For those outside the UK, let me just start by mentioning that we have to pay about 130 pounds, per year, to own a television. This money is paid to the BBC and is compulsory, regardless of what we watch. The "is this justified?" argument is an old one, and I'm not prepared to re-hash it now. But I will, however, add a new spin by asking "is it necessary?"

If you have a TV without a tuner (getting less difficult to find, these days) you don't need a license. If you don't have a video (which also has a tuning circuit) you similarly don't need a license. So, with a decent flat panel and a DVD player you can watch most good TV series without paying the license by buying or renting them on DVD. This is all legal.

After all - why do I need a TV?

My news comes from the radio and the Internet (no license required), and any big sports events will be on at the local pub. Current affairs are covered by my daily dose of the papers (<£1 each, or less if you travel on the right trains ;)

Now, with Amazon's DVD rental costs (£7.99 per month, for 4 DVD rentals) this equates to 2 quid per DVD, or £4 DVD per season of CSI (my current favourite). If I also rented 24, Futurama, The Simpsons, FarScape and Doctor Who, it'd still cost me 6 months of rentals which only clocks in at £48. That's almost a third of the license fee! And I'd still have the opportunity to rent several other DVDs within their '4 DVDs a month' budget.

Add in additional DVD rental companies, film rentals from the local store (for those Saturday night blockbusters we get on terrestial :) ) and the initial cost of a decent TV without a tuner, and you can profit by dumping your license! Those with satellite TV or cable can save on the rental, at the expense of other up front fees.

It's almost ironic. The only way to persuade people to keep their tunable TVs and pay the license fee is by dropping the radio, their on-line presence and all their DVD releases - all of which are essentially funded from the license in the first place!