9 ms·
A "TV License" is one of those things I alway assumed people were making up to satirize the claims of over-regulation & bureaucracy in the UK. Finding out it w
by cooper_ganglia 2y ago
A "TV License" is one of those things I alway assumed people were making up to satirize the claims of over-regulation & bureaucracy in the UK.
Finding out it was real was a mixture of hilarious and sobering.
- TillE 2y agoIt's basically a whole parallel tax collection system, which is truly nuts. Like the administrative overhead alone surely outweighs any abstract concerns about independence from government, which doesn't really exist in the UK anyway.
- Guthur 2y agoWhat's when more mental is that they are essentially all funding state propaganda agencies and so you're literally paying to be propagandised. Not that much of none state media is really that much better to be honest.
- coliveira 2y agoWe all pay to receive propaganda, be it governmental or not. A private TV channel will spread the ideology of their owners, and it is usually an ideology that is useful to them.
- account42 2y agoWith private channels you can choose which ones to fund. Not so much with forced TV license fees for state broadcasters.
- cooper_ganglia 2y agoThe lines that really got me in this post were: > A Licensing officer may call at your property not to collect the letters but to check that you are not watching a TV. and >...Cas Scott has said that the letters are not sought by TVL/BBC agents who make street visits. Like, they show up at your home and ask to physically view your TV to make sure you aren't watching TV! It's so incredibly bonkers to me, I'm laughing out loud at work at the mental image! Never change, UK, never change.
- madeofpalk 2y agoIt’s weird. They don’t have any actual authority, so if they turn up you can just say “No”. In my seven years of living in the UK, I’ve paid the TV licence for two years, and had one visit (who I shut the door on).
- bpfrh 2y agodepends on the system, austria for example used to say if you don't have a radio or tv you do not need to pay. As of 2024 you pay even if you have no tv, which means the overhead is probably near zero, as you already have lists of where people live.
- fwsgonzo 2y agoSame here in Norway.
- owisd 2y agoThis gets raised every charter renewal and they always find the administrative overhead of e.g. collecting Netflix subscriptions, etc. is pro rata higher than the overhead for the licence fee.
- stickfigure 2y agoI interpreted the parent as suggesting "just pay for it out of general tax revenue", which makes a lot of sense to me. No additional administration and enforcement required.
- carlosjobim 2y agoThe purpose is psychological to attach a monetary value to the government TV channels, which makes the viewer consider them valuable and therefore trustable.
- andybak 2y agoNo. It really isn't.
- kleiba 2y agoIn Germany, you cannot even legally listen to the radio without such a license (GEZ). It's also slightly more expensive than the UK TV License, coming in just under Netflix' premium plan (while offering mostly shite in return).
- echoangle 2y agoTo clarify: currently, it doesn’t matter what you actually do (listen to radio, own a radio, own a TV…), everyone has to pay, unless they are exempt (due to low income, other social security, or being deaf and blind at the same time). So it doesn’t matter if you listen to radio or not. You (or the household you live in to be exact) has to pay.
- kleiba 2y agoThat's correct. It's sufficient that you in theory could listen to the radio, and it is assumed that pretty much everyone could.
- Zak 2y agoMany European countries are worse about it than the UK; even people who do not own a television are required by law to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
- alvarlagerlof 2y agoIn Sweden there was this whole thing where you apparently had to pay even if you only owned a laptop.
- eastbound 2y agoIn France you pay the copyright infringement tax on every hard drive / SSD / storage you purchase. But it’s still forbidden to pirate movies.
- AshamedCaptain 2y agoIt is not "copyright infringement" tax. It's called a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy and it's a rather common thing, at least in all of Europe.
- crazygringo 2y agoSeems close enough. The article even discusses how it is "often considered a compensation for illegal file sharing". And even if it's common, that doesn't make it any less unfair. (Indeed, the longest section of the article is titled "Questions on fairness".)
- AshamedCaptain 2y agoIt is often _confused_ with. It does not imply it is.
- mr_toad 2y agoI read that as “Pirate” copying levy. Took a few takes to read it as “Private”.
- kamaitachi 2y agoIt’s not just a U.K. thing. Many European countries have something similar, although it might be called something else. It’s a form of tax that pays for public service broadcasting, including radio stations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence#
- busterarm 2y agoYes, but the UK is the only country with a license ridiculous enough to offer you a 50% discount _if you're blind_.
