You're not obligated to let them in, but for us it was easier to just do that and get it over with than having them come back at random times.

We have a similar system in Finland (and now they are changing it so that the money is taken as a separate tax from everyone, not per household with a separate payment as before). The money is used to keep up the national (non-commercial) TV and radio channels, I think the situation is the same in UK? (BBC etc.)

Do you know what is even weirder? I'm all for it. I definitely think that on top of commercial or advertisement TV channels, there should be at least a few national TV channels whose purpose is not to show cheap reality TV and movies in order to get as many people as possible to watch commercials, but they try to offer language programs, cultural programs, hard documents which are not about tits or genitalia, programs for deaf people etc. Ie., programs to try to civilize the folks.

Commercial channels don't cater for these because there's not enough money to be made of them.

At the same time, it would be important to try to make these national TV channels as independent as possible from the currently standing government, so they'll air also programs that do not necessarily favour the powers that be. Unfortunately taking the money from taxes doesn't help to achieve such independence.

We are moving to a same model here in Finland. The new model has plusses and minuses, one definite plus is that now the freeloaders who are watching the TV but not paying, get to pay now automatically.

I don't mind that "TV-less" people have to pay too, because the payment is for keeping up the national TV and radio channels, not some kind of punishment for using the TV.

I think of it the same as e.g. libraries or schools, everyone is paying for keeping them alive with their taxes, even if one is not using them.

One possible problem with the tax model is that then national channels may have the tendency to buttlick the standing government in order to secure their share from the next budget as well. AFAIK that has been the original idea with the separate TV license that the national TV company collects irrespective of the government, ie. the national media is at least supposed to be independent (both from the government, and the advertising companies). Nice thought, at least in theory.

Who wishes to discuss the 12 page census we were all obliged to complete and return? Same thing, if you be a naughty boy and didn't complete then the census man would knock on your door.

I see your point, and in theory I absolutely agree with it. In practice, however, it's hard to justify paying two companies for producing exactly the same worthless trash as all the others. I wouldn't mind paying for a broadcasting institution that actually adheres to the ideals of supporting art, educating the public, or at least entertaining people in a way that doesn't amount to sheer torture for anyone with half a brain left. But they don't. They do exactly the opposite of what they once stood for. And that's why I'm angry that I'm forced to support them.

They're french fries. Not chips.

Err, we do have french fries, there long and thin ala McDonalds, chips are short fatter and taste completly different.

It's the other way round 98% unfairly pay it. The DK (DIS-United Kingdom) is nominally a free market economy and a democracy, it neither but that's another discussion, so why is anyone forced to buy services from a particular company under threat of penalty? It's the same with car insurance and a whole other raft of "services" you are obliged to buy.

Where is the freedom of choice that should exist in free market and in a democracy? There are many excellent models of pay per view so if the BBC want to remain independent (it isn't) then why doesn't it go this way? If it's output was good enough (it isn't) it will easily survive.

As for adverts - watch "saturday kitchen, every week without fail "this wine £5.99 from tesco". How about the "infommercial" every morning at 8.20am on breakfast? "Now we have got blah-blah on the show who's new (book/cd/painting/whatever) is........... available now from all good ........... shops"

The BBC is a fine example of what happens when a commercial business gets a government on its side, and it needs to stop. That will only happen when the British people say NO.

I would gladly pay an annual fee even on TOP of the cable bill to never have to see a commercial again.

Same difference, the main difference between the CPB and the BBC, besides the obvious scope, is how the money is collected. Our CPB gets money from the government whereas the BBC gets a tax directly from the people, in both cases the politicians have a direct say in how much the funding is.

Unless of course I'm missing something.

Nice rant, however coining terms like 'The DK' is only going to confuse people, and it's not cool.

I'm in favour of the the BBC, while there are faults, and areas they could improve, I don't hold with the 100% free market. Given its total failure recently, I'm surprised anyone does.

The thing about democracy in a majority rules form, is that it only gives power to the majority. You need to balance that. If 49% of the population think something, is it fair that the get no hearing? minority views should be represented, and the BBC does it. It doesn't pander to the mainstream view, and I believe we need that.

I don't know of many people who are from outside the UK, who would say the BBC is a bad thing (a few in iran maybe). Most people outside the UK say it's a good thing. I think this is something that we take for granted. We have a very free and independent source of journalism and programming, and we complain about its cost. I would happily pay double the TV licence to keep the BBC going. It's something we need.

As for consumer freedom, I like people's freedom being 'restricted' by this outrageous fine. It's called an idiot tax.

I am pro the fee too (have lived in Germany, Belgium, Sweden now the UK). Honestly - if you feel that there's only crap on the national stations your missing the gems that are there and that are, indeed, by and large absent from the private stations.

Things like

In the UK: Panorama (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/formats/documentaries/schedules), a whole lot of support for cultural organisations through the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/performingartsfund/) as well as helping out independent film (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfilms/recentreleases/) and a whole host of other services (as I am studying for my MA in Writing - things like BBC Writersroom ARE damn useful). Oh and I LOVE BBC radio four.

In Germany: Arte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arte - also France), the channel I miss most living abroad. Arte also sponsors and co-founds an amazingly wide selection of really good indy movies. You'll notice the logo popping up in cinema quite frequently. Or - programmes on ZDF like 37 Grad, auslandsjournal, Frontal 21, aspekte.

There's a wealth of public programming that is well worth it. Sadly - a lot of it does not attract a lot of viewers - so it's no surprise, really, that the more popular stuff takes prime time; these state funded broadcasters frequently have to justify their existence to politicians and the public: a decent prime time audience share is what keeps them alive. Arte, in particular, is a case in point for a channel that really focuses on art/culture/intellectual style programming almost exclusively; yet the audience share is below 1% in Germany, below 3% in France. That old conundrum that people demand more "quality" and "cultural" things from the state broadcasters, but don't really seem to actually want to see it :/.

---

Edit: On the - and yet the state programmes are taking advertisement money to fund their programmes - yeah. It's creeping in over the last decade; a lot down to mismanagement and ever further slashed funding. THAT are things to protest against, IMO. Not the fee itself really. Just as with any tax / state fee - it's not the taxes that are the problem, by itself, but that there's not enough pressure from the public to actually make sure there's accountancy of how they are spent, and that the rules are upheld.

For me the Scandiavian Countries have it right, really. Sweden (I've been there for five years) DOES have high taxes - but it is both a much clearer tax system than any other country I've lived in AND what happens with the taxes, what they are spent on (including polticians own tax declarations!) is much more transparent than anywhere else I lived. No country is perfect, mind you, but knowing what happens with the taxes you pay, seeing them actually put to use makes it much more acceptable to pay those fees. Both UK and Germany have much of a tendency to moan about taxes and, to me, for the wrong reasons: Complaining that they have to pay tax at all, rather than demanding their taxes are actually used in a sensible manner.

I'm in the US and I'd pay for that license to get unfettered access to all BBC programming.

And it's not a license to watch, it's a license to "own" which is a big difference, you pay per set as I understand it.
And Fish Fry in Wisconsin is totally not Fish 'n chips... right:)

hey hey hey I'm a fucking englishman watch your language OP man jeez

The census is a whole different shoe. And sadly, the argument that should have been highlighted to make people fill it out, rather than the punishment if you don't, is that a lot of local funding depends / depended on people providing accurate information on that census. How much funds your local council is assigned is depended on census data, to a good degree, for example. That it was handed over to Lockheed Martin and with that falling partially under American, not wholly under British, legislation is the big mess up, of course. Another is the sheer amount that contract was worth.