licence fee 101 for non-uk residents

I have some questions about the licence fee:

a. what comes first, purchasing the TV or licensing the house?

b. what if you are a non-UK resident who brings a portable TV-set (or mobile phone capable of watching TV) in to the country for use? how can one license his device for use in his short stay in the country?

Regarding your second question, if someone is only temporarily in the country then they would not appear on any of the TV Licensing databases as they would probably not be buying or renting a property. AFAIK the database merely contains details of residences, and whether or not they have a valid license. How they can monitor people watching mobile TV, I have no idea.

Either way, I strongly object to being forced to subsidise the BBC keeping Graham Bleedin' Norton in work.

I've read here and elsewhere disgruntled licence fee payers saying the licence fee is too high or that it is unfair for various reasons. While I respect their opinions on it, to come to think about it, relative to most of continental Europe, UK viewers should consider themselves lucky because in most of continental Europe, viewers are forced to pay a licence fee but in addition, they are still bombarded by commercials in public TV channels. On top of that the licence fee in some of these European countries is slightly higher than in the UK (by a few euros) and may not include radio licence yet. Just my opinion.

UK scraped the radio one back in the 70's

By simple logic there would assume that because their spent all this money on a shiny Brand New high tech mobile phone watch allows them to watch TV, there problary have a licences already


Here comes a loop hole I just watch the TV in my public street

well if the BBC ended up commercial, we would end up watching channels like BBC Prime, BBC World, no where near as good as what we currently get!

I keep seeing the same old arguments against the licence fee, and there are responses to all of them. But rather than think up replacement ideas, they just keep coming up with the same old tut.

We are NOT the only country to have TV companies funded by a tax (even the USA has one), ours is one of the best run and best value services, it's cheaper than many Western countries' fees (many of whom supplement with advertising AS WELL), and the presence of the BBC, providing an alternative means of funding improves broadcasting quality generally, including that of the commercial broadcasters.

Next?

They do? If your talking about PBS, then it relies on donations from corporate companies and viewers.

harshy and jason, that's exactly my point and I totally agree with you. At least in the BBC's UK channels, whether the programme is 5 or 50 minutes, I can watch it virtually uninterrupted. While I find commercials entertaining, they can waste time. Where I come from, commercials take up almost half the airtime given to a programme especially during primetime. In the US, they usually take up roughly a third of a programme's airtime.

I don't want to subsidise a channel I won't watch, it doesn't benefit me. I also don't want to be harrassed by the devious TV licence bods.

I think usually when you come to pay for a TV in a shop you're given a form that fill out giving address details and what-not so you can be added to the TV Licence database. So there's no easy way out (well unless you stop paying and just baricade yourself in the house).

So this means that if you purchase your TV set, you will be automatically licensed (for the first year at least)? Do you pay the licence there and then?

Actually the US taxpayer funds most of PBS via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

The CPB annual budget is funded almost entirely by federal appropriations. In 2005 the budget was $480.4 million of which about 90% was distributed to public broadcasters across the country, including both local and national organizations