You really are a load of uncomprimising pillocks.
First of all, if you don't have a telly, you have nothing to fear. If you watch online only, as the BBC themselves tell you, you have nothing to fear.
Secondly, I imagine most of you had an education supplemented to some large degree by BBC output - either directly or indirectly.
Thirdly, if you're paying license fees despite having no tellies at work yet three laptops, then frankly, your business is probably not going to outsee the G20 conference, because you're a pillock. In fact, you're either King Pillock or King Troll. No License Required.
The age of blasting RF energy into the atmosphere is passed? Nice one, unicast boy. *You* make it work. Nobody else has. It's called broadcasting for a reason, and it still works. And even if you turn all the 50KW transmitters off, what then? Disable aviation radar, NDBs, VORs? Turn off all microwave ovens?
And surprise surprise, some of you expect something, once again, for free. Freetards. Maybe we should invent a term? License-feetards perhaps? The argument that you ultimately pay for ITV is a stretched one, admittedly - even if ultimately true - but someone has to pay for the BBC, and pay upfront. It's the deal, and it's written in black and white (and since 1969, in colour too..) Don't give me this crap you don't use it. Or that it just puts out American shows. (And anyway there are, actually, some good American shows.)
The BBC has a 90% weekly reach in radio and probably similar in telly. And weekly reaches, as the Reg readership stats presumably bear out, are always lower than monthly ones. That means, in any month, virtually all of the population consume the BBC's output to some degree. It's ad-free. It's reasonably unbiased. And it has to be paid for.
(Reach, in case you don't understand, is the percentage of the population who consume a product in a given period. 90% a week. Not bad for all the fuss people make, is it? Maybe that's the problem - 90% is too good. Success - and we know *how* we hate that don't we?)
If someone made an analysis of the ratio of quality to crap, or of homegrown to foreign talent, or risk-taking to risk-aversion, or any similar assessment, the BBC would be in the right.
Equally, you might argue the relationship of BBC-talent cost to ITV-talent cost is a skewed one, one where the BBC pays too much (and too much of our money); and I'd agree, and hopefully that will prove to be an short-lived aberrition. But that's a side issue.
I really wish we'd rebrand "TV licence" as "UK Culture Licence" - because that's what in effect it is. If that means having to dole some out to Channel 4, or to lesbian painters, then so be it.
As much as the Reg is - to its core audience (ie, presumably you) a British institution, standing for British values, culture and humour - so is the BBC, but on a scale that attempts to reach the *whole* population, rather than a purely IT-literate subset.
If you try to be all things to all men, then I suspect all men will have all things to say about you.
And it's not easy addressing the British population when 1 in 7 of the British population wasn't born here.
For Christ's sake, accept the BBC as about the only social glue we have left - assuming you're British, of course - and happily pay the fee.
And if you're still not convinced, ask yourself this: what would ITV or - heaven forfend, Heart FM - be like without the measure of BBC competition? And if you can't bring yourself to comtemplate that, imagine what the world would be like if the only IT website in the world were this one. I suspect even Jon Lettice would baulk at that.