Okay, we don't have that. I guess it's just a different way to achieve revenue and/or keep track?
My first impression is, on the one hand, it would seem to keep the network free from interference (eliminate the problem of needing to appease or being manipulated by some group that pays you to spit out the news they like). On the other hand, it allows a little too much freedom and chance for a monopoly. We have a few things here that are set up well in favor of particular entities and thus avoid a fair market.
***I am not politically-minded, really, I am sooo not. These ideas I'm giving are only about how something functions and not whether it's good or bad. I'm just interested and learning.
We have NPR which is supposed to be funded privately but, when I used to listen to it, there'd be hints of lack of neutrality.
So if we moved to England (I'd probably want to live in a place like the setting of "Midsomer Murders" (minus all those darn murders) or "All Creatures Great and Small"--very appealing settings), I would need to buy a license and then I'd get BBC and whatever other stations?
How does someone know if I skip the licensing?
TV licensing have a massive database of all UK addresses and if no TV licence is shown at that address, they harras and intimidate you by sending threatening letters, sending people round to 'inspect' your premises to see if you are watching TV, that sort of thing. They also bribe people who sell TV's to grass you up if you provide your name and address when you purchase a new set.
It's all pretty underhand and grossly unfair, but at least it keeps a bunch of metropolitan, out off touch riff raff of minimal intelligence in a manner they don't deserve, so it must be a good thing.
That's my completely unbiased and even handed opinion.