The original point of the UK's receiver licensing program was to fund
government broadcasting (BBC).

Is BBC self-funding now?

Today, I suspect that the TV license
program is simply a profit center, and they don't want to stop it
because the loss of revenue would be too great.

I'm not sure what your definition of profit is but it appears to differ
from mine. If TV license fees are being used to fund BBC operations,
then any profit would be the tax revenue, less the expense to collect
it, less the expenses of the BBC.


I'm surprised that they
would sentence people to prison for not having a license. Wouldn't a
fine be more appropriate? Of course, since the govt is incompetent, they
try to get license fees out of people who don't own a TV.

That's a pretty strong and all encompassing statement. What makes you
think all of the UK government is incompetent.

Here in
America, we have big business not paying taxes at all while poor people
trying to claim a tax credit specifically designed for them are audited
and prosecuted mercilessly for no reason at all other than that rich
people are allowed to cheat on taxes while the poor are not.

Corporations (big or small) don't pay taxes??? Not the last time I
looked at the numbers.

If people are eligible for an EITC under the rules in place then they
should get it. Otherwise they shouldn't. Period.

At least we
don't have to license our TVs to the govt-a big advantage of not having
an official broadcaster.

Nope, but we get to pay all sorts of income, sales, utility, property,
etc., taxes. Fact is it takes money to run a government and that money
comes from a variety of sources. And we use the tax structure to
support media access programs for the disadvantaged. Look at your
cable and telephone bill.

At least the UK doesn't license radios anymore.
I have a British radio from about 1970 that I bought on Ebay, a
transistor model with LW/MW/FM, and the license number is on the bottom.
Quite an interesting artifact.