 | Television Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
This feels anachronistic, and can never be truly complete. Debates seem to be raging on this page about countries who've never had nor are never likely to have a licence, the US in particular, so why indulge this? This article should be an NPV topic about what the TV licence is and describing its implementation in the various countries that use it. Not a general debate about the funding of TV services in other countries nor a platform for people to air nationalist views. Pjaymes (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
When I lived there (8 years up to 1997) a TV license was required (or a radio license), and I received several license demands forwarded to me by post for a couple or three years after I had left the Netherlands. Of course, the law could have been changed, but has this been checked properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.129.61 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK - I checked. The law changed in 2000 with the abolition of the TV and the radio licenses, as they were proving costly (not sure in what sense "costly" was meant exactly). Perhaps this information could make its way into the main article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.129.61 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
The first paragraph of the UK part doesn't mention ITV? Surely ITV is bigger than Channel 4, and if there is a particular reason why it isn't counted in the list of "independent public broadcasters" and explanation would be good. And what of channel 5?
The United Kingdom has three independent public broadcasters, the BBC which is funded primarily by a TV licence, Channel 4 which is funded by advertising and S4C which is funded through a combination of direct government grant, advertising and in an indirect sense through the licence fee (see below). The BBC is by far the biggest broadcaster in terms of funding and breadth of output. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.153.18 (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)Reply
A proper dicussion on the advantages and disadvantages of using a TV Licence. Perhaps comparing this to other methods of funding public television. User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I feel like there may be a big point missing here. I was always led to believe that the main reason for the TV Licence, is to ensure that TV Programmes 'for the public good' are to be created, above and beyond what's just necessary for commercial interests.
In addition, that the reason that it's not handled through general taxation is that makes it a lot harder for the government to meddle with. Thus, creating a media platform that's A) more independent from government influence and B) more independent from commercial biases than either Media Sources that are funded directly by government or purely commercial means.
I'm trying to find some good discussions on this before writing a summary of it. Could anyone help? User:multikev 22:38, 17 February 2014 (GMT)
When adding Czech Rep, which I was sure had a licence fee, did some digging on Other nations. Problem is a lot of public broadcasters dont have English versions of websites. However I have found two reports that may be of use. HOWEVER, these are 2000 figures, of course these will have undoubtly changed, in some cases nations may have scrapped their licences. So we need to get uptodate figures!:
1. According to http://www.obs.coe.int/about/oea/pr/service_public.html the following countries also have a TV licence:
2. Another Document written in 2000 (http://www.obs.coe.int/oea_publ/iris/iris_plus/focus6_2000.pdf.en states that:
Also:
http://www.mediasouthasia.org/Colomboworkshopforwebsite010604.htm
User:Pit-yacker 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
There should perhaps be something about U.S. views added to the "Opinions of television licensing systems" section, but it needs to be sourced, not based on someone's half-baked theory of American exceptionalism. I can well imagine that many Americans are amazed to learn that televisions must be licensed in most of Europe. It would be even more interesting to note whether there is anyone arguing for a reintroduction in those countries where the licence has been abolished. I was surprised to read that some Eastern European governments are considering introducing a TV licence; I would have thought licences were simply an anachronism from the age when TV was a luxury, which persists because of a ratchet effect.
There should also be more added about the history of radio/TV licences. While it may (or may not!) be the case that that licence fees are now used to fund public broadcasters, this was not always the case. In the UK, radio licences were introduced in 1904 at the behest of the Armed Forces, which wanted to maintain control of the new technology. The BBC was not government-funded (or even created) till the 1920s. --jnestorius(talk) 14:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
User:Pit-yacker 13:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps Philippines should fall here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4452:38C:CA00:F9BB:C4F:7912:3E2A (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
which presumably proved to the American government that it did not need any sort of scheme such as a licence fee to force the end user to pay for the services he or she was listening to or watching.
