NaRvIcK DeViL

Why do we currently pay 36 pence a day, £2.53 per week, £131.50 a year for a tax to have the right be entertained in our homes and rising(April 1st £135.50)?

In 1993 Mr Greg Dyke who was then to become chairman of the BBC told the media society that it was imperative that the BBC should be financed through voluntary subscription since the current licence system was becoming absurd to enforce due to the changing viewing habits of the British public and the emergence of new technologies.

In 2000 the government agreed to increase the TV licence fee each year 2.5% above the rate of inflation to fund the BBC’s extra digital channels even though to receive a large part of the BBC package UKTV Gold , UKTV People etc.. You will still have to pay extra if you wish to receive these channels and don’t forget the BBC has been given the go ahead to introduce advertising on its website BBC.com.

This year 2006 a review took place of the T.V Licence and its Royal Charter. I had my suspicions that it wouldn’t be a fair, open and a unbiased debate as there are too many BBC cronies within the government.

I was right all objections by the British Public were suppressed and the BBC had its charter renewed and to think the then culture secretary, Ms Tessa Jowell said “The prospect of the UK having the BBC being funded by the Licence fee is anywhere between improbable to impossible to sustain”.

The BBC can now be confident that they will be able to extort money from us well into the next decade despite the ever increasing numbers of people shown in polls who are opposed to the licence fee. Politicians will now not even have to consider the alternatives which are more viable such as voluntary subscription which doesn’t infringe on European law.

TV Licence under Threat

The European Commission has updated it's TV without frontiers directive to take into account of new developments such as video-on-demand, broadcasting via broadband, podcasting etc.
Currently The Uk as been exempt from a large part of the old directive to protect our TV licence system and our stringent censorship laws, so far several lobby groups who represent the media/communication cartel in the Uk The Broadband Lobby Group, Trade body Intellect & The BBC have branded the changes as unworkable.

I’m not anti-BBC but I am opposed to a draconian system that is supported by a so called democratic government which allows an unelected and unaccountable organisation to enforce its own policies as law and therefore allows them to unjustly persecute and intimidate the British people.

The BBC recently told T.V.L.A to actively target the armed forces by demanding that every single soldier, though they may only be mere centimetres away from each other buy their own TV licence.
They are also determined to squeeze as much money out of us before we turn 75, when we get our free licences, by harassing us with threatening letters until we crack and just pay the full fee.
There are far too many injustices to mention i.e. you aren’t legally entitled to a refund and you have to buy a full colour T.V Licence if you use a colour VCR with a black and white T.V.
The BBC says they provide value for money. I believe the public should be allowed to decide if this is the case or not.

Is it any wonder then that with such unjust legislation to back them up that TVLA can be as rude and arrogant to us as they please, at the end of the day we still have to pay whether we like it or not, that is why there is a great familiarity between the licence fee and a tax or as I like to call it a entertainment tax.
So why have I taken up the baton? Well I know I’ve taken my time getting there but I wish to voice my objections, along with other like-minded people, for the need in present day Britain to counter this compulsory entertainment tax.

One of the steps I’m taking is giving my support and help trying to build up a petition which is to be presented to the government and I hope you will sign. This is not just merely a poll gauging public opinion but a petition voicing a genuine objection to the current and ongoing expansion of licence fee legislation.

I know there are more important issues within the UK but ask yourself this, how long are you going to let yourself be sub servant to a system that contradicts freedom of choice and that allows the BBC to hold a monopoly in a ever increasing commercial market of CHOICE.

A colour licence currently costs £131.50 with a rise each year 2.5% above the rate of inflation how long before you can not afford it, that is if you already can’t?

These are some of the petitions that I have found , including the ones still up and running , this includes the official petitions on the government website.

I do hope they're not ignored by our political elite as they have done so for the tax you by the mile petition because if this keeps happening this will undermine the democratic process to the point where people will realise we are totally be ignored ,this can only lead to one conclusion which is to say 'dire' for any country "Civil Unrest"

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the TV Licensing Authority threatening those who have no television.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the tv licence.