- gs17 2y agoIt sounds weirder than that to me: > colour TV: £169.50 per year; monochrome TV: £57.00 per year; blind people: 50% discount People who can't see their color TV at all pay more than people who can but have an old black-and-white one?
- madeofpalk 2y agoDo the discounts stack? If you’re blind should you just buy a monochrome tv and pay £28?
- Ellipsis753 2y agoWeirder still, the discounts stack! So blind people can benefit from buying a black-and-white TV for an additional discount. I've given this a lot of thought in the past. The best I could come up with is that "legally blind" could still allow for someone with _very poor_ (colour) vision...
- bowsamic 2y agoAt least it’s optional in the uk if you don’t have a tv. In Germany you have to pay it no matter what
- egeozcan 2y agoOh it gets weirder in Germany! See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitragsservice_von_ARD,_ZDF_und_Deutschlandradio#License_fee_revenues_and_administrative_costs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beitragsservice_von_ARD,_ZDF_u... The tv license collection agency employs more than a 1000 people. And this is in spite of the fact that nearly every household has to pay that €18.36 per month.
- StayTrue 2y agoI learned about it when they knocked on my door (UK). Said I didn’t have a TV to which they replied they’d like to look around inside to confirm. LOL no.
- madeofpalk 2y agoYeah, it’s pretty annoying. Publicly funded media is a great thing to have, and the intention of TV License is to fund it independently from interference from the government of the day. In Australia there’s frequently stories about governments cutting ABC funding, which TV License is supposed to avoid entirely. But the implementation in practice just sucks. It’s baffling to think of how much money is wasted on administering this additional tax program, sending out all these pretty aggressive letters, maintaining the website, and paying the real “inspectors” to knock on peoples doors.
- account42 2y ago> Publicly funded media is a great thing to have Depends on the kind of media. Educational content? Sure. News? Not going to be impartial so I'd rather be able to pick my poison - otherwise it's just propaganda. Sports? A waste of money in my view and the state should not decide what kind of entertainment gets to exist. Inane talks shows with hosts taking home ridiculous salaries which are funded by extorting money from people who are barely able to pay for their basic needs? Unjustifiable.
- madeofpalk 2y ago> News? Not going to be impartial so I'd rather be able to pick my poison - otherwise it's just propaganda. Why can't publicly funded media be impartial?
- moffkalast 2y agoOi! Ave you got a loicense fer dat TV there mate?!
- jraph 2y ago> loicense Should obviously be spelt loicence.
- FL410 2y ago> A Licensing officer may call at your property not to collect the letters but to check that you are not watching a TV. Just the thought of this is funny. What kind of uniforms do TV Officers wear? Do they get to carry a weapon? What happens if they find you watching a TV? Amazing.
- Kudos 2y agoThey wear the same uniforms that police detectives usually wear.
- jimnotgym 2y agoThey wear a shirt and tie. No weapon. You don't have to answer the door to them. You don't have to let them in. However they are generally lieing scumbags who suggest that they are allowed in. If they catch you watching TV they will report you for a £1000 fine and a criminal record. Failing to pay it will land you in prison. I spent years without a license, you don't need one for YouTube and Netflix. I unplugged the aerial wire. You do need it for any live TV or BBC catch up TV. I got visited once during that time and he kept asking to come in, I kept telling him I didn't need to let him. He kept asking what I watch on TV, I told him politely, that was none of his concern. If they suspect you are harboring an illegal TV then they will come back with a warrant and the police!
- edm0nd 2y agoThis is such a broken and dystopian situation. The UK is such a nanny state.
- n4r9 2y agoIt's a horrible situation which I am convinced preys on the vulnerable. We've been sent letters on an almost monthly basis claiming that an officer is "scheduled" to make a visit, that we have a "ten day window" to respond before they take action, etc... . Nothing ever happens and no one ever visits. I know that you don't have to let the enforcement folk in, and if they turn up I'll politely ask to see their search warrant or for them to mind their own business. But lots of people don't know this and are conditioned to be passive. Prosecutions include the mentally vulnerable and people whose finances are handled by the council. There are thousands every year. Three quarters of the prosecutions are against women, and it makes up more than a quarter of prosecutions against women.
