TV Licence

[Margo]

As PPs have said, the licence fee is what funds the BBc and lets us have ad-free TV and radio.
Because the BBC is classed as a public service, not a commercial organisation, it has public service obligations "To inform, educate and entertain"  which is why we have programmes such as the Open University, and why the BBC has always funded and made programmes such as David Attenboroughs Life on Earth'.

Not having shareholders or advertisers to appease also allows it to take risks with new ideas and new people - I can't help feeling we probably would not have got programmes like Monty Python, The HHGTTG, The Sky at Night, Life on Earth etc if the people commissioning them had had to consider advertisers and profit margins.

it can be annoying if you don't have a TV - I didn't have one for a while, and then only had B&W (licence is much cheaper) and that is sufficiently unusual that it does raise their suspicions.

I used to complain about having to pay the licence fee until the first time I went to the US and saw the alternative...

And it's incredibly cheap compared with subscriptions for cable/satellite TV (and you still get ads in those, despite paying for them)

[Carotte]

It works the same way in France.
We don't have a TV so don't pay one, but my SO had to answer the first letter with "no we don't have one" and a second confirming this with "yeah I'm sure/ honor declaration".
They can and do check sometimes, but the inspector would have to make an appointment, we're behind two doors with a doorcode and no way to reach us from the street, so not really an impromptu visit .
I don't know if it's part of their normal how-to or just that one inspector but a friend had a 'neighbor' come to his door with a "Hi, I'm a neighbor and had a question about TV dishes or something".
(A lie as big as a house since everyone in that neighborhood works for X company in X housings).
So yeah, inspector tried to lie his way to an answer (I'm pretty sure he can't lie his way inside the house at least).

Here if you own a tv or a computer (monitor) with a whatsit cable you have to pay it, even if you only use it to watch DVDs because nothing is stopping you or a houseguest to actually watch the tv.

[WolfWay]

We also have a TV licence in South Africa, also to fund the public channels (although we also have pay satellite here).

You still need a tv licence if you want to buy a TV, as you need to take your TV licence along to a shop before they'll let you walk off with the new TV.

We used to have licence inspectors, but I really don't know if they operate anymore, I haven't seen one in years.

[Thipu1]

Suppose a household has several TV sets.  Is a license necessary for each set?

Here we have NPR (National Public Radio) and PBS (Public Broadcasting System).   These are partially supported by the federal government but most of the funding comes from private donations and subscriptions by users.  These are available to everyone, whether or not the viewer or listener  is a subscriber. 

  We're fortunate in NYC because we have two PBS channels.  If we miss a show on one we can usually catch it a few days later on the other. 

We pay for cable or satellite service and the choice of stations depends on the provider you choose. 

[ClaireC79]

no one license covers the household, so 2 TVs in every room would cost the same fee as a single TV

[RingTailedLemur]

no one license covers the household, so 2 TVs in every room would cost the same fee as a single TV

Unless one of the rooms is rented seperately, in which case the renter needs their own license.  This is something students in halls need to be aware of!

[jedikaiti]

Not having shareholders or advertisers to appease also allows it to take risks with new ideas and new people - I can't help feeling we probably would not have got programmes like Monty Python, The HHGTTG, The Sky at Night, Life on Earth etc if the people commissioning them had had to consider advertisers and profit margins.

This is why I was very very skeptical that the Top Gear US show could be any good - with producers answering to advertisers, could they really do a good, funny, snarky car review like the UK guys do?

[Sophia]

In the U.S., sometimes the popularity of a show can override any problems from advertisers.  Southpark is a good example.  The creators figured that there was no chance they would be offered a second season, so they decided to do whatever they wanted in their first and only season.  Then it was so popular, that no advertiser dared to complain. 

[Katana_Geldar]

In the U.S., sometimes the popularity of a show can override any problems from advertisers.  Southpark is a good example.  The creators figured that there was no chance they would be offered a second season, so they decided to do whatever they wanted in their first and only season.  Then it was so popular, that no advertiser dared to complain.

I wouldn't say that now with how some of the episodes have been censored. Have you seen 200/201?

[Sophia]

Yeah, with Southpark I thought about adding that they seemed to have ran into something recently that they can't make fun of.  Although, I don't think the problem is advertising pressure.  It is a bit sickening when you think back to the things that they have made fun of. 

[Katana_Geldar]

Yeah, with Southpark I thought about adding that they seemed to have ran into something recently that they can't make fun of.  Although, I don't think the problem is advertising pressure.  It is a bit sickening when you think back to the things that they have made fun of.

Funny thing is, it was ok to make fun of in the past but not now. I can't name specifics, but look up 201 on Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.

[katycoo]

We're fortunate in NYC because we have two PBS channels.  If we miss a show on one we can usually catch it a few days later on the other. 

Most of the free-to-air channels now have on-demand viewing online so if you happen to miss something you usually have 4 weeks to catch up on it.