An additional factor is the somewhat different meaning of the term license (licence) in the USA. A license is a form of regulation, not taxation, i.e. a (usually inexpensive) document that says the holder is allowed to do something. Actions that can potentially harm others (such as driving on the public roads, or operating a television transmitter) are licensed. Actions that do not infringe on the rights of others (such as operating a television receiver) are not. Most Americans would be outraged at the thought of needing a license, i.e. government permission, to watch TV or listen to the radio. Because of this different meaning of the word license, the "television license" of Europe and the UK would probably be referred to as a "television tax" or "user fee" if it were proposed in the USA.
ok, the USA section has been improved, but you guys are still not acknowledging the fact that a TV license would be a violation of the US Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment which the Supreme Court has interpreted as specifying a right to privacy. In the USA we have a fundamentally different philosophy of government. You see, in Europe, where they used to have strong monarchies, there is a philosophy that The King Will Take Care of Us, and that the King gives people rights. In the USA, We the People are the Sovereign, we automatically have rights without having to get the from a monarch, and it is We the People that give the government permission to do things. So, if you are on your own land, and you have a device that only receives waves, and cannot affect others, the government is viewed as not having any right to tell you not to use said device. THAT is the reason why we don't have TV licenses in the USA. *not* because it would somehow be "infeasible" or "unnecessary". And I defy any foreigner who claims otherwise to show me where the FCC or any other entity of the US Government ever considered a TV license. It is fundamentally antithetical to American philosophy on BOTH the left wing and the right wing. Anyone born and raised on US soil would know what I'm talking about here. It's a fundamentally different culture from Europe.71.116.85.218 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Jnestorius: no, you are incorrect. I personally own a scanner, bought it at Radio Shack, a well known US retailer of electronics. I don't have any kind of license for it, and I certainly have never been told not to use it by any government agency. I use it to monitor police and fire department transmissions for entertainment purposes, as well as informational purposes in emergencies such as earthquakes etc. Now, if I were to use said scanner to gain information to make it easier to commit a crime, that would be illegal. But owning the scanner itself, in my own home, is not illegal. Some states do require a license for a scanner if mobile, for those reasons. But not a home scanner. 4th amendment. --Brian (same guy as 71.116.85.218 above)71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
reply to timrollpickering: Why it's so great??? Freedom. Sweet Liberty. "Give me liberty or give me death" as Patrick Henry said. The Americans would never give up our sovereignty to a monarch. In any case, why did the USA go that route, you say? It is assumed by the Constitution that we would go that route. The burden would be on the President (who would defend the law if passed) to prove to the Supreme Court that such a law would not violate the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment says that the government cannot violate a resident's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" without just cause. So if I have a receiver device on my own property, which does not affect the rights or safety of others, the government has no right to tell me not to operate it. In Britain, the Queen grants you rights (within the Magna Carta). In the USA, it is the right of the government that is restricted, not We the People. This is a fundamentally different view, one that changed the world. I don't need a credible source other than the 4th amendment, it plainly states right there that the government is assumed not to have a right to tell me what to do in my own "house".71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
reply to timrollpickering: "blinkered" views of political systems, eh? Does wikipedia not give the system of government in Britain as "constitutional monarchy"? Do members of Parliament not swear allegiance to the Queen personally? Does the oath of enlistment in Britain not refer to a monarch? (when I joined the US Navy, I swore loyalty the USA herself, not Bill Clinton personally. I did swear to follow the legal orders of the current President, but again, not him personally, but his office and his position) Are criminal cases in Britain not brought by "the Crown", as opposed to the USA where they are brought by "the People of the United States of America?" I don't think my view is blinkered at all, sir. It is supported by centuries of legal precedent in Britain. The world knows that the United States of America is the oldest republic. There are far older countries, but none that have been have a republic continuously since July 4th, 1776. Yes, in practice, the Queen does not often exercise her considerable power, but as Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "because the King does not USE a certain power does not mean that he does not HAVE it." When they wrote the US Constitution, the King of England had not vetoed legislation from Parliament for some 70+ years, yet we still limited the ability of the US President to veto a law. With 2/3 majority in Congress, the President's veto does nothing and the law is passed. Unfortunately, we do not have 2/3 majority in Congress opposing the war in Iraq or we would have left long ago. Congress has the power to remove funding for the war; if 2/3 wanted to, the President could not do anything about it. In Britain, 98% of the Parliament could vote in favor of a bill, and if Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II refuses to approve it, the bill would not become law. See