- immibis 2y agoIt's a tax but for some reason making it separate from the normal tax system makes it harder for the government to force political views on it... even though the government could easily pass a law saying "the board of directors of the BBC shall go to jail unless all reporting favours the Tories"
- eszed 2y agoI think that's actually a reasonable point of view. The Brits I know have a feeling of ownership towards the BBC that they don't towards other public affordances. ...Apart from the NHS, that is. Which hardly prevented the Tories from sabotaging it for private profit. Maybe the Conservatives (or their donors) didn't care quite as much about the Beeb? There's not a lot of money in it, and the gestures they did make towards it seemed to keep it from exposing too many of their other "projects", or maybe it was toothless all along. I dunno. Still, it's an excellent broadcaster - still, in my opinion, the gold-standard in the English-speaking world - even if (perhaps) diminished from what it once was.
- lifeisstillgood 2y agoThe BBC is prized in the UK, and rightly so. Most national broadcasters have strong public interest provisions but the Beeb has a history and culture of strong independent journalism, incredible childrens and family output and acts as a mainstay anchor to support a creative industry. There is plenty to criticise but the weird ring fenced tax that we pay is incredible value for money (films, tv, web, journalism for the price of Netflix
- urbandw311er 2y agoThis a thousand times over. And don’t forget the 8 entirely advert-free radio stations featuring music, live sport and current affairs too.
- Scoundreller 2y agoThat's probably an argument in favour of having it a fee instead of buried in taxes, so people raise hell if they suggest adverts. Meanwhile the Canadian CBC is buried in taxes and has as many ads as any other station.
- Kwpolska 2y agoHow much taxpayer money is wasted on the accounting, the enforcement, and the scary-sounding letters? Wouldn’t it be better if the government just gave taxpayer money to the BBC directly?
- TheRealPomax 2y agoYou mean "how much money is given to people to do those things"? Because the money doesn't magically disappear in the pockets of "big beeb", all those tasks are performed by people who get paid for that, drawing an income and then spending the money they earned by economically participating in society. There is no money being wasted. Although it might certainly be a case of paper being wasted.
- Kwpolska 2y ago
- sva_ 2y agoIn Germany, many people went to jail for not paying it.
- DonHopkins 2y agoYou've never had the misfortune of discovering a Cat Detector Van camped outside your flat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MnyRZLd8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5MnyRZLd8A
- miki123211 2y agoIt's not just the UK, many countries have a government-run TV network, and they want that network to be subsidized only by the people actually watching TV, not random taxpayers who don't benefit from it. If you were to design such a system in the 2020's, you could just put a DRM scheme on your broadcast and demand payment only from the people who actually want to watch that network specifically, but that technology wasn't yet available when such systems were designed. Another claimed benefit of this way of doing things is the government's ability to produce programs that aren't commercially viable, e.g. targetting specific populations, minorities who speak a niche language, distributing important public information in a non-sensational way etc. Most of these points are moot with the advent of the internet, though, hence why many countries want to or have abolished these licensing systems.
- netsharc 2y ago> they want that network to be subsidized only by the people actually watching TV, not random taxpayers who don't benefit from it. Eh, the 2 countries I know charge people if they have a device capable of viewing the TV/radio/the TV/radio stations' online offer, so anyone with a smartphone (and who doesn't have a smartphone?) are also require to pay the license fee, even if they don't have a TV or radio at home. There's a joke that since the license fee is charged if you have equipment theoretically capable of viewing TV, then maybe people should apply for government child allowance, since they have equipment theoretically able to make them parents.
- glaucon 2y agoIt may be funny but it's one way of funding public broadcasting which is, at least to a minor degree, independent of government interference.
- Stevvo 2y agoIt's equally hilarious and sobering travelling to the US as European, turning on a TV and finding more advertising than programming.
- account42 2y agoYou don't have to watch those ads or TV for that matter. With the licensing fees on the other hand you do not get a choice.
- whywhywhywhy 2y ago>Finding out it was real It's real in the sense a thing called a TV Licence exists but the TV Licence enforcers are just an arm from the BBC who larp as a government organisation to threaten people. So in a sense it's real but it's also not.
- mr_toad 2y agoWorth noting that the service is mostly advertising free.