Corporate law and economics textbooks in India invariably have a lengthy discussion on why licensing was required and why it was subsequently abolished except for a few very specific industries of national security importance. India of course, got the licensing idea from UK, and zealously intially applied it to as many products as it could. My grandparents and even parents can remember the days when television sets and radio sets were licensed to residential users. Now, the consumer is king in India, and there is really no question of licensing TV sets.
Therefore, in the UK, I was quite surprised to discover that the license raj continues even today, and that people continue to pay TV Licence fees without demur. License applies to any TV receiving equipment- including freeview boxes connected to the laptop, and TV cards on the PC, not just the actual TV set. The license fee involved is not a very large amount- £140 for a color TV license. But, it's the principle of the thing. Why should I pay for a license, about as much as what it would cost to buy a basic TV? If I buy a TV set worth £700, the license fees that I pay effectively double the price of the TV over the average useful life of the TV (not considering th time value of money, or the salvage value of the TV). Also, the license fees are directed to the BBC, which does not have any advertising revenue at all. However, the recent controversies that the BBC has been involved in highlighted the huge paychecks that some of their star presenters are getting- who is Jonathan Ross and why should he get so many millions? And how does Russell Brand deserve his paycheck? Why should my money go towards financing the lifestyles of bratty people who are famous just for being famous?
Therefore, in the UK, I was quite surprised to discover that the license raj continues even today, and that people continue to pay TV Licence fees without demur. License applies to any TV receiving equipment- including freeview boxes connected to the laptop, and TV cards on the PC, not just the actual TV set. The license fee involved is not a very large amount- £140 for a color TV license. But, it's the principle of the thing. Why should I pay for a license, about as much as what it would cost to buy a basic TV? If I buy a TV set worth £700, the license fees that I pay effectively double the price of the TV over the average useful life of the TV (not considering th time value of money, or the salvage value of the TV). Also, the license fees are directed to the BBC, which does not have any advertising revenue at all. However, the recent controversies that the BBC has been involved in highlighted the huge paychecks that some of their star presenters are getting- who is Jonathan Ross and why should he get so many millions? And how does Russell Brand deserve his paycheck? Why should my money go towards financing the lifestyles of bratty people who are famous just for being famous?
In any case, I have never been a huge fan of watching TV- even when faced with over a 100 channels to watch, I'd ending up exercising my fingers, going through the whole range of channels forwards and backwards for atleast an hour before giving up saying "There's nothing to watch on TV". Other people can't believe I can exist without a TV- I've seen some really shocked faces when they find out, but I've got enough things on my plate that I probably need a few more plates. So, at the moment, I don't miss a TV, but when I finally get around to feeling bored on a weekend, maybe, then I'll just have to forget 'the principle of the thing'!
But, I digress. What I was originally planning to write about, was that the TV licensing bureau actually implements its rules. So, when I moved into my current apartment, I got about three letters from the TV Licensing Board (addressed to the previous resident), asking for the license to be renewed. I naturally ignored the letters. Yesterday, I got a visit from the board, to check whether I indeed didn't have a TV. But, they've made their note on the records- "recently moved in, no TV"