5 ms·

They probably don't want to draw attention to the fact that they use RIPA legislation to catch TV license evaders.

by cjk2 2y ago

deepsun 2y ago
I don't understand, if BBC is a government agency, why cannot they be sponsored from taxes? Why the hassle of TV licences?
- lozenge 2y ago
  History. It was a way of letting people who don't have TVs not pay a license. There was also an extra charge for colour TVs. Edit: Oh, the BBC isn't a government agency, it's operationally independent. But always becoming less so, as the board is mostly appointed by the government now.
  - bpye 2y ago
    A black and white TV license is still cheaper than colour, £57 vs £169.50.
- TillE 2y ago
  Mostly for dumb historical reasons, currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding. Objectively European TV licenses are just a terrible wasteful idea, basically creating an entire parallel tax collection system. Of all the important, vital things a government funds, I'm not sure why a public broadcaster should have any special insulation from the usual democratic decision making.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    The UK TV license is much less tax-like than the German one. I never paid for the UK one, by the cunning and devious scheme of… never buying a TV once I moved out of my parent's home. Now I'm in Germany, and here we have to pay for a TV license regardless of if we have a TV or not. (Also, my partner here has a TV).
    - iknowstuff 2y ago
      lol Germany. Do you all still live off 1GB of mobile data there too?
      - ben_w 2y ago
        For the very cheapest (€4.99/4 weeks) Vodafone pre-pay rate, sure, 1 GB. The discount supermarket Lidl does 30 GB/€18.99/4 weeks. O2 has a bunch of different "unlimited" offers with various caveats and extras at various different price points. Now, the actual mobile network coverage? That's still all over the place, even in Berlin.
        tetris11 2y ago
        LIDl Talk Smart XS package, representing...
        Fatnino 2y ago
        12gb/$35/month here in the states.
  - toyg 2y ago
    In Italy it's now a part of your energy bill, by law. Basically too many people were opting out (legitimately or not), so they made it non-negotiable: "if you have energy, you must be powering screens! Pay up!" Meanwhile, mainstream TV (both state-run and privately owned) is more and more unwatchable, and more and more people just tune out - but they are still taxed.
    - alfiopuglisi 2y ago
      You can still opt out, just fill out a declaration that you don't have a TV. It can be done online in two minutes (it must be repeated every year tho). The difference is that before it was basically opt-in, with spotty enforcement, and as a result about 30% of the population was not paying anything. Today it requires lying on an official form, making it much more serious.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding. How does that work? Who sets the TV license rate? If I hate the BBC and want to eliminate their funding, and I also want to be popular, what's stopping me from eliminating the license regime altogether?
- pjc50 2y ago
  The BBC is a "quango": quasi-autonomous non government organisation. And the TV license .. well, it's really a tax, as much as vehicle excise duty is, but with outsourced collection. I think it's unsustainable long term but the BBC is still pretty popular for its non-news output.
  - pipes 2y ago
    Also it allows for endless pointless online arguments about it not being a tax!(I think it is a tax in everything but name).
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      In 2024 it's a subscription service with the world's worst UX. I only have internet-delivered TV, and so I'd be very happy with an iPlayer that just unlocks more content behind a subscription fee.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance? Like, suppose your car comes with a subscription service for satellite radio... you're allowed to just not pay it. Owning the object associated with the service doesn't normally oblige you to subscribe to it.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance? Things may have changed since I left the country, but last I heard you only needed one if you owned specifically a TV or actually used iPlayer (i.e. more than merely having the capability to use it).
        robertlagrant 2y ago
- dazc 2y ago
  It's a quaint anachronism, like afternoon tea and cricket, of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th richest nation on the planet. Maintained by witless fools who's sole achievement in life was to marry a wealthy woman.

They probably don't want to draw attention to the fact that they use RIPA legislation to catch TV license evaders.

by cjk2 2y ago

They probably don't want to draw attention to the fact that they use RIPA legislation to catch TV license evaders.

I don't understand, if BBC is a government agency, why cannot they be sponsored from taxes? Why the hassle of TV licences?

lozenge 2y ago
History. It was a way of letting people who don't have TVs not pay a license. There was also an extra charge for colour TVs. Edit: Oh, the BBC isn't a government agency, it's operationally independent. But always becoming less so, as the board is mostly appointed by the government now.
- bpye 2y ago
  A black and white TV license is still cheaper than colour, £57 vs £169.50.
TillE 2y ago
Mostly for dumb historical reasons, currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding. Objectively European TV licenses are just a terrible wasteful idea, basically creating an entire parallel tax collection system. Of all the important, vital things a government funds, I'm not sure why a public broadcaster should have any special insulation from the usual democratic decision making.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The UK TV license is much less tax-like than the German one. I never paid for the UK one, by the cunning and devious scheme of… never buying a TV once I moved out of my parent's home. Now I'm in Germany, and here we have to pay for a TV license regardless of if we have a TV or not. (Also, my partner here has a TV).
  - iknowstuff 2y ago
    lol Germany. Do you all still live off 1GB of mobile data there too?
    - ben_w 2y ago
      For the very cheapest (€4.99/4 weeks) Vodafone pre-pay rate, sure, 1 GB. The discount supermarket Lidl does 30 GB/€18.99/4 weeks. O2 has a bunch of different "unlimited" offers with various caveats and extras at various different price points. Now, the actual mobile network coverage? That's still all over the place, even in Berlin.
      - tetris11 2y ago
        LIDl Talk Smart XS package, representing...
      - Fatnino 2y ago
        12gb/$35/month here in the states.
- toyg 2y ago
  In Italy it's now a part of your energy bill, by law. Basically too many people were opting out (legitimately or not), so they made it non-negotiable: "if you have energy, you must be powering screens! Pay up!" Meanwhile, mainstream TV (both state-run and privately owned) is more and more unwatchable, and more and more people just tune out - but they are still taxed.
  - alfiopuglisi 2y ago
    You can still opt out, just fill out a declaration that you don't have a TV. It can be done online in two minutes (it must be repeated every year tho). The difference is that before it was basically opt-in, with spotty enforcement, and as a result about 30% of the population was not paying anything. Today it requires lying on an official form, making it much more serious.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding. How does that work? Who sets the TV license rate? If I hate the BBC and want to eliminate their funding, and I also want to be popular, what's stopping me from eliminating the license regime altogether?
pjc50 2y ago
The BBC is a "quango": quasi-autonomous non government organisation. And the TV license .. well, it's really a tax, as much as vehicle excise duty is, but with outsourced collection. I think it's unsustainable long term but the BBC is still pretty popular for its non-news output.
- pipes 2y ago
  Also it allows for endless pointless online arguments about it not being a tax!(I think it is a tax in everything but name).
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    In 2024 it's a subscription service with the world's worst UX. I only have internet-delivered TV, and so I'd be very happy with an iPlayer that just unlocks more content behind a subscription fee.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance? Like, suppose your car comes with a subscription service for satellite radio... you're allowed to just not pay it. Owning the object associated with the service doesn't normally oblige you to subscribe to it.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        > What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance? Things may have changed since I left the country, but last I heard you only needed one if you owned specifically a TV or actually used iPlayer (i.e. more than merely having the capability to use it).
        robertlagrant 2y ago
dazc 2y ago
It's a quaint anachronism, like afternoon tea and cricket, of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th richest nation on the planet. Maintained by witless fools who's sole achievement in life was to marry a wealthy woman.