Anti BBC Bias Petition

BBCresistance.com - Signatories

DeViAnThans3

Of course, I'm not in the UK, but the UK isn't the first / only country charging taxes for television I think. Certain countries just charge taxes for amost everything you can think of: having pets, ... so why also not a tv tax lol
Well, I agree that such a tax makes no sense overall, but it is just required and I don't think that UK government will cancel that ...

__________________
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year everyone!

NaRvIcK DeViL

Not a lot of people know this... but they should

What companies do with your private data is an emotive subject. As technology leads to more organisations knowing more about you than ever before, controlling who has access to what information has become a big issue - one which the Information Commissioner's office is well aware of, and, broadly speaking, is doing a good job of policing.

Look no further than recent changes to the law which require all 'data controllers' to ask your permission to pass on your details to third parties. In the bad old days, it was assumed you had given this permission unless you specifically stated otherwise.

So in these more enlightened times, you can understand the surprise when I read this story about a member of the public who, having bought a TV from Argos.co.uk. He didn't check any tick boxes saying 'please do pass on my data to anyone you like'. But he soon received a letter from the TV licensing people telling him that he didn't have a licence even though he'd just ordered a new set. (We're not read by evil licence fee-dodgers, of course - the document was in his mother's name).

Argos had clearly passed on his details to TV Licensing without his permission. A data protection breach? Not so. The Information Commissioner's office told us this is allowed under the terms of the 1967 Wireless Telegraphy Act. The data protection act does not apply when it comes to buying a telly. (NB: TV Licensing only gets your name and address: your bank account details are perfectly safe).

Did you know that? A recent at suggest most people aren't aware that simply buying a TV gives the bloodhounds at TV Licensing a trail to follow.
But in these enlightened times, surely we should be aware of it? Which begs the question: whose job is it to educate us?

Not the Information Commissioner's office. It's nothing to do with them. The BBC? Maybe, although its interest is in getting hold of your cash. It's hardly going to spend time telling you all the ins and outs of its revenue collection process.

That leaves the retailers themselves. i think the responsibility lies squarely with them. How hard is it for an e-tailer to have a pop-up appear when you order a TV spelling things out? How hard is it for the person behind the till to tell you TVLA will be informed of your purchase? Not hard at all.
You might think this is a minor issue, and one which only concerns those who want to avoid paying their licence fees. But as i said, these are supposed to be enlightened times. Only if companies tell us EXACTLY what they're doing with our data will we trust them. And that's what the Data Protection Act is all about.

NaRvIcK DeViL

BBC World has been dropped by Israel's satellite provider Yes TV in favour of the newly launched al-Jazeera /English.
It is the first major distribution blow the corporation's international news channel has suffered since al-Jazeera's English-language service began broadcasting last month.

Although BBC World will still be available in Israel via cable, it will lose around 50% of its audience in the country as a result of being dropped by Yes.

Al-Jazeera English signed the carriage deal with Yes last month, but the damaging consequences for BBC World have only just emerged.
One BBC executive said: "We are disappointed but hopefully they will come back to the negotiations."

The deal with Yes takes al-Jazeera English's global reach to around 80m households.

The market for rolling international news is become increasingly crowded, with new rivals to BBC World and CNN.

In addition to the launch of al-Jazeera English, France 24 began broadcasting recently.

The BBC has had a difficult time over its coverage of Israel, with regular accusations of bias coming from both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

Earlier this year an independent panel was set up by the corporation's board of governors to review its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Scrap the tv licence.

crud3w4re

That's insane! As a Libertarian, I believe in the abolishment of taxes.

__________________
http://www.crud3w4re.com
please join
seeking staff, revenue share!

NaRvIcK DeViL

Family Christmases are often marred by an unpopular Auntie - but is the same thing happening to the internet...

