Hacker News Reader

Comment by cturner | Hacker News Reader

If they're smart they'll try to create a profit model oriented around online services, and switch their revenue stream to be funded through this.

Currently they're funded through the "TV charge" which is a nasty footnote to life in the UK. Regularly I get hatemail through the letterbox telling me what a bad person I am for not paying the fee (mandatory for all owners of televisions), presuming that I have a TV.

Yes, you can call them up and tell them that you're not a crimial, but that's not how life in a free country is meant to work, and I'm damned if I'm going to play the game. "Return to sender" every time.

View on HN

The idea is that the BBC maintains its independence by being financed through its own separately collected tax. The alternative is a system like they have in Australia where the state broadcasting company is a mouthpiece for the party in power, or like in the U.S. where commercial television speaks mainly for corporate interests. Out of all the taxes in the U.K., this is the one I resent least (especially because it's optional in the sense that you're entitled not to pay it if you don't want to have a tv).

> The alternative is a system like they have in Australia where the state broadcasting company is a mouthpiece for the party in power

What? I live in Australia and this just isn't true. The only thing even coming close to this I can think of is that the government runs (paid) ads at times (but they also do on commercial stations). The ABC is certainly not a 'mouthpiece'...

The issue is that they will keep sending you very aggressive letters if you don't pay. Regardless of whether you own a TV or not.

I remember receiving one letter that said something to the effect of: "Right now, we're off to the magistrates to get an order for the police to come to your house, interview you under caution and potentially arrest you".

This was a house that I had only just moved into and didn't have a TV.

That's one reason I'd rather just move to funding through a normal tax. The license-fee is a bit of an anachronism from when only better-off people had televisions, so it was to exempt the poorer people who couldn't afford one.

In Denmark it's more or less moved that way, except it's still annoyingly collected separately: you have to pay it if you have: 1) a television; or 2) an internet-accessible screen of any sort, including ownership of a laptop or smartphone. Since that includes just about everyone, it's basically historical baggage that it's not a regular tax. They're not at all aggressive in collecting, though—perhaps because Danes tend to follow the rules without much trouble, so there's not much need to be aggressive. I didn't realize I was supposed to pay it until I'd lived here for a year, and eventually signed up online after getting a friendly letter explaining what DR is, what they do, and what I should do.

I felt like this for years- annoyed at the insistence that I pay the fee even though I don't own a TV. Then, in a moment of inspiration, I took 2 minutes to fill out the online form and haven't been bothered since.

However, the BBC offers quality TV without the even greater annoyance of incessant commercials. Take the Olympics: NBC was criticised for their delayed and edited broadcast while the BBC broadcast nearly all events live (some 20+ channels) and without any commercial breaks.

Unfortunately, we can't have commercial free TV without the fee.

My question would be, how would they know you don't have a TV if you don't tell them? Calling it hate mail and taking the time to return to sender like the OP is just making life hateful for yourself.

> My question would be, how would they know you don't have a TV if you don't tell them?

You may find this hard to believe, but they drive around in a high-tech van and monitor the kinds of signals that emanate from a TV set. If they detect the electronic signature of a TV set emanating from a house paying no license fee, or if they see an off-air antenna, they begin legal proceedings.

What I said above was easier in the old days of television, where a vacuum picture tube require 50 watts of power just to sweep an electronic beam across the face of the tube (and produced its own telltale electromagnetic field). But it's still quite feasible from a technical standpoint -- a picture and explanation of one of the vans:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...

Which is unfortunate if you have a TV but don't pay the fee because you don't have to.

You only have to pay if you watch "live TV." (Any live TV at all that is, streaming content as it is aired from the us still requires a TV license.) However, owning a TV in itself does not require a license. Games consoles, Netflix and DVDs do not mean that you require a license because none of these are you watching TV as it is broadcast.

Edit: As a note, I have a TV, I do watch live TV and I do have a license. However, when I first moved into my own place I did get some of the letters demanding payment unless I wanted legal proceedings to begin. But they stopped once I phoned up and told them I didn't have a TV, didn't intend to get one soon and wouldn't be paying.

The principle behind their operation is reasonable, basically just regular old Van Eck phreaking.

However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.

> However I thought the general consensus is that they do not actually do this, and that it is simply a rather useful myth.

Agreed. I would guess the most economical thing to do is publish pictures of the van online and describe its features. Actually driving it around is probably not nearly as cost-effective.

How did you watch the Olympics?

And even without paying the fee, we get the BBC website, podcasts, the last week of programmes on demand (iPlayer), several national and many local radio stations.

No doubt the enforcement system could be tweaked a bit to improve it, but the results are more than worth the inconvenience.

