So what do you do in the evening, then?

[davywavy]

In the comments to my post the other day, I mentioned that I don't own a TV. This is unusual - figures from the TV licensing people suggest that 99.5% of households in the country have a telly in them and such is the ubiquity of the gogglebox that the Joseph Rountree Foundation uses non-ownership of one as an indicator of poverty (this surprises me, as the people I know who don't own a TV tend to be both better educated and in better jobs than the average).
The are distinct advantages to not owning a TV. I don't run the risk of wasting my time watching witless crap like Eastenders, X-Factor, Big Brother or the new Doctor Who, and anything decent like Life on Mars I can pick up DVDs of at Cash Converters six months after they come out.
What was interesting about my comment was that it pulled out a number of other people on my friends list who don't own TV's. According to the above statistic, only one person in every 200 should be telly-less, and so I should only have one person reading me who doesn't as opposed to several which seems to be the case.

So, to satisfy my curiosity:

[Poll #1070038]

Comments

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Oh their call centre are monkeys, no question about it. And yes, you don't have to let the officials in when they come round - they have no warrent and are just pushy bastards, but last time I looked, there was something stipulating that if you had something that could recieve signals you had to cough up. Obviously this might just be well worded and not actually covered by law.

Since we listen to BBC Radio 2 (I'm a TOG and proud of it!) and I watch CSI when there's a new series out, but that's it. Of course I AM addicted to BBC costume dramas - but I buy them on DVD rather than watch them on TV. Mmmmm! Colin Firth in a wet shirt! Mmmmmmm!

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

Mmmmm, BBC costume dramas!

They're also claiming if you have a computer or a mobile phone, you have to pay a license fee. Apparently because these devices are capable of receiving a television signal. Uh-huh.

[elbly.livejournal.com]

Obviously it depends on the actual computer or mobile phone, but yes, in theory if you can recieve the signal then you probably should pay the licence fee.

It might be an outdated system, but we shouldn't expect something for nothing - if someone opts to buy a phone that can recieve a TV signal then they should consider the implications of it - and to be honest the phone company should probably include a monthly licence fee in the cost of the contract.

I think it's just getting to the point now where we're going to have to accept that either we pay per view, or we have to have adverts every 5 minutes that we can't delete.

[vulgarcriminal.livejournal.com]

But most phones and computers aren't actually capable of receiving the signal. Computers need specific TV tuner cards.... and the BBC uses Real Player, which is the biggest pile of crap ever and requires all sorts of special software. Phones, again, require massive upgrades to play streaming media. Or at least media of any significance. Just because they so happen to be capable of receiving clips, doesn't mean they should be subject to the license fee.

I think I'd rather have the advertising. But then, I is American.

Honestly though, the BBC receives quite a lot of revenue from product placement anyway, there's already plenty of advertising in their programs. It wouldn't be a big switch.