The BBC has never been universally popular - and it's not just the tunnel-vision approach to programming which angers licence-fee payers ('what do you mean you want to watch something which doesn't involve reality TV, DIY or the emergency services?').

One of the more galling things for many online businesses is the self-congratulatory tone the BBC has every time its online services scoop another gong.

Each time it happens millions of website users are informed as to just how good the service is. And while there's nothing wrong with blowing your own trumpet, each time the announcements will be met with a uniform response from rivals:

"Yes, but give us that much money the BBC gets and see how many awards we win."

You have to admit they've got a point. Of course all these competing businesses would like the same level of funding - that goes without saying - but it is also about wanting a level playing field.

Now, the BBC is up before another judging panel - but it's not a nice mantelpiece-friendly trinket which is up for grabs.

In a nutshell: the Beeb is being asked to 'justify itself'.

In more detail: a review ordered by Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, will examine how well the Beeb's online arm has lived up to its remit, if it provides value for money and what commercial impact the organisation has had on the market.

It's that latter point which will strike a chord with competing organisations who have had to scrap for ad-based funding. Obvious comparisons would be with an organisation such as ITV. The commercial channel would no doubt argue that the BBC has an unfair advantage and that the market is skewed as a result.

In defence of the organisation Ashley Highfield, director of BBC New Media and Technology,said: "Two million people came onto the net as a result of the BBC. In terms of e-commerce, 65 per cent of traffic from our sites goes onto other sites, so we're actually driving ecommerce."

It's a good point and shows a level of benevolence which may previously have been overlooked. It seems likely that thousands of BBC site visitors may have read reports about the new Harry Potter book for example and then headed to Amazon to buy the book - which is good news for Amazon, but it's not necessarily good news for the rival sites selling banner ads to Amazon.

This isn't a question of quality. The BBC site to some is outstanding - but it again raises questions about funding and competition issues which will dog Auntie ad nauseum.

What do you think? Should Auntie be forced to stand on her own two feet and support itself? Is the idea of a state-sponsored broadcaster outdated in the internet age? Should the BBC's new media properties be spun off? Let us know your thoughts .

NaRvIcK DeViL

The Conspiracy of Silence

The recent mass revolt against the Licence Fee in New Zealand received very little coverage in the UK media, even though it was highly relevent to our own debate about the TV Licence. The human rights abuses of the TV Licence (single mothers being imprisoned, blind people having to buy a TV Licence, etc) are rarely reported or debated in the UK media.

Those of us campaigning against the TV Licence are given no coverage at all, meaning that most of the British public are not even aware that we exist. The BBC takes huge amounts of money from the public purse, money that is badly needed elsewhere, and yet rarely is this criticised in the UK media. It seems that the lid is kept very tight on any form of dissent or objective reporting about the TV Licence. The question is, why..?

The obvious answer is that the BBC itself forms a large part of the British media, and the BBC does not report anything that's negative about the TV Licence (bang goes their reputation for unbiased reporting!). As for the rest of the media, well, perhaps commercial television does not voice dissent against the TV Licence because they know that if the Licence is abolished the BBC would have to become commercial, in direct competition to themselves (there's barely enough advertising revenue to go round as it is). A large number of the UK newspapers are owned by people who also have interests in commercial television, so no help there.

It could, perhaps, be a fact that it's in the vested interest of certain people in positions of power in this country to keep the BBC and the Licence Fee exactly as it is. You see, there's huge amounts of money involved here (and I mean huge - most of it screwed out of the British public under threat of imprisonment) and an awful lot of people have their snouts in the trough. This could, perhaps, be everyone from the lawyers who prosecute people for Licence evasion (there's 200,000 prosecutions every year), to TV Licensing , who make big bucks out of enforcing the Licence (which is why they're so ruthless against Licence evaders), to the Post Office, who have a very profitable contract to sell TV Licences, to the BBC itself, which has more than 23,000 employees and other assorted hangers on and is deeply ingrained in the British establishment... if you dare to raise a voice against the TV Licence you're up against some very powerful people.
But voices do get raised: in March 1998 the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, NACAB, produced a social policy report called "TV Sinners"(see belowfor summary).

