4 ms·
I don't need to pay for a license fee because I don't watch TV. I watch Netflix, amazon, apple, disney etc. I still pay it because I'm listening to radio 2 at
by iso1210 5y ago
I don't need to pay for a license fee because I don't watch TV. I watch Netflix, amazon, apple, disney etc.
I still pay it because I'm listening to radio 2 at the moment, and have the news website in the background. While legally I don't need a license fee for that, it feels wrong to not be contributing.
Unless you're some weird boomer still paying £600 a year for a sky subscription to watch shit TV broken by adverts, I'm not sure why you'd pay a license fee (unless of course you actually watch BBC output)
- ThePadawan 5y agoGreat to here that this works in the UK. The Swiss equivalent has simply declared that "any device capable of using the internet" can also receive television programs, and thus isn't exempt. So no one with a computer or smartphone is exempt. (At least this "solves" the apparent problem that UK residents can't watch some UK TV content online for free, while the rest of the world can)
- hadrien01 5y agoI have the exact same position here in France. I don't have to pay the TV license because I don't have a TV, but I still do because I consume so much content made by public media organisations (Franceinfo, Arte, Radio France, etc.).
- Nextgrid 5y agoI'm in the same position as you (don't watch license-requiring content, but appreciate other BBC content such as their website) but I refuse to pay the license out of principle as to not encourage/support their bullshit approach at enforcement. I disagree with the idea of generating insane amounts of paper waste (and sometimes sending crooks in-person) to threaten less scam-savvy people into paying for a license they don't need, especially when said people might be lower-income that can't afford paying for a license "out of charity" if they aren't required to by law.