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee/pasc_19.cfm
(continuing my reply to timrollpickering) for the current powers of the Queen of England (exercised in practice by the PM, but nonetheless available to the Queen herself should she choose to use them). In any case, I maintain that the American political system is in fact alien relative to Europe, and the BBC/tv license is a classic example. "The King will take care of us", so we approve of a tv license, having to ask the King for permission to operate a television set. In America this would be an outrageous statement. One might as well propose a "newspaper license", to fund a Department of Newspapers, whereby the quality of journalism in the USA is assured: no one is allowed to have a newspaper present in one's home without getting permission from the President. Nonsense. In the USA, We the People give the government permission to do things, not the other way around. We the People are The Sovereign. That, my dear sir, is the American Revolution. The world has never been the same since. As a result of the American Revolution, we have the Internet, computers, telephones, people who have walked on the Moon, and many other wondrous things.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
reply to timrollpickering: indeed, in Britain, personal ownership of weapons is denied, because the King wants to be able to lay down the law, that is to say, to be able to force the people to do things. In the USA, it is We the People who would lay down the law against the government, hence the 2nd amendment. I don't personally own a gun, and never have, but I am qualified on 9 mm pistol, 12 ga shotgun, M-14 and M-16 through navy training, as I stood watch with those weapons topside on submarines. In any event, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is part of what insures that We the People will retain our sovereignty. The people of Britain need not fear a return of monarchy because monarchy never left that country. Denying the BBC income would not harm others, it would inhibit the Queen from transmitting her opinion, and the right of We the People to transmit our opinion is more important. In any case, the USA funds our equivalent of the BBC through the general tax fund, and there is no reason Britain cannot do the same. Having only 5 broadcast TV stations available, however, I would suggest to the Brits that you should eliminate BBC television, so that the people of Britain can transmit on the channels that currently belong to the Queen. Richard Branson has a greater right to voice his opinion than the government, or that's how it should work, and that's how it does work in the USA.71.116.101.119 (talk) 04:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Certain US based editors would do well to go and learn a bit more about how the UK and European state works. Your statements are based on a very bad misunderstanding of how European and the British states work. In the UK there is a technical term for what you are talking - it is bollocks ;).
Many UK posters with an understanding of history would find this "the king will look after us" rubbish highly offensive. Arguably, the ordinary people of the UK have only ever got rights or anything by fighting for them (may I direct you to the likes of the Corn Laws where the land owners (who were the only people in parliament) voted to protect their incomes at the expense of causing the masses to starve and the partially corresponding Peterloo Massacre where the army attacked protestors).
Whilst the British "establishment" has perhaps been cleverer than in other countries such as France where (public opinion snapped and) revoloutions occurred, and released pressure only when strictly necessary, across Europe the working and middle classes (i.e. 90% of the population) being denied the right to vote until the late 19th and early 20th centuries has arguably brought a backlash against the landowning classes that remains even today. In that light the European mainstream is significantly to the left of the US mainstream. That doesnt just rule in broadcasting, it rules all over politics. For example, most people in Europe find it bizarre that around 25% of the population in the world's richest country do not get basic health care.
In that light the BBC isnt the Queen's broadcasting service, on the contrary it could be viewed as the people's broadcasting service (compare that with the commercial media that is often owned by vast conglomerates and airs the political opinions of its proprietors (who are usually richer than the Queen). This has again developed not by the wish of the government, the monarchy or the land-owning classes it is more to do with the demands of the electorate which led to the likes of the Beveridge Report attempting to tackle poverty (and before someone says - ignorance was identified as a key cause of poverty in this report - which arguably links to two of the BBC's mission goals - to educate and inform). Thats not to say the welfare state hasnt been expediant for the government, one of the precursors to these developments for example was the number of people who where deemed unfit to fight in the Boer War.
As has previously been mentioned, on the contrary to what US posters seem to think, gun control in the UK is largely down to public demand. See for example, the Dunblane Massacre. This perhaps reveals another difference between the US and UK - Public demand after Dunblane brought about gun control so strict that it is not possible for people in professional sport to practice shooting - in the US it would doubtless have brought a visit by Charlton Heston to the scene to tell everyone how gun control needs to be relaxed.