This report contained the real facts about TV Licence prosecutions, gathered from CAB's all around the country (this NACAB report received very little publicity at the time). As a result of this report, and NACAB campaigning against imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of a TV licence, the government set up an advisory board to look into the whole issue of the TV Licence, and that's why there's been recent changes to the Licence Fee; ie, free licenses for the over 75's, a 50% reduction for blind people, etc, etc.

The recent changes to the Licence Fee are purely cosmetic and a public relations exercise. Nothing's really changed, but what it shows is that the Government knows how much resentment there is against the Licence Fee, and they know how unjust and ridiculous it is for British citizens to have to pay to watch television under threat of imprisonment, but as long as those with vested interests manage to keep the lid on any dissent this state of affairs will continue.

CHANGES IN PUBLIC POLICY IN THE DIGITAL AGE

In March 1998 Citizens Advice published ‘TV Sinners’, a report based on evidence supplied by 232 CABS all over the country. It showed:

• each year approximately 200,000 people are prosecuted for non-
payment of the TV Licence

• 68percent of these prosecutions are against women
(this is because when the TV Licence inspectors call during the day it's usually the woman who's at home)

• out of the total of 200,000 prosecutions 98 percent result in a fine

• because TV Licence evasion is a strict liability offence these cases have to be heard in a magistrates court, and the court has no compulsion to allow fines to be paid by installments

• there is no compulsion on Magistrates to means test people who appear in court

• if you do not pay the fine a warrant will be issued for your arrest

• over the years thousands of women have been imprisoned in the United Kingdom because they were not able to pay fines imposed upon them for not having a TV Licence. Almost all of these women were on benefits and around half of them had dependent children
Following this report, in 1999 the Government set-up an advisory board to look into the whole issue of the TV Licence (‘The Davies Review’), which identified fundamental problems with funding by a universal licence. ’’Broadcasting is a public good. The essential problem with public goods is that it is difficult to get people to pay for goods where they do not have exclusive rights to consume the good in question and when their consumption of the good does not affect the good itself. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to direct a good exclusively to the person who is paying for it.’’

The review concluded that ‘’the digital age will increasingly be one in which many or most consumers of television pay for packages closely tailored to their needs. As they become more accustomed to choice, to subscription and to pay-per-view, it could be that the licence fee will come to seem an anachronism.’’ However the review was not satisfied with funding alternatives, and left the matter to be decided by the BBC Charter Review.

NaRvIcK DeViL

Give us £135.50 it belongs to us

For those of you who don’t live in the UK, you may be interested in the phenomenon that is the TV License

Essentially, if you have a TV or receiving equipment, you are obliged to pay the government £135.50 per year to view the BBC channels.

Don’t watch the BBC? I’m afraid that TV Licensing doesn’t believe you. EVERYONE who owns an operational set must watch the BBC. They're compelled to. There’s something in the water.

TV Licensing ‘Enquiry Officers’ also seem to get a hoot out of slapping £1000 fines onto anyone within spitting distance. If you click :-

TV Licensing - Excuses, excuses, excuses

– this site describes some of the ‘hilarious’ situations they’ve found themselves in. I don’t know why these people think that roving around neighborhoods harassing people is like a sketch from a comedy show.

I don't have a TV. My TV tuner card is gathering dust on a shelf. I have no way to receive the crud pumped out daily - I promise.

Nevertheless, this is the tone of one of the letters I have received. (May I note that it was bordered on we're-going-to-repossess-your-firstborn)

Here's the gist:

____________________

Dear Occupier, (These people don’t know my name, yet are willing to put me in shackles for life because of all the ‘other’ knowledge that they’ve somehow accumulated. Interesting.)

