Roads can't easily bill for usage and a vast majority of people relies on them, thus the easiest & most efficient way is to make everyone pay for them through taxes, though you do pay more if you own a car via extra taxes on car registrations & fuel.

Hospitals can technically be billed per-use but the US is a real life example of why the system doesn't work in practice. You could also argue it's a necessity for life and everyone should have the right to medical treatment.

Armed forces? We're gonna disagree big time on that one but that would be off-topic.

But the BBC? It's something that's not necessary to life, affordable and trivial technical solutions exist to make it paid per-use (pay TV existed for decades and streaming platforms have solved the "online paid subscription TV" problem) instead of threatening people into paying and producing a significant amount of paper waste as a side-effect.

Careful, it is actually possible they want to fully privatise roads and hospitals.

I always find it funny when people come out with "but that would mean X!" and the target answers "yes, that would be great".

Just about everyone uses roads, hospitals, and enjoys the security provided by armed forces (for example, the OP apparently has a computer or smart phone, which I'm betting traveled on a road for some part of its journey from the factory to him, and which I'm betting relied on the implicit security provided by military forces to prevent it being hijacked on the way).

Broadcast television is at an entirely different level of the Maslow hierarchy. It's quite possible to lead a productive and enjoyable life without consuming broadcast television at all, much less one particular channel of broadcast television.

At least roads get groceries to the local mart, military keeps the barbarians (and civilized, but irksome french) out, and the hospitals are there, for when you need your jabs to travel to the Isle of Mann.

The declaration only lasts for a year or so, not to mention that out of principle there is no reason for us to help them save money on not sending their letters/goons especially considering they started the whole thing to begin with. Let them reap what they sowed.

They still might have a telly, just never watch the Beeb.

My dad has a TV licence despite watching 100% via streaming services. No matter what I tell him, he insists he has to have a licence. This is a widely held view with people of a similar age.

Maybe the BBC could do an information campaign to educate them otherwise? I won't hold my breath though.

I'm in the same position as you (don't watch license-requiring content, but appreciate other BBC content such as their website) but I refuse to pay the license out of principle as to not encourage/support their bullshit approach at enforcement.

I disagree with the idea of generating insane amounts of paper waste (and sometimes sending crooks in-person) to threaten less scam-savvy people into paying for a license they don't need, especially when said people might be lower-income that can't afford paying for a license "out of charity" if they aren't required to by law.

Great to here that this works in the UK.

The Swiss equivalent has simply declared that "any device capable of using the internet" can also receive television programs, and thus isn't exempt.

So no one with a computer or smartphone is exempt.

(At least this "solves" the apparent problem that UK residents can't watch some UK TV content online for free, while the rest of the world can)

I have the exact same position here in France. I don't have to pay the TV license because I don't have a TV, but I still do because I consume so much content made by public media organisations (Franceinfo, Arte, Radio France, etc.).

If the BBC is the only thing stopping the UK from becoming a failed state then God help us. Or, we could simply carry on without it and not really notice.

I'm going with the latter.