Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC. Under the proposed changes it would be expanded to cover all other online providers, such as Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, YouTube, which are currently exempt.
The Whitehall source explained that the move was “because people are able to use them to avoid paying currently”. They added: “It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”
Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying “everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet”.
At that point, you might as well just take it from the government budget.
If thats the case then, those streaming platforms should be free for the UK. They can use the TV licence to fund those subscriptions.
I thankfully use none of those services anyway.
Im not paying for Zionist propaganda
Its such a fundamentally stupid funding model. They really just need to get serious about how they plan to fund a national broadcaster in the 21st century - in the meantime I don’t see how they have any credibity to pressure people into paying it
At what point does the definition of “television content” stop? If independently produced and self-published video on YouTube counts, then what about videos on other social platforms? What about video on other sites? Does any HTML/webdav video stream count as “television content” now?
I’m not trying to invoke the “slippery slope” fallacy, but this stuff needs to be defined well in any applicable law, and if past and recent laws made about the internet in the UK are anything to go by, it absolutely won’t be…
So, here’s a better idea: how about instead of trying to charge people for watching YouTube, we tax the multi-trillion usd global mega corporation that owns it
Hear me out: an eye license. If a person has eyes, there’s a chance that they might be using them to consume some sort of video entertainment. And in that case, they clearly owe the BBC some money.
https://business.gov.nl/regulations/paying-home-copying/
The Netherlands has a Tax on any storage device that can hold mp3s.
hold it right there, sonny, you got a license to be gettin’ ideas?
You’ll need to include functioning hearing in that list, or just ears. The licencing fee covers radio too.
Looking forward to people going all Event Horizon on themselves to foil the TV licence folks.
As a vocal supporter of the BBC (yes even with all it’s many, many flaws) and am in favour in principal of the license fee, I don’t think this is an appropriate way to fill the black hole in their finances.
It should in fact just become part of general taxation as that’s the only way to make it fair. Even if you don’t consume their content, it provides a national service, it projects soft power abroad, it’s a primary news source for more than half a billion people and if that’s worth anything (in my view it is) then it should come out of the central budget.
As a vocal critic of the BBC, it should be defunded. It projects transphobic and zionist propaganda internationally, through heavily biased and manipulative reporting.
That’s mostly BBC news to be fair. Wouldn’t a change in management be just as effective at tackling those problems? Genuine question. The BBC used to be a left wing bastion.
Zionism yes, the trans and queerphobia is across it all. They’re cancelling lots of LGBT content, censoring t-shirts, doing JK Rowling documentaries, etc.
Cancelling lots of LGBT content
The production company that owns Drag Race decided they wanted to vastly increase the tariff in the next contract despite the BBC having to find half a billion in savings. The show now moves to that production company’s own streaming service. This is the story often when the BBC commissions a hit show from an indie - look at Bake-off as an example.
However, the production company (which specialises on the LGBT market) and a few others decided to make a fuss in their own interest about it because of course they would. Fact is, the BBC is cancelling a lot of content across the board, including relatively inexpensive things like You and Yours. Even the Archers is having severe budget cuts.
Did it? MI5 even had an office at Broadcasting House
Personally I actually think this is more reasonable. If you’re going to go as far as to charge everyone for it, you might as well do it means-based and have to compete with other funding.
The only problem with this is it potentially gives less independence from the government, which means that they will become even less critical of their agenda, and may lose more credibility.
The top two layers are literally stacked with Tories, it’s already biased as hell (I’ve posted peer reviewed papers on here previously that’s fact not opinion).
Changing the funding model doesn’t affect that.
Changes to remove overt bias can be done regardless of funding.
And further to that I note an article in today’s Guardian referencing a Reuters article (I’ll dig that out and update with it if I can find it)
“However, an international study has confirmed that the UK’s decision to allow politicians to present such shows is highly unusual across Europe. In 35 of the 37 European nations studied, regulators found no recent examples of serving politicians presenting news or current affairs programmes”
“The study, by an academic from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism for the Demos thinktank, will be used as evidence by critics who believe that Ofcom, Britain’s media regulator, has failed to protect impartiality by allowing the politician-led shows.”
But I don’t want to watch their content, regardless of whether I’m able to or not.
then you’re funding a valuable public service to others, that provides not only the news, weather, and eastenders, but also a host of revision tooling for students of all ages, language services, a public information broadcast point in case of national disaster, and so on. It’s not just about you and what you do or do not wish to watch. If you drive a car, a portion of the tax you pay still goes towards public transport services.
Then make it a tax.
This was going to be my answer but it apparently already is, officially, a tax.
I was using it as shorthand for “make it mandatory”. If I’m going to be forced to pay then I don’t want the pretence of choice, and it’d mean we could eliminate those TV Licensing arseholes too.
that was my point, it should be a tax
And my point was that it currently isn’t. While that remains the case I opt out. If the criteria for having to pay this optional tax is essentially “don’t use the internet” then it’s ridiculous to the point of me actively resenting them.
I agree fully.
If you’re charging for BBC services then charge for that, if you want to tax tv based entertainment, then be honest.
This “how do we word it do we can effectively tax everyone, but don’t have to admit that’s what we want” approach is bullshit.
It’s very specifically about what an individual does and does not wish to watch, because it only applies in certain circumstances. If it wasn’t about that, everyone would have to pay it regardless of usage.
Much like car tax is about whether or not a person drives a car.
I wasn’t referring to road tax, I was referring to income tax. just because I drive a car, I cannot (and should not) be able to reclaim the proportion of tax I pay that is put towards public transport infrastructure.
This’ll go down like a paper bag of vomit in a sauna.
We used to have that in Denmark too, even if you only had a mobile phone you’d have to pay, bEcAuSe InTeRnEt AcCeSs. but now “Danmarks Radio” is funded over the income tax.
DR is also a fraction of the size and scope of the BBC.
Also a fraction of the population. At the end what matters is funding per capita.
Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying “everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet”.
I think that it’s because the BBC puts content on YouTube (and I assume either doesn’t have ads enabled or wants more money than they generate).
I guess I could understand someone saying "well, with TV, I have to watch British broadcast or cable stations, and with YouTube, I don’t, but I’d think that the same would apply to TVs using satellite receivers, and I assume—though I don’t know, don’t live in the UK—that satellite TV users are also subject to the license fee.
More fool them if they don’t have ads on their own content
They are prohibited from running advertising on any BBC-branded service within the UK.
Which is fine for the UK pop but a YouTube channel can reach the whole world. The ad revenue must be high for those channels.
Not really. They oay a very low rate
Remember the scare stories of the TV licence vans
Except they did actually exist and did actually work.
https://youtu.be/U8mSHKsyWDwWell, for analog CRTs
Hmmm nah, they have a database of everyone with a licence plus the guy even said they can see the light of the TV through the windows.
Still think it’s scaremongering
Yeah, all the info in that video is super sketchy, the em interference signal it refers to would be detectable within a few inches at most with today’s technology
Uh huh.
Mate, I can hear the squealing whine of a flyback transformer through brick walls with my own ears. I DO NOT miss the days when everyone had two or three of the fucking things screaming away all day.
Detecting the magnetic flux those things produce isn’t magic, tricky, or a cover-up. It just requires a sensitive antenna array tuned to the right frequency.
Now, since the shift to flat panel displays a TV doesn’t announce it’s presence in such an obvious fashion. This makes detecting a TV a much more difficult prospect, arguably not impossible, but not likely within their budget nowadays.