WE’VE WRITTEN TWICE TO YOU ALREADY. (No, you haven’t. While I can accept that one letter might go missing in the postal system, I can’t accept two – which means you’re lying.)

WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE! (Yes. Yes you do. That's why I'm holding the letter from you. You do not, however, know who the hell I am. Mail spamming has these kinds of drawbacks.)

WE KNOW YOU'RE DEFRAUDING THE GOVERNMENT YOU DISGUSTING TERMITE! (I....I don't have a TV....)

OUR INSPECTOR IS COMING TO YOUR ADDRESS. HE WILL HAVE A TRUNCHEON AND A BUCKET OF LUBRICANT. (errr...guys?...I really don't have a TV…)

NOT HAVING A LICENSE IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE, LIKE KILLING SOMEONE BUT MUCH WORSER (I think these guys actually watch British programming....)

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE BORG COLLECTIVE WILL NET YOU A ONE THOUSAND POUND FINE. (Yeah, I gathered that from the ‘Big Brother is watching you, we know you don’t pay your license – you will be assimilated’ posters all over the underground, the shop windows and in the press. Thanks.)

WE HAVE VANS THAT CRUISE THE STREETS AND DETECT TV SIGNALS (Ahhh, kinda like the Death Star but without the latex uniforms?)

By the way, if you don’t have a TV, don’t worry. All you have to do is take the time out of your day to write to us and tell us and WE WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH YOU IN DUE COURSE. (OK…..why will you be in contact with me? I say I don’t have a TV, that means I don’t need a license – burden of proof is on you, buddy. Oops…sorry, forgot that for the purpose of TV license searches, courts pretty much automatically issue warrants. I guess I’ll just bend over, shall I?)

The Brits give FAR too many of their rights away without a peep.

NaRvIcK DeViL

Enough is enough, it’s about time we’re given a choice. It’s time to encrypt the service, then the British People can have a real choice, to pay the voluntary subscription or do without.

I personally would do without and I suspect the vast majority would do the same and I think that’s why the status quo has been forced on us all for so long.



PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION

Petition to: Scrap the tv licence.

NaRvIcK DeViL

The group that successfully campaigned for the abolition of the broadcasting tax in New Zealand says its push to make the Government bureaucrats accountable to the New Zealand people is only just beginning.

The tax was abolished not because the group won in court, but because a frail 78 year old pensioner managed to convince a hundred thousand fellow New Zealanders that they shouldn’t pay the tax.

That pensioner, Ned Haliburton said “we were a small band of dedicated idealists with a three year campaign of civil resistance, that peacefully brought about the scrapping of what we considered to be an immoral and unfair tax.

“This was a significant victory for a group of people who didn’t say what can one person do?”

Ned Haliburton said “the battle is not yet over, following the Anti-TV License Campaign groups decision to file proceedings against New Zealand On Air ( NZ ON Air) in the High Court in Wellington asking the Court to “determine whether the broadcasting fee is a tax and the legality of applying GST to this tax’, and, “further seeks a ruling on whether NZ On Air is exercising its statutory powers correctly in relation to the recovery of the broadcasting fee”.

This happenend over 7 years ago and not 1 IOTA of this news has been published in the Uk I wonder why ?

NaRvIcK DeViL

Vietnam Veteran battles with BBC and Capita over TV licence fee

CAPITA, the support services group that collects the tv licence on behalf of the TVLA (television licencing authority ) as well as the congestion charge for Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, has become embroiled in a High Court battle .

The company, which has a ten- year contract to collect the TV Tax, has been cited in a civil action that is being brought by a 60-year-old Vietnam war veteran against the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC.

Jean-Jacques Marmont, a Canadian disabled former soldier, who now lives in Oxfordshire, claims that a tax to watch television is an infringement of his human rights.

“Article 10 of the European Convention and UK Human Rights Act says that I have a right to receive public information,” he said.

