I've always begrudged paying for a TV license, as I'm sure many others do.
Maybe this attitude was born from being on the receiving end of a constant barrage of their bully-tactic threat-letters long before I was ever in a position to need a TV license, and for several years after I actually owned one- which only the threat of legal action for harassment seemed to abate.
Maybe it stems from the annoyance at the BBC's business model of extorting money from the public for opting to own a product capable of receiving their programming- whether they chose to or not- while every other TV channel seems capable of generating their own funding.
Or perhaps it's just because, in general, BBC programmes are shite. Even the news, which has become increasingly and more-obviously biased over the last decade-or-so, isn't worth bothering with anymore.
I find it quite staggering in this day-and-age that this archaic system still exists- not only that a company can forcibly extract money from someone for a service they don't use, but that the same company can also dictate one's right to use the services of its competitors. When you think of it like that, it's madness.
One wonders where the money actually gets spent- or wasted, as is a more fitting description. Probably a large portion disappears in paper, envelopes and postage for their threat-letters.
I've very recently joined the Netflix fold, and I'm already a huge fan. Had I still been in the UK, I would have cancelled my TV license with immediate effect, such is the quality of programming and cost-saving to be had with Netflix. Granted, I'm no telly-addict, but there's plenty of content on there for me to justify making it my only TV service provider, not forgetting that I can watch it as-and-when I choose, and all at half the price (or less) of a TV license.
It would be an interesting experiment if for one year TV licences were cancelled and the BBC had to raise its revenue by other means- either advertising or subscription-based services. I suspect they would have a hard-sell on their hands- people have already seen 90% of their programming a dozen times over- which is why the Beeb sh*t themselves every time the threat of a debate on the matter rears it's head.
I don't think it's beyond the realms of reality to see a future when conventional TV broadcasting as we know it ceases to exist; VOD has very quickly proved not just to be a viable option but in general a better option, and one that has become very popular very quickly. News channels such as Sky and Euro News have been doing live streaming for some time.
If all the content of all the channels that broadcast was simultaneously available on-demand, then there would be virtually no argument for the content to be broadcast at all. The streaming of live events can and may well replace the need for live broadcasting.
If and when that day comes, the BBC's years of complacency will ensure that they are f*cked, and the only indicator that many people will have that the BBC no longer exists will be the fact that they are £147 a year better off and that there are no new repeats of QI appearing on Dave.
