Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not?

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by jasonkester on Saturday October 30, 2010 @01:36PM (#1851337)

I moved to England, which essentially made the decision for me:

  - TV license costs about $300/yr, which gets you...
  - something like 3 channels, which will show you...
  - one reality show
  - one popular soap opera
  - one admittedly good show about cars
  - lots of documentaries about cheese.  in Welsh.

TV is essentially not an option here.

Still, though, I get angry letters from the TV Licensing people several times per week. Different ones each time, with new creative threats about what will happen to me if I don't disclose the hidden TV they know I must have and pay up. If they'd simply put the people writing that stuff to work making television programs, they might be able to come up with something worth watching, thus prompting me to buy a TV and pay them money.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by corin_ on Saturday October 30, 2010 @04:36PM (#1851750)

Can't disagree enough. Rather than making arguments to defend the BBC, I'll leave that to Stephen Fry who does it significantly better than I would do.

Check out this speech he made on the subject: http://www.corincole.com/misc/Briefings_Stephen_fry.avi

(Also: s/$300/$233/)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by petercooper on Saturday October 30, 2010 @09:21PM (#1852214)

I'm against the TV licence, but your points are flat out incorrect. The TV licence costs £145.50 (about $233) per year and gets you approximately 50 TV channels (some in HD!): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_terrestrial_tel... (all those listed as "Free to view"). The BBC's output is typically high quality (BBC 4 being nearly entirely high brow documentaries) and is commercial free.

You're certainly welcome not to pay the licence fee and not watch TV, but spreading lies about how supposedly bad the British TV system is is disingenuous and perpetuates a silly North American myth similar to that about British food or teeth.

Now, I'm off to clean myself as I've just defended the licence fee, something I'm not entirely keen on myself ;-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by jasonkester on Sunday October 31, 2010 @04:22AM (#1852833)

To be a little more correct, that $233 doesn't actually buy you those 50 channels. You still need to get a cable or satellite subscription, since all you can pick up off the air are the aforementioned cheese documentaries.

All you're buying for the license fee is a break from the constant stream of anger and threats from the TV Licensing people.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by old-gregg on Saturday October 30, 2010 @02:40PM (#1851490)

In other words you can't own a TV? I have one and use it primarily as a monitor hooked up to PS2/BlueRay or a laptop every once in a while. It also has built-in Ethernet with Netflix. Just a tool to watch movies. I don't have cable and never use antenna. Just curious: if I lived in UK, sounds like I would have to pay someone $300/year for crap I don't use?

Thanks!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Have you cut the cord yet? Why? Why not? by samstokes on Saturday October 30, 2010 @03:10PM (#1851552)

You can own one without a license, so long as you don't receive live broadcasts.

However, the TV licensing authority operates in a paramilitary fashion, so they try to scare you into paying for a license even if you don't need one (as the GP describes).

[ Parent | on HN ]