“In times like these, it’s vital for mine, and everybody else’s, safety. And yet I have to pay a tax to receive up-to-date news.”

Mr Marmont included Capita in his writ because it collects the £135.50 licence fee on behalf of the BBC/TVLA. Mr Marmont has not paid the fee since August 2002.

Capita declined to comment on the case, but a company insider said that it was clear from Mr Marmont’s argument that his problem was with the concept of the television licence fee as well as the process of collecting it.

However, details of the writ show that Mr Marmont is claiming specifically against Capita for its debt-collection tactics. He claims that Capita’s actions towards him and others in general violate the Malicious Communications Act and the Protection from Harassment Act.

In a statement, the BBC said: “The focus of the case appears to be with the Government’s policy of using a tax to fund the BBC and the way in which the BBC administers this policy. In the BBC’s view, the legislation, policy and implementation is entirely consistent with the Human Rights Act.”

Capita is no stranger to controversy having been lambasted last summer when the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB), which it runs under a Public Private Partnership, descended into chaos after the rules were changed over vetting procedures for people who work with children.

Many schools were unable to open at the beginning of the autumn term because new teachers had not received clearance from the CRB.

Capita also administered Individual Learning Accounts, a scheme that had to be closed because it was being defrauded.

NaRvIcK DeViL

The future of the BBC

“This DEBATE has raged for years over whether the BBC should still be financed specifically by the licence fee that is paid by all those with television sets in their homes. Many households, after all, now watch and listen to little of its output but almost all pay £135.50 currently a year for the privilege.

“The BBC hates the idea of losing its licence fee. Rather than go commercial, its bosses plan to keep fighting for public financing for decades. What are the chances that the Government will decide that the BBC can fend for itself, taking all of its enforced public subsidy when the current charter runs out in 2016?

“The rapid shift to digital TV makes the debate especially pressing. Set-top boxes can tell whether a household has paid for a channel or not. Soon it will be practical and easy for everyone to choose whether or not to subscribe to the BBC.

“Towards the end of digital switch-over, which will happen between 2008 and 2012, the Government 'hopefully' for a change will examine other ways to finance the BBC after 2016.

The likeliest and Obvious way ,would be by :-

"voluntary subscription"

Petition to: why should we pay for tv licence and also digital.

NaRvIcK DeViL

BBC launches pay-TV in India

BBC Worldwide has launched two pay-TV channels, CBeebies and BBC Entertainment, in India.

The CBeebies channel will offer shows such as Tweenies, Tikkabilla and Big Cook Little Cook.

BBC Entertainment will air dramas including Doctor Who, Waking the Dead, Cutting It, Hotel Babylon, Spooks and comedies such as Extras.

The channels will each be available 12 hours a day to Indian viewers via the Tata-Sky satellite TV service.

BBC Entertainment will be on air between 6pm and 6am local time and a dual Hindi/English language CBeebies channel will air from 6am until 6pm.

The plan to launch channels in India was raised in September last year as part of a wider strategy by BBC Worldwide, the corporation's commercial arm, to launch up to five channels in different countries.

BBC Worldwide's existing interests in India include a joint venture magazine deal with the Times of India Group, a TV sales business and an FM radio licence partnership to create seven stations.

"The economic growth in India has been explosive, with the media and entertainment industries playing an integral part," said Darren Childs, the managing director of BBC Global Channels.

He added that recent research showed that India would lead the Asian cable market - passing Japan next year - and that the region would be the most lucrative pay-TV market by 2015.

BBC America ,BBC Canada ,BBC Australia, Hong Kong ,India etc in these countries and others to watch the BBC you have to subscribe (i.e part of a package) if subscription is available , if it isn't there are adverts.

The BBC around the Globe is a commerialised corporation only in the uk are we forced to pay a tax to finance this company. you could say they're having their cake and eating it with candles on top and a firework to keep them amused

Petition to: Scrap the BBC licence fee.

Petition to: why should we pay for tv licence and also digital.

