TV Licence Fee Debate Continues

THE recent correspondence concerning TV licence fees in Namibia raises a number of important issues: Firstly, it is untrue to say that no TV licence fee is charged in other countries.

In the UK, for example, there has always been a statutory annual fee which is payable to the BBC by all owners or renters of television sets; failure to pay is a criminal offence. The fee originates in the historical public broadcasting remit of the national broadcasting body (the BBC) – monies raised went towards the commissioning of educational or ‘high culture’ programmes by the BBC (although it could be argued that the excellent standards once guaranteed by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s output are a thing of the past in these days of endless reality TV).Secondly, the TV licence fee concept was born at a time when the purchase of a television set specifically implied that it would be used to receive transmissions from the national broadcasting body.The fee purchased the rights to ‘receive’ these transmission signals for a year and a single one was bought by a household regardless of how many TV sets were owned or rented.A TV set in those early days was manufactured for no other purpose than to receive these terrestrial signals, and later those of the commercial television stations, hence the mandatory licence fee for all people who owned or rented a TV set – they simply could not argue that their TV was being used for any other purpose.If the TV licence fee here similarly buys the right to receive the signals that comprise the national broadcaster’s (NBC’s) programming, then why should those of us who never intend to watch NBC pay the fees? Nowadays it is possible to own a TV set or a monitor (in its various forms) with no intention of ever using it to receive a single programme from the national broadcasting body; indeed anyone in Namibia with any choice in the matter would surely use it to play DVDs, videos, computer games or watch DSTV – anything in fact, rather than watch NBC.Nevertheless, I always pay my licence fee despite the fact that of the number of monitors my family owns, not a single one receives, or is currently capable of receiving, programmes from NBC – I don’t even know where the TV aerial co-axial cabling is to be found in my house.I pay the fee to avoid the possibility of prosecution although, as the rudely-worded letter from Penduka NBC points out, I am technically obliged to pay a separate fee for each and every television set in my house (even broken ones?) although I would argue that I own no such thing as a ‘TV set’, only monitors for receiving a range of digital signals.Penduka NBC doubtless would argue that just because I claim not to watch NBC doesn’t mean that I don’t do so already, or that since I could in theory watch NBC if I chose to, I ought to pay for the ‘possibility’ that I might do so at some time in the next year.This is not a valid argument for two reasons: 1.A licence is purchased for a specifically-worded purpose, not for a potential event – for example, people who don’t currently own guns are not obliged to purchase a licence for firearms anyway, just in case they decide to go out and get a gun some time in the future.2.It is a easy matter to tell whether or not a household is receiving a particular TV signal (in this case NBC).Some simple equipment loaded onto a van can detect from the street which households are indeed availing themselves of the priveledge of watching a terrestrial channel such as NBC.Instead of sending us rudely-worded, misspelled – it’s a ‘licence’ (noun) NOT a ‘license’ (verb) – and threatening letters before our fees are even due, perhaps Penduka NBC could invest in this simple equipment and train some personnel in its use.They could then indeed collect the licence fee from people using the service provided by NBC and stop hassling the many Namibians who pay up each year for a service they would never dream of using.Anonymous Via e-mail * Note: Name and address provided – EdThe fee originates in the historical public broadcasting remit of the national broadcasting body (the BBC) – monies raised went towards the commissioning of educational or ‘high culture’ programmes by the BBC (although it could be argued that the excellent standards once guaranteed by the British Broadcasting Corporation’s output are a thing of the past in these days of endless reality TV).Secondly, the TV licence fee concept was born at a time when the purchase of a television set specifically implied that it would be used to receive transmissions from the national broadcasting body.The fee purchased the rights to ‘receive’ these transmission signals for a year and a single one was bought by a household regardless of how many TV sets were owned or rented.A TV set in those early days was manufactured for no other purpose than to receive these terrestrial signals, and later those of the commercial television stations, hence the mandatory licence fee for all people who owned or rented a TV set – they simply could not argue that their TV was being used for any other purpose.If the TV licence fee here similarly buys the right to receive the signals that comprise the national broadcaster’s (NBC’s) programming, then why should those of us who never intend to watch NBC pay the fees? Nowadays it is possible to own a TV set or a monitor (in its various forms) with no intention of ever using it to receive a single programme from the national broadcasting body; indeed anyone in Namibia with any choice in the matter would surely use it to play DVDs, videos, computer games or watch DSTV – anything in fact, rather than watch NBC.Nevertheless, I always pay my licence fee despite the fact that of the number of monitors my family owns, not a single one receives, or is currently capable of receiving, programmes from NBC – I don’t even know where the TV aerial co-axial cabling is to be found in my house.I pay the fee to avoid the possibility of prosecution although, as the rudely-worded letter from Penduka NBC points out, I am technically obliged to pay a separate fee for each and every television set in my house (even broken ones?) although I would argue that I own no such thing as a ‘TV set’, only monitors for receiving a range of digital signals.Penduka NBC doubtless would argue that just because I claim not to watch NBC doesn’t mean that I don’t do so already, or that since I could in theory watch NBC if I chose to, I ought to pay for the ‘possibility’ that I might do so at some time in the next year.This is not a valid argument for two reasons: 1.A licence is purchased for a specifically-worded purpose, not for a potential event – for example, people who don’t currently own guns are not obliged to purchase a licence for firearms anyway, just in case they decide to go out and get a gun some time in the future.2.It is a easy matter to tell whether or not a household is receiving a particular TV signal (in this case NBC).Some simple equipment loaded onto a van can detect from the street which households are indeed availing themselves of the priveledge of watching a terrestrial channel such as NBC.Instead of sending us rudely-worded, misspelled – it’s a ‘licence’ (noun) NOT a ‘license’ (verb) – and threatening letters before our fees are even due, perhaps Penduka NBC could invest in this simple equipment and train some personnel in its use.They could then indeed collect the licence fee from people using the service provided by NBC and stop hassling the many Namibians who pay up each year for a service they would never dream of using.Anonymous Via e-mail * Note: Name and address provided – Ed