Why do we need a TV Licence?

Question

I can understand why we need a dog licence but for a tv?
It's stupid. Just a way for the government to get more money off us. What do you think?

*Sash, by the way you DO still need a DOG licence in Ireland

Answer 1

completly agree with ya girl fecking goverment tight fisted buggers!

Answer 2

It is annoying, but also a legal requirement for stores to give details of TVs purchased to the licensing people. It's a bit like buying a new car - it has to be registered etc and if you don't do it they make you pay lots of money or take it away. The main thing they're interested in is whether your address has a TV licence that covers that type of TV. If the names are different, you could be a different tenant in the same building, in which case technically you would need your own licence hence the letter. If in doubt, give the licencing people a call and ask what they're on about. Otherwise, I suggest you and your partner write a joint letter to them stating that you live together at that address and requesting that this information be held on file. If both of you sign it, it should be useable as evidence, so make sure you have a copy. NB I have no legal background, it's just a suggestion.

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Why do we need a TV Licence?
I can understand why we need a dog licence but for a tv?
It's stupid. Just a way for the government to get more money off us. What do you think?

Answer 4

Sorry, I don't actually agree with you.

If you've had to watch American TV, you'll generally approve of the BBC which doesn't just produce TV output, there is a wealth of Radio stations too that cover a wide spectrum of tastes.

I don't (incidentally) like everything the BBC produces, nor do I approve of the salaries that go towards the likes of Jonathan Ross ~ nor do I watch a single solitary 'soap' and have not done so for years.

By the way, Dog Licences were stopped being issued somewhere back in the 1980's.

Sash.

Answer 5

Have you noticed that TV adverts in general have increased over recent years, to the point that you can watch 5 minutes of a show, and right at the end of the intro credits there's a break for adverts, and then once more halfway through, and at the end. Thats three advert breaks in a 30 minute show. The breaks are certainly longer than they used to be (let alone a bunch of naff adverts!)

This is commercial TV. The BBC (all their TV and radio channels) are non-commercial, but still cost money to run. This is paid for in our TV licence rather than by adverts.

If they abolish the TV licence, the BBC will have to seek revenue from elsewhere, and we'll end up with NO channels left without ridiculously long advert breaks. The BBC also has a policy as an impartial programmer, as in they are not influenced by external factors. If they allowed paid advertising on their channels there's every chance they could be, or could be seen to be, influenced by these products.

The BBC currently has very strong policies about advertising (hence in Eastenders there's a bunch of generic products), to the point that even their website contains no external advertising when you view it from the UK.

Incidentally you don't HAVE to pay for a TV licence, unless you actual have a TV and receiver. For a few months I had no aerial, so used my TV only for my Xbox and DVD player. You have to advise them you have no TV receiving equipment, which is similar to declaring a vehicle as SORN if you take it off the road, and you don't pay a penny.

Answer 6

Many countries in the world have a TV licence, particularly European countries. Here in the UK it directly funds "public service broadcasting", most notably the BBC, but not exclusively - Channel 4 is also a designated public service broadcaster and this year will get licence fee money for the first time ever to fund its switch to digital.

What do you want on BBC? If you want the dross we see on ITV then going commercial is a good move. The licence funds programming for all which may not be commercially viable, such as news and current affairs programmes.

Answer 7

The dog-licence is stupid - a TV licence less so.

The revenue earned on a dog-licence is not enough to cover the costs of collecting it - let alone the costs of policing it!

A TV-licence (originally Radio and Television Licence) is intended to supplement the revenues of the BBC. The BBC earns large amounts of money selling programmes and broadcasting rights to other (usually foreign) broadcasters. However, this income is not sufficient to finance all the programmes made by the BBC.

If terrestrial BBC went commercial, then the integrity of the BBC could be compromised. The BBC is probably the world's most respected broadcaster and this would no longer be the case with advertising.

Of course, we COULD do without the TV-licence and still finance the BBC - only trouble is, it would come out of your income tax so everybody would have to pay. Then we come into the realms of ethics - there are enough people who though their beliefs do not have a television; and they would still be paying.


By the way - does anyone remember the public information film about TV licences; the one with a van with a spinning roofrack and "There's a television on at number 5 - and they're watching Columbo...."?

Answer 8

The license is, indeed, a stupid way to fund the BBC.

The BBC is a national asset, sure enough, and, to keep competitive with the commercially funded channels and services, it needs public funding but the license fee is an iniquitous way to gather the necessary cash. The BBC is a public service instituted to benefit the public as a whole and some will reap greater benefits from it than others. The best measure of benefit that people get from public services is not how much they use the utility, directly, but, their income. Without buses to get workers to and from their places of employment, the employers and investors in the businesses (who will never have used a bus in their lives) would go broke. Instead, they benefit the most from a service they never actually use, directly, or pay for, directly.

It's the same with television only, instead of workers, the conveyed resource is information. The service still benefits people, in general, but the ones who benefit the most pay the same as those who benefit the least. It is horribly unfair, although, not quite so stupidly unfair as bus fares.

Both services should be funded by a direct percentage taxation of incomes whether the individuals use the services, directly, or not. Then, if you benefit more, you pay more. That's only fair.

Answer 9

It's got nothing to do with the Government, that said, the TV licence has been classed as a tax by the National Statistics Office.
Have a look at: http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ , they provide a link to a BBC survey, which indicates that 58% of the population would not subscribe to the BBC if they didn't have to.
The programmes I enjoyed watching are not on the BBC, yet I had to pay them for products and services that I don't want or use. Hence, I no longer watch tv, I'd rather go without than pay for something I never asked for.

Answer 10

The money you pay for your TV Licence goes to the BBC because there don't show advertising on their channels.

Where as ITV, Channel 4 and Five, show advertising on their channels so thats how they pay for all the TV productions, where as the BBC get their money from TV Licences.

Answer 11

What's worse is in ireland where i lived for a while is you have to pay a TV licence to fund RTE and they still have ads!!

BBC should go subscription rather than have a blanket licence. that way you could pay for what you watch. if you only watch SKY etc and not BBC then you don't have to pay for it. simple as that. If you don't want to watch SKY then you don't subscribe, why can't BBC be the same?