Originally posted by MarkJerling Do they still have TV Licences Mike?
Oh, yes.
Originally posted by MarkJerling I always wondered how they get people to pay?
It's somewhat vague and shrouded in secrecy, but I believe the authorities work on the default assumption that every property has the ability to receive live television, plus everyone who previously owned a TV licence should still have one... and, in either case, if there isn't a licence in place, it's up to the individual to prove they don't need one if challenged by letter, phone, or visit (the latter being handled by third party contractors).
In theory, I don't have an issue with funding our state broadcasting services. I don't think the licensing model is the best way, though. IMHO, it should be paid for through taxes - so it's available to everyone that pays tax, as well as those who don't for already-validated reasons. If someone chooses not to make use of the services, that's up to them - but a state broadcaster is an important facility whether or not you use it (like healthcare or schooling), and should be publicly funded since it mustn't rely on advertising revenue - in part because it should be entirely unbiased commercially and politically. And there's the problem... it's most definitely politically biased. I'm not so naive to think there's any such thing as completely unbiased broadcasting, but the BBC has become something of a national joke with its liberal-left bias. In that sense I object to the licence fee, but since I support the basic concept of a state broadcaster, I'm morally committed to paying it (and I do, every year, without fail)...