I'm quite surprised at that; they have a fairly good database and if you don't have a telly they will usually knock you off it after asking.

Nice emotive use of 'hatemail' though. Personally, I very much hope the BBC sticks to its existing funding model.

I received letters from them for years after telling them (repeatedly) that I don't have a TV.

Hatemail is about right. The letters all but implied that I was lying, that I was a criminal; they told me about all the ways that they would prove that someone like me could be found to be a criminal and they told me about how they prosecute people like me. They ended with a message about how to contact them if I reconsidered.

I wish I'd kept the letter now, it was a horrible piece of bullying.

Technically speaking, it's mandatory if you're receiving live broadcasts. You can have a television with no tuner without a license, and if you're watching live TV on your computer you're meant to have one.

If they're smart they'll try to create a profit model oriented around online services, and switch their revenue stream to be funded through this.

I'd be fascinated to hear details on how they can fund the £3.5 billion-ish the Beeb gets through each year via the licence fee by a profit model oriented around online services :-)

Yes, the procedure is quite annoying, but I think the BBC is well worth that money (if you DO watch their programmes, of course!). You might have got used to it over the years, but spend some time in other countries and you'll really come to appreciate it. I know I do.

I agree in the sense that I always feel a sense of rage every time my TV license is due for renewal.

On the other hand, I don't actually mind paying money to support the BBC. As far as I can tell the system is mostly voluntary anyway since you have to actually use your TV to watch live broadcasts and I'm not sure exactly how they would prove this. So I guess scary letters might be the most effective strategy.

Ironically though, I technically don't have to pay the TV license since I literally never watch broadcast TV. All the BBC stuff I consume is via their website and iPlayer.

Afaik they don't have to prove you watch your TV to make you pay. If your TV has a tuner you have to pay as you can receive BBC channels (even if you don't watch them.

Not the case any more, though I think it used to be.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8/

Cool, thanks for pointing that out. I'm about to move and thinking of ditching broadcast TV so this will come in handy.

I just threw my nastygrams in the bin for 10 years. Didn't do me any harm in the long run. I did have some guy knocking on my door about it. He was "removed" from my property forcefully as he was trespassing. Nothing came of it.

I have a television now (for the children) but that is it. When they're gone, it's going as well.

I don't know why this was downvoted - technically a private company harassing you is trespassing and I am within my rights to remove him.

(also I didn't have a television for 10 years).

> I don't know why this was downvoted

The nomenklature have got it in for you. Here, have some upvotes.

Thank you :)

Can you explain a little more about how this system works? You have to pay for TV?

In the UK, if you watch any broadcast TV at all including cable or satellite you have to pay a TV license fee. This is a completely separate fee to whatever your cable/satellite service provider charges.

This license fee is paid to the BBC and used to support their programming regardless of whether or not you consume their content.

Basically this means that sometimes you can be forced to pay for stuff you simply don't want.

On the other hand , BBC programmes do not carry any advertising and are not funded by central government, so in theory at least they are impartial when it comes to coverage of politics etc. It also means they are not supported by corporate interests either, so won't scew programmes to avoid upsetting advertisers.

Whether or not they really are impartial is largely a matter of opinion, but I would personally say that they are at least less biased that other channels.

"Whether or not they really are impartial is largely a matter of opinion"

The BBC seems to be consistently hated by governments of every party, so they are presumably doing something right.

Not really, no.

They were "hated" by the last Labour government, purely because of the BBC's anti-war stance.

On most issues, such as the EU, the environment, Israel and the Middle East etc their opinion seems to follow that of the Guardian (a left-leaning Newspaper).

"BBC's anti-war stance"

If nothing else I guess that shows that they aren't simply a government mouthpiece.

And it's hardly that they are anti-war (I can remember their coverage of everything from the Falklands onward) - they were anti Gulf War 2 but then most people in the UK were...

Yes really.

I lived through (pause to count...) eight prime ministers. I can't recall any of those governments loving the BBC to death :-)

For some reason vaguely impartial reporting seems to annoy politicians - left or right.

This license fee is paid to the BBC and used to support their programming regardless of whether or not you consume their content

And "programming" means more than just TV. It covers the radio, web stuff, etc. etc.

(there used to be a radio licence in the UK too in years gone past - abolished in 1971).

As ever wikipedia has the gory details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...

The license fee is not mandatory if you simply own a television, it's mandatory if the TV is tuned and receiving live broadcasts. I called them up four years ago, told them I only used by TV for playing Xbox, and they haven't sent me any hatemail since then. (They did threaten a visit, which never transpired)

I personally find it less hassle to call them once than to continually throw their mail in the trash, but whatever floats your boat.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com