Equally, whilst there are a few constitutional quirks in the UK (the US system isnt perfect either), that should ideally be removed, most of these are smoothed over by those who hold the power knowing that using said power would mean the end of that power annd numerous other benefits faster than you can utter the words Guillotine Motion. Pit-yacker (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've added a few arguments against TV licensing to balance this section out but to be honest I think the entire thing should be cleaned out, big time. I'd rather just see most of it deleted than have lots of "citation needed" things put in when the statements that are there couldn't be supported by citations anyway. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad you added the stuff back about subscription alternatives because the DCMS recognized that voluntary subs would be higher the license fee (and logically it must be because some people would not subcribe).
Re advertisements on commercial channels, it is clear that commercial air-time buyers put a value on the time that a captured audience. The DCMS research clearly shows that advertisements interfere with programme enjoyment and it is surely not unreasonable to think that viewers themselves would put some value on the possibility of sweeping away ads from the screen, being the value viewers' put on the free time "robbed" by the channel operator to deliver advertising. Whether that value is higher or lower than the revenues from licensing is a moot point and as far as I know, not answered by any research.--Tom (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
Regarding voluntary subs being more than a license fee based system, well, it's hard to say if it would be more expensive overall, for a couple of reasons. First, you need a TV license before you can get sub-based stuff, and this affects the prices sub services charge. You don't get an accurate idea of what voluntary subs would cost if there wasn't a license fee in the first place. There's no reason sub services necessarily have to be more expensive than the license fee, because for example, if there were sub only services for different types of programming, more people might, theoretically, choose to go for them than one license fee for everything. I'm not saying they would, but they could. It depends on how efficiently the broadcasting corporation is run, too.
Re advertisements- well, yeah you would think that but consider that a third of people in the study said that adverts didn't affect their enjoyment of programs. So it's just a majority opinion that adverts affect enjoyment of programs, not a fact. That said I do find that pretty hard to believe after watching some of the car insurance adverts on British TV.
By the way, opinion studies like this don't necessarily prove what people are enjoying. There's a thing in social psychology called cognitive dissonance, that means that people will change their opinions about stuff to improve their self-esteem. Basically this is why sales people use the tactic called low-balling. They give you a slightly lower price than the retail price, you say yes, then they tell you that actually it's going to be the same price as usual. You still say yes, because you unconsciously come up with reasons to support your decision to say yes in the first place, and thus maintain your self-esteem. In a country that has a TV license, if people have always paid it due to tradition, they may unconsciously change their opinion about how enjoyable it really is, to make themselves feel that they're not the kind of person who would waste money on something that isn't enjoyable. Ben 2082 (talk) 13:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
This discussion should be merged with the one below titled - "Britain should be yellow on the map" nazrani (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Given that Channel 4 is a public-service broadcaster, and one which does carry commercials? 86.132.140.207 (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply
By that standard many countries should have different colors as they many countries have stations like channel 4 that have public service requirements to fulfill yet is sponsored with commercials. This for TV2 Norway, TV2 Denmark and I think for TV4 Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.142.226 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
BBC is the only company wholly dependant on the BBC Licence fee, and does not accept any commercial advertisements, though it can and does show quite a lot of its own advertisements within programming. As the BBC Licence fee is compulsory for anyone wanting to watch TV, people in Britain don't have a right of choice. Yes, there are commercial broadcasters, and all media have a public service obligation in Britain, whether they be newspapers, radio, tv, or whatever. But we are not dicussing private operators. Channel4 is not a public company, but a private commercial broadcaster, as is Sky TV. Commercial operators are free to accept advertising or subscriptions or whatever model they choose to follow, as they are private entities, privately owned. The current red and blue stripes means nothing taken together and is very confusing. As the above user says, such combo could be applied to many European countries. Much of the rest of the world has rejected this legacy licence in this day and age. nazrani (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I deleted the following text
However, the television licence scheme has been put under some scrutiny by those who do not own a television. There are many cases in which people who do not own a television are accused of avoiding the licence fee and are taken to court. In the UK there are several examples of this, most notably when a woman received over 200 letters over a 6 month period and eventually sued the licensing company for harassment. A common complaint is that letters sent do not offer enough ways to show that the recipient does not own a television set although several licensing companies have denied these allegations.
The main reason being that the section contains several unsubstantiated claims ("many cases" and "common complaint" are not backed up with numbers; it cites one case without any external referencing to enable the reaser to validate the case really existed. Also, why would the letters ask for information about NOT owning? Surely it is up to the senders to prove that the recipient DOES own. The text is not clear about which country/ies it is talking about though it mentions the UK once. However, there are not as far as I know, several licencing companies in the UK, so the text is even more puzzling. The last sentences also make claims that are not substantiated.
On balance therefore I think it is right to delete this material until further explanation is forthcoming.--Tom (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think you should reinstate that and ask for citation. Your action could lead to much of the Wikipedia articles/sections being deleted. I am of the opinion that text should only be deleted, if we believe it to be materially untruthful. Having said that there have been many media reports of public complaints against BBC Licence fee and strong arm tactics. There was a big discussion in Parliament about even abolishing this BBC Licence fee, before they compromised and froze this Licence Fee. nazrani (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Isnt it spelled license?
Just figured i'd point it out...
Miamibasura (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I'm just shock to found out that is it pay fee for use TV or Radio ... wow!. I'm from América (not USA), but from my place, just the concept it outrageous!!!Reply
If you got the BBC for your money, I'm sure you'd be ok with it Esquimo (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Cyprus ceased to force tax in electricity bills since 30 Jun 00 http://www.parliament.cy/parliamentgr/008_05/008_05_091.htm "Όπως είναι γνωστό, η ισχύς του νόμου για την εισφορά υπέρ του ΡΙΚ έχει τερματιστεί στις 30 Ιουνίου 2000. " Google Translate to English: As is known, the validity of the law to charge to the RIK has terminated on 30 June 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.69.16 (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
This discussion should be merged with the one above - "Should Britain be blue, not red, on the map?" nazrani (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Britain should clearly be yellow on the "Funding of European public broadcasters" map as all three methods of funding are in use:
Clearly yellow to me.
-- Fursday 17:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I propose that the "dubious - discuss" and "citation" tags are removed from Japan. I can confirm the section is true. In Japan a requirement only exists where enforced by a penalty for non-compliance. There is no penalty for non-compliance. And as for a legal authority to enter premises, if they had such an authority, inspectors would mention it when they come to the door, which they don't. I propose that it's inappropriate to require the citation of something's non-existence: if it was asserted that there *were* a penalty, that would be the subject of documentation. Requiring a citation for something that doesn't exist sounds weird to me. (eg. A splottely tollabockle doesn't exist, because I just made it up: it's a matter of fact that it doesn't exist, not a matter of record.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuchan (talk • contribs) 13:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
According to the TV licence FAQ of the Finnish broadcasting corporation (YLE), Iceland no longer has a TV tax (mandatory licence) as of 1st Jan 2000: [19]. Could someone verify this and edit the article accordingly? My Icelandic is not up to the task and no solid information seems to be available in English. FinnV (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I realize that there are a lot of people against public broadcasting, and they should have their opinions and views represented on Wikipedia. However, the TV License Resistance's blog seems to have a much broader underlying agenda: pro-BNP/anti-"leftwinger", pro-Israel/anti-Arab & anti-Muslim. AFAICT, the members and owner(s) of the site are more opposed to the views expressed by the BBC than by the concept of TV licensing itself. Is there a more apolitical website that could be linked to instead, or is this site representative of most whom are against TV licenses?--Subversive Sound (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Very interesting site - it doesn't advocate licence dodging, but shows the rather disturbing harassing tactics the BBC and its contractors use against people who quite legitimately do not need a tv licence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.73.198 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Nick Cooper is a BBC employee and is making some extremely libellous remarks which are going to get him in court. It's obvious that the BBC tries to censor any form of critiicsm and we know from history Wiki is one of those places. TV Licence Resistance is a legitimate help and advice website that has been mentioned in most national newspapers including the Telegraph and Times
Let me clear -- UK has two forms of televsion expenses collection methods: licensing and advertising. So, why there's RED and BLUE? It should be constantly BLUE. Comments and reactions are open below. 121.1.55.87 (talk) 08:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Why does the map tell French television is funded by "Television licence only"? Public television in France displays ads. 92.142.197.91 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Finland don't have anymore television license system.
So, for the purposes of this article, every single country in South America does not exist?
One would think that even if the article writer(s) were too lazy to research South America's television licence history, they would have at least bothered to mention why the entire continent was omitted. Rmwpg (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I'm totally agree with you!!--181.27.142.201 (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
The orange color in the graph for "commercial only" is NOT correct. Although 1FLTV does not receive funds from the media promotion, but small contributions from service agreements and from the settlement for official pronouncements (the national "Service bublic" system). And further the Landeskanal (state's channel) as a broadcaster under state auspices, the "State Office for communication" denies from its budget (without advertising). Anyway the color green (for "Government grants, and advertising") therefore would be correct for the whole tv stations in Liechtenstein.
This will still remain so when in 2015 the expected fee for television licence is introduced, because the public broadcaster "Liechtensteinischr Rundfunk" operates only "Radio Liechtenstein" and no TV station. All official and press references are linked in german interwiki article. --H7 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I've fixed some marked dead links use archive.org. However, for the foreign language ones I can't check if they are consistent with the text - the document versions in the archive may not be the same as the ones originally used. In particular:
The Greek link is still dead. I did a quick search in archive.org and for re-names on the original site, but I don't know any Greek, so can't go further. --Otus scops (talk) 00:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
> In 1964 the Australian Television Licence cost £6
Per month, year or once? --MartinThoma (talk) 14:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The heading "Countries that never had a television or broadcasting licence " -- is inconsistant with the article premise, that this is about the operation of Television or Radio Receivers, and not about the Sending, or "Broadcast" of the signals. There is a separate article referenced in the preamble to this article about "Broadcast Licence". Being a bold WikiEditor means doing the right thing from the beginning. Changing The heading. Richard416282 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
The numbers are not per capita, per household, or per TV, so it is mostly a map of population density. London is obviously going to have more evaders than a rural area. If it can't be converted to a more meaningful format, perhaps it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.212.230 (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Television licence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)Reply
The result of the move request was: 
Not done (page mover closure) DrStrauss talk 11:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
Television licence → ? – 1. UK-centric name; 2. In most countries (including the UK), that kind of licence also funds radio. JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 07:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Television licence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply
The section on Canada lacks a single citation. While it is all plausible, the lack of any citations for so much information gives me pause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.233.80.217 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
I removed this claim in the lead about how common TV licences are in the world[20]. As I noted in the edit summary although there was a source, the date given in our ref is 1997. I didn't actually notice a date but finding the specific ref which I assume is [21], the latest date mentioned there is 1995 so 1997 could easily be accurate. A 1997 source may have been somewhat okay when the article was created in 2002, but by now it's definitely way too outdated for something like how common television licences are. Also, perhaps because it was modified by people who realised it was wrong (even though they should have either found a better source or just removed the whole sentence), our article said TV licensing is rare in most of the world, half of the countries in Asia, a few countries in Africa, and two-thirds of the countries in Europe
but the source says Two thirds of the countries in Europe, one half in Africa and Asia and 10% of those in the Americas and Caribbean
. A few countries and one half are not the same thing when it comes to Africa. Finally the bit about "rare in most of the world" isn't mentioned in the source and hopefully most would agree that something which is used half the countries in Asia, 2/3 in Europe and a few in Africa shouldn't be called "rare in the world" so the sentence even contradicted itself. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I've been reading through this article and there seems to be conflicting information as to what is abolished and what isn't. For example, Finland is stated as abolished on the first table but is under the TV Licences of the World heading and the Abolished heading. I understand they are still paying through taxes on income even though their traditional TV licence was abolished. Greece on the other hand is shown as an active TV licence but they are taxed through their electricity bill, and then there is Iceland which is shown as being paid as a tax but is shown only under the Abolished heading as their traditional television licence was abolished. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems a bit inconsitant in the article as to what is considered abolished and what is considered as a TV licence. I wanted to check here first before changing anything else as I didn't want to muck the article up. I've had a go at editing so far to update a few parts but I don't feel confident doing anymore until I know what's what. Thanks for you help :) --Samthecrazyman (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)Reply
The beginning of the article reads “A television licence […] is a payment”. This definition is most likely wrong. A license is a permission to do something that would otherwise be forbidden. So the idea behind a TV license is that using or owning a TV is forbidden unless you have a valid TV license, and in order to receive the license you have to pay a license fee.
This article is not about the license itself but the fee you have to pay. So even with the definition fixed, the title would not be quite correct.
Even worse, the title is not correct for jurisdictions that follow a completely different logic. In Germany, it is legal to own and use one or more TVs from the beginning; however there is a hypothecated tax on homes, which is used to fund the public broadcasters. As most people live in homes, all people except for the homeless have to pay for it. Non-payment creates debt and can lead to distress; it is also a contravention and can theoretically be punished with a fine. However non-payment cannot make it illegal to own or use a TV receiver, because no license is required.
So there is also a fundamental difference between the fee in the UK and the fee in Germany: In the UK, it is a license fee that you pay if you want the license. If you don’t own a TV, you don’t need a license, you don’t have to pay. As it is one’s free decision to own or not own a TV, the fee can be considered voluntary. In Germany however, the fee is compulsory, because you have to pay it regardless whether you own a TV or not; there is not much you can do about it, unless you move abroad or become homeless or seek confrontation with the state. The article should thus also classify the different fees along this line. -- Sloyment (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
The result of the move request was: not moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 18:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Television licence → Broadcast receiving fee – Misleading title in many jurisdictions today.
Hi! Please update the map about the funding of European public broadcasters, because is incorrect about Portugal. Since 2014, the government has not directly funded RTP. It is funded by the broadcasting contribution tax and advertising revenue. (https://www.publico.pt/2019/02/19/politica/noticia/pcp-vai-propor-rtp-volte-receber-indemnizacao-anual-estado-1862561) {RTP began to be funded only by advertising and the broadcasting contribution tax in 2014. [in Portuguese] Thank you! 2001:8A0:F9B9:FB01:ADDD:F615:BB0A:BD26 (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
Article say that both Norway and Sweden are abolished television fees. But map say that they still have television license. Map should be update. --85.76.39.249 (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
The term "evasion" is POV. If every TV user has to pay for a license, and more and more people choose not to watch TV, it might be evasion or not, depending on the motivation. If someone who would otherwise watch TV refrains from doing so just to save money, it is evasion. If someone doesn’t watch TV because heorshe is not interested, it is not evasion. There is no way to find out the motivation, so the term "evasion" is an allegation. -- Sloyment (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply
You confuse two different things. Should I explain why? 85.193.215.210 (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have made edits to try to improve this article. A very large proportion of the article is taken up by details of individual countries' licensing arrangements. I think this could be distracting for most readers who want more of an overview about television licensing. I also think that separating them according to whether they currently, formerly or never had a licence is unhelpful, especially as some countries' classifications are a little ambiguous. I would therefore suggest leaving a summary of licensing by country in this article (perhaps by expanding on the table in the Europe section), then moving the remaining detail to a separate Television licensing by country article. But I would like to see if there is a consensus before starting such a large change. Any feedback on the other changes I have made is, of course, very welcome. --Mgp28 (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
The article lists Germany. However, in Germany there is no such thing as a TV license. While in the UK, watching TV is forbidden unless you pay for a license, i.e. your individual permit, receiving public broadcasts is a constitutional right in Germany, and no license is required whatsoever.
Until 2012, there was a TV fee that had to be paid if you owned a TV receiver. The idea behind it however, was not to pay for a license, but to pay for using the service of the public broadcasters, as the assumption was that anyone owning a TV receiver would watch their very good program 🙄. (This assumption is of course ridiculous.)
In 2013, the system was replaced by a broadcasting contribution that has to be paid by everyone living in an apartment, regardless whether they watch TV or not. Again, the idea behind it has nothing to do with a license. The idea is to pay for the mere ability to use the high quality program 🙄 of German public broadcasters. TV is usually consumed in apartments, so as long as you live in an apartment, even if you don’t own a TV, you could start watching at any time, and thus you benefit from that offer all the time. (Again, this assumption is of course ridiculous, but that is how the federal constitutional court has argued.)
As there is no TV license required, you won’t be in trouble for watching TV like in the UK, if you don’t pay. Instead, if you don’t pay the broadcasting contribution in Germany, you will be in trouble for not paying. Yo will be indebted and might be distrained after some time. Not paying it is also a contravention; so in theory, you might also be fined.
I think, the article Television license should cover only countries that really have a TV license. I don’t know if it’s just the UK, or if other countries use that model, too. Countries like Germany should go into a broader article, maybe called Financing of public broadcasting or similarly. -- Sloyment (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
