3 responses to “I See I Am Not the Only Who Thinks We Should Scrap the TV Licence?”

1. 

   David @ Framingham March 21st, 2009 at 17:51

   Well first, the UK is not the only country that has a TV license. We have them here in the US for all commercial and public TV stations. The Idea behind the license is that the public owns the airways and in order to put a show on the air you need to pay a license. What we do not have is a license to own a TV. Our non-profit stations (like your BBC) are supported by donations and grants, not tax funds. However, the shows played on Public Broadcasting are generally educational and not dramas or game shows or popular shows. In fact we see a lot of your BBC productions which are very good quality. The commercial TV needs to generate funds via advertisements. When I was growing up commercials use to play one every fifteen minutes. Now there are two or three commercials every fifteen minutes. Public Broadcasting is suppose to be commercial free but in actuality they advertise that they need donations a lot of the time. In fact they have call in numbers for donations and they hold up shows until they have received enough pledges.

   Someone has to pay for TV, either through advertising or through a fee. No one has a free ride.

2. 

   J J March 23rd, 2009 at 19:25

   I visited England earlier this year (I live in the states) and had such a wonderful time! Anyway, I was quiet surprised to find you had to have a license to WATCH tv. I don’t know about other countries, doesn’t matter, but I found the idea mind boggling. It seems outdated to me for sure.

3. 

   Lanson March 24th, 2009 at 23:37

   Yes ,scrap the license. We don’t need a license to run the channels or even need a permit to do so concerning TV channels.

   I think its irrelevant, its just adding cost to our bills!!