NaRvIcK DeViL

It would really rankle an American to be forced once a year to write out a cheque to the Goverment for $271(£135.50) just for the right to use his own television receiver.

This is not a cultural thing at all — it Rankles people in the UK, where everybody has to do just that.

The “TV Licence” is a holdout from the theory that any use of the spectrum, either transmitting and/or receiving, makes the user into a “station” and its location should therefore be authorized with a bit of paper. Now, of course, it is just a tax. But it is a tax for a purpose.

The first Radio Licence was issued in 1922 at an annual cost of 10 shillings (two dollars at that time) and stayed at that level until 1946 when the first TV Licence (including radio) was issued for £2.

Contrast that with today's price tag of £135.50 and rising every year ignoring the rate of inflation.

The money that is collected pays for the BBC's programming on six TV channels, network radio services, and all the regional TV and radio production and engineering costs.

The anachronism is that it is not a license to watch BBC programming: It is a license to watch UK TV.

The separation of church and state between the BBC and the UK government has always been a cornerstone of the corporation — although there have been some really interesting shades of gray there over the years — and the original decision to fund the BBC from a license fee meant that the authorities could say that taxpayer money was not being used… an interesting exercise in logic.

For many years the money was collected by the Post Office and handed to the BBC through the home office. In 1991 the BBC took over the unpleasant task of collecting the fees itself and created the TV Licensing Authority to at least distance itself in name.

This group employs 1800 people to collect the money, issue licenses and enforce the law. Five hundred of those employees work away from the headquarters and the vast majority are inspectors who look to identify what averages about 1000 licence evaders every day. With over 28 million licences in force, at £135.50, there is clearly a very large amount of money involved. And with the number of households known to be over 31 million, the TVLA is very interested in the three million who are not licenced.

When you buy a TV, VCR etc..., the retailer is forced under law to report the sale to the TVLA. If that buyer's address is not in the database they get a letter. Even if you don't buy a product you are likely to get a letter anyway, often a lot of letters, because the authority just doesn't seem to believe that anyone can do without television.

Do you have a Second home? Get another licence. Are you a Student at college? Get another licence. Rent a room in someone's house? Get another licence. Use TV at work? Get another licence. Operate a hotel? Get a license for the first 15 receivers and then another licence for every five more.

Legally blind? You still need a license but you do get a 50 percent discount — such generosity !!.

So, after you buy that new TV with cash and give a false name and address, how do they catch you? If you are not in the database as being licenced, your residence may be visited by an inspector looking for the telltale flicker of a CRT, or you may be driven past by the all-scary “Detector Van”!.
It used to be that the post office would announce when one was going to be in an area and, magically, Licences would be bought in bulk. But did the vans even work? Yes, they did; picking up the TV's local oscillator, the operators could even tell the residents which channel they had been watching, but now they "claim" that their equipment is so sensitive that there are handheld units in service.

You don't need a licence if you don't connect a TV to an antenna, cable or satellite receiver and just use it to play back pre-recorded tapes or DVDs, nor if you only watch satellite TV originating 'outside the UK'. But how do you prove it?

The PC user with a TV card has been the most popular target in the last 18 months, but an even sorrier situation has arisen with a decision that a broadband user who is streaming video from the BBCi - Web site also needs a licence. But don't worry if you are streaming BBC television news in the United States, they are only going after UK users.

At the cost involved for the Licences there is inevitably going to be cheating or evasion. Those that propose taxing the Internet in some way should look at this as a cautionary tale… but that's another story

sunken

Taxes are more subtle in the US and are made part of the bills that we get. Any satellite or cable provider in the US collects taxes for the government and they are fairly high considering. But if you don't pay it, you don't get reception unless you are lucky to live in an area that is rich in over the air broadcasts. And you are still paying a tax as part of the electric to run the TV.

We would certainly balk at a straight out tax if it was presented that way, but they don't do that here. They just make it inherent as hidden charges.