The problem with encrypting state owned TV is that when people have the option of not paying to watch the channels, many of them won't thus depriving the state of revenue.
(The Beeb isn't exactly 'state' in the UK's case but it may as well be for the purpose of licensing)
Well... maybe rightly so.
If the state (and I don't use the word government here for a reason) deems it necessary to provide quality! TV (unbiased and comprehensive news coverage, documentaries) for the masses, it should be financed using tax money just like public roads. I'm not paying VAT for nothing. At least in Germany the public TV stations get their money anyways, so they might as well choose the less obnoxious way. Getting rid of the tv-fee-collecting-agency might save money too. If it were handled that way I could accept it as a given thing, no need for decoder boxes as well. Unfortunately these stations try to compete with private stations, which waters down the quality a lot. As I don't need the same crap I can have for free on private stations, quality must be #1 objective. Unfortunately the ones in charge mostly don't seem to feel that way.
There's also a tendency of dumbed down viewers. Too much 'big-brother' and all the other 'make me a rock star' shows. It's a terrible thing when I have to feel ashamed for somebody else.
A bridge too far in an election year I fear Madworm.....
At the moment all is quiet on the TV licensing front, and I suspect the politicians are happy for it to stay that way. The last time it made the news was when the Beeb put out something the Government didn't like and it everyone with an axe to grind was in calling for changes to the Beebs funding. The government likes to think the BBC is state television and the BBC likes to think it isn't. Status Quo rules OK in an election year.......
Elections... don't get me started on that topic. In my country there's bound to be some election (either on state or local level) taking place all the time. That's always a good excuse to keep the status quo. Let's put changes off till after the most imminent election... a crooked business.
I'm really starting to like the fact that e.g. the president of the US can only do the job for two consecutive terms. I'd like to see that for our governments as well. People could concentrate on the job and not worry about re-election. I'm not talking about political parties but individuals btw.
I'd go for that here as well, but I'd want to keep the relatively short election process. The US system would drive me nuts.
A bit late, but here's my tuppence worth...
The BBC do not collect the licence fee, the TV licence people are completely separate (it's a hypothecated tax rather than a fuction of the BBC).
The licence is for equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast. The iPlayer is therefore largely exepmt as there isn't all that much live broadcast stuff available - but if you don't have a licence you shouldn't watch it. For the moment if you don't have a telly you'll be fine without a licence.
I'd suggest giving them your details and letting them in for a look round, it'll mean the letters should reduce to about once a year.
If they keep on at you reply and say that it's harrassment and you will contact the police if it doesn't stop. This will work better if you have been compliant (let them in for a look, given your details).
Remember - they have no right to enter your house. The only people who can enter your house whenever they want are Customs & Excise. The TV Licence people can't demand entry. If they turn up with the police even they don't have a right to enter your house without a warrant, but I suggest you don't let it get this far.
In summary, you will be punished for not owning a telly but if you comply now it should become minimal fuss.
If your local supermarket sent you a letter saying that they had no record of you ever paying for anything in their store, so the logical conclusion is that you are obtaining goods from them by shoplifting, they then offer you two alternatives, you can pay them £145 (and increasing) per year in which case they will happily forget the matter, or they will send somebody round to search your house to satisfy themselves whether you are a criminal or not and then keep your details in their database indefinitely, which one would you choose?
I have already told them that there is not a television at this address and I have now received a letter telling me that the property is now 'officially' under investigation by one of the enforcement 'officers'.
This doesn't matter two hoots to me, but how many people have money extorted from them by the threatening tone of the letters from this company?