Back in January, Ashley Highfield claimed that:
…the number of homes that currently have no television licence, but that do have broadband subscription is currently estimated to be infinitesimally small.
Since moving house I find myself with the opportunity to join this ‘infinitesimally small’ group, and save myself £139.50 a year! At my previous flat I had more TV channels than I could count thanks to Virgin Media, however my new flat couldn’t have Virgin Media installed and the current TV aerial picks up a grand total of just three digital channels very badly. As such the TV set is now just used for DVDs and the Wii, I don’t live stream TV from the web but rather watch on-demand TV. I no-longer need a TV licence.
Whilst it is entirely possible that I may need a TV licence in the future (e.g., to stream a big news), that is not why I have decided to keep paying my licence. Despite recent polls finding that the moronic-majority believe the licence fee is a ‘rip-off‘, I believe it is worth it even without the ‘live’ TV. Is there a better way to start the day Radio 4? Is there a better online news service than BBC.com? Is there an on-demand TV service that reaches more devices than the iPlayer (excluding the copyright-happy-YouTube)?
The problem for the BBC is that not everyone thinks the same way as I do. People are more likely to focus on the personal saving of £139.50, rather than the national loss of a great independent broadcaster. The “infinitesimally small” group is going to increase quickly in the near future, and licensing laws need to reflect these changes. Why do you never find people campaigning for higher licence fees covering more devices??