working group and the resultant creation of Wi-Fi.
...
WaveLAN was originally designed by COMTEN, a subsidiary of NCR Corporation, (later the Network Products Division of NCR) in 1986-7, and introduced to the market in 1988 as a wireless alternative to Ethernet and Token-Ring.[1] The next year NCR contributed the WaveLAN design to the IEEE 802 LAN/MAN Standards Committee.[2] This led to the founding of the 802.11 Wireless LAN Working Committee which produced the original IEEE 802.11 standard, which eventually became known popularly as Wi-Fi. When NCR was acquired by AT&T in 1991, becoming the AT&T GIS (Global Information Solutions) business unit, the product name was retained, as happened two years later when the product was transferred to the AT&T GBCS (Global Business Communications Systems) business unit, and again when AT&T spun off their GBCS business unit as Lucent in 1995. The technology was also sold as WaveLAN under an OEM agreement by Epson, Hitachi,and NEC, and as the RoamAbout DS by DEC.[3] It competed directly with Aironet's non-802.11 ARLAN lineup, which offered similar speeds, frequency ranges and hardware.

No, sorry; WiFi != WLANs.

A more useful quote would be "Wi-Fi (/ˈwaɪfaɪ/) is technology for radio wireless local area networking of devices based on the IEEE 802.11 standards. Wi‑Fi is a trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance, which restricts the use of the term Wi-Fi Certified to products that successfully complete interoperability certificatiom". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

There were many many many WLAN technologies in the late 80s and early 90s, all incompatible. I evaluated several.

I was aware of OFDM before 802.11 existed. Indeed, I left that field in 1996 before 802.11 standards even existed. FFI and dates, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Protocol

[coppice]

I was aware of OFDM before 802.11 existed. Indeed, I left that field in 1996 before 802.11 standards even existed. FFI and dates, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11#Protocol

Read a good comms book from the 1960s and you'll learn all about OFDM. You won't see the name there, but you'll see the technology described as a way to get close to Shannon if its huge complexity ever became economically feasible.

[sainbablo]

Post offices used to  issue TV  licenses, then banks started collection and  now a flat  rate is  included in power bills, tv  or  no  tv you just pay
but number of tvs doesn't  matter.