OSNews

Brit here - It's not really a licence like a driving licence, it's more like a tax under a different name.

There are plenty of arguments for/against, but for me the way its structured means we get an independent national broadcaster funded by the public that can produce some fantastic material that doesn't rely either on being a dumb audience winner (X Factor anyone?) and doesn't have to interrupt its programmes every 15mins with crappy adverts.

That does make sense, I guess it's just the terminology that gets me going. Why not call a tax a tax and a license a license? But if the expense and hassle are worth the quality programming as you say, then that's good.

And I must say, some of the most entertaining and fun stuff I've ever seen comes from British television.

Here in Italy too the terminology is misleading. Our "RAI licence fee" is a tax like the others but has the goal of financing the public television and radio broadcasting. This allows in *theory* the production of some interesting programs not share-related with deep cultural or reporting content or national "free" information (in the tree main national channels all main political areas with representation in the Parliament are -or should be- represented, regardless they are majority or not). The *practice* is different though and we had a very bad evidence during the last two decades of that, at least here in my country.

I can understand that sentiment. I don't agree with you, but I can easily see where you're coming from. I'd like to give you my counter arguments, to help you understand where we're coming from:


The cost of the license pays for the BBC (all their TV channels, plus radio, web etc), as well as subsidising Channel 4 and several other media. It also covers some of the cost of the terrestrial transmission network, which means that even the non-subsidised "free to air" channels are benefiting from it.

I'm not Welsh or Scots, but the BBC and Channel 4 between them also provides the only TV output in the Welsh and Gaelic languages. Not something I'd watch, but I believe the world would be poorer without them, and they certainly wouldn't be made by a commercial company.

The BBC also provides broadcast services for Parliament. I consider this to be very valuable service for the democratic process, but it only works due to the non-political, non-commercial nature of the BBC. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi)

So there is significant value in all that output, which is worth paying for. Personally, I'm very happy with the value for money provided by the license fee. I just think of it as a subscription to the "free to air" TV services. It makes for good value even just for that, before you even count the additional services it provides.

The complete lack of advertising on the BBC channels is an added bonus that, frankly, would be worth paying the license for on its own -- I've tried watching TV in the US, and I just couldn't cope with the constant interruptions. The adverts completely ruined my favourite show, and I had to give up an extra half hour of my time to watch it compared to watching it on the BBC.

Given that, I really don't see any need to pay a subscription for the commercial services (ie either Sky or Virgin). Sure, they offer channels and shows I can't get otherwise, but there is sufficient good quality TV on the standard service that I don't miss them.

If there are any shows or films I really want to watch, I can always buy the DVD a few months later anyway - with the quantity I'd want to buy, it's still cheaper than subscribing to Sky, and I get to choose when to watch. Plus no ads.

The only thing still missing is all the live sport that Sky have snapped up. But I'm not really a sports fan anyway. Certainly not enough to pay the kinds of premiums Sky thinks it can get away with.

Oh, and no I haven't pirated Game Of Thrones. If I want it, I'll see if I can buy the DVD.

In my country, I think they call it a tax (AV tax), not a license. Basically, the point is that even if you want to watch "free" broadcasts, you still have to pay for the underlying infrastructure costs.

Edited 2012-05-21 15:51 UTC

I suppose it does sound stupid to have to pay a TV license fee but its that fee that is used to fund the BBC and imho the BBC is better than all the other UK channels put together plus it has no commercials!

At my place it's described by a word which seems to translate to "subscription" ...frank, I suppose.

And it's definitely worth it for the non-shitty stuff that gets on public TV ...or radio, the more or less only decent radio station ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polskie_Radio_Program_III ), actually promoting good music (even if mostly during my evening hours and nights; and it's at least more bearable during the day).
Meanwhile, don't NPR or PBS seem always underfunded?