Mostly for dumb historical reasons, currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding.
Objectively European TV licenses are just a terrible wasteful idea, basically creating an entire parallel tax collection system. Of all the important, vital things a government funds, I'm not sure why a public broadcaster should have any special insulation from the usual democratic decision making.
The UK TV license is much less tax-like than the German one. I never paid for the UK one, by the cunning and devious scheme of… never buying a TV once I moved out of my parent's home.
Now I'm in Germany, and here we have to pay for a TV license regardless of if we have a TV or not. (Also, my partner here has a TV).
> currently justified as slightly protecting them from the government cutting their funding.
How does that work? Who sets the TV license rate? If I hate the BBC and want to eliminate their funding, and I also want to be popular, what's stopping me from eliminating the license regime altogether?
In Italy it's now a part of your energy bill, by law. Basically too many people were opting out (legitimately or not), so they made it non-negotiable: "if you have energy, you must be powering screens! Pay up!"
Meanwhile, mainstream TV (both state-run and privately owned) is more and more unwatchable, and more and more people just tune out - but they are still taxed.
You can still opt out, just fill out a declaration that you don't have a TV. It can be done online in two minutes (it must be repeated every year tho).
The difference is that before it was basically opt-in, with spotty enforcement, and as a result about 30% of the population was not paying anything. Today it requires lying on an official form, making it much more serious.
History. It was a way of letting people who don't have TVs not pay a license. There was also an extra charge for colour TVs.
Edit: Oh, the BBC isn't a government agency, it's operationally independent. But always becoming less so, as the board is mostly appointed by the government now.
The BBC is a "quango": quasi-autonomous non government organisation. And the TV license .. well, it's really a tax, as much as vehicle excise duty is, but with outsourced collection. I think it's unsustainable long term but the BBC is still pretty popular for its non-news output.
In 2024 it's a subscription service with the world's worst UX. I only have internet-delivered TV, and so I'd be very happy with an iPlayer that just unlocks more content behind a subscription fee.
What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance?
Like, suppose your car comes with a subscription service for satellite radio... you're allowed to just not pay it. Owning the object associated with the service doesn't normally oblige you to subscribe to it.
> What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance?
Things may have changed since I left the country, but last I heard you only needed one if you owned specifically a TV or actually used iPlayer (i.e. more than merely having the capability to use it).
Not quite - the current legislation[1] is that you must have a TV license if you watch/record live TV (however you do it - online, with a TV, etc.), or if you use the BBC's iPlayer app/site.
You do not require a TV license if you have a TV but do not use it to watch live television (e.g. using it for YouTube/Netflix apps)
I'm happy to report that even with a TV license, you're not compelled to watch live TV.
To your actual point, you do now need a license to use iPlayer at all, not merely for live TV -- too many people (like me) were not bothering with a license and relying on catch-up. We stopped using iPlayer as a result.
> What other subscription service are you legally required to be subscribed to merely for owning a television, computer or any other sort of appliance?
Colloquially it's still called Road Tax. Like if someone says "Wait for the Tannoy announcement" you're not obliged to say "Actually they're using the SpeakLouder 3000. Tannoy lost the contract 37 years ago next Tuesday."
It's a quaint anachronism, like afternoon tea and cricket, of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th richest nation on the planet.
Maintained by witless fools who's sole achievement in life was to marry a wealthy woman.
