Netflix users face being forced to pay the TV licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC, under plans being explored by officials.
One option for the future funding of the corporation is to make households who only use streaming services pay the annual charge, it was reported on Tuesday.
Bloomberg said the plan has been discussed by the Prime Minister’s office, as well as the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Other options include allowing the BBC to advertise, imposing a specific tax on streaming services, and asking those who listen to BBC Radio to pay a fee.
On Tuesday, the DCMS said the Netflix proposal was not under “active consideration” but did not rule out that the option was on the table.
The BBC’s charter ends at the end of 2027, and Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, is looking at ways to keep the corporation well funded at a time when more people are gravitating toward on-demand services such as Disney+.
Critics say the licence fee dates from a time when consumers had no choice but to watch programmes at the time of broadcast.
It currently costs households who watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer £169