It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Compulsary tv license around 300 dollars a year

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:03 AM

originally posted by: uninfluenced
Okay to BrIts this is no shock, because you guys have sucked it up for decades and are used to it, but for no British did you know that
standard UK television has just 5 channels (cable/ satellite are via add on services and you need the box etc)

However, standard television is just 5 channels and you need to pay the equivelant almost or not that far off 300 bucks a year
Even poor old black and white televisions are in for the dip, it is not that far off 100 bucks a year

Bear in mind once again this is just for 5 basic standard channels, nothing else.

So, do you think it is fair? how would you feel if they introduced that in your country

It's actually a licence for only the BBC channels. ITV, C4 and C5 receive no money from the licence fee. This is why the BBC are commercial free while the others aren't.

Also, since the analogue to digital switch over, there's more than just 5 channels (everyone has, at least, a free-to-air TV box). Still, the TV licence is outrageous and so out-of-date.

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 08:29 AM
a reply to: motownredux
I would amend that.
As a licence, i.e. "permission to watch", it still applies to all the channels. It's not legally possible to say "I don't need one because I don't watch B.B.C." In fact, strictly speaking, the licence is for permission to use the equipment.
It's only the money received that is limited to B.B.C.

posted on Aug, 23 2014 @ 09:02 AM
a reply to: DISRAELI

yes, you're right. You can't have ITV without BBC with regards to a licence as it's compulsory. The point I was making was that only the BBC gain financially from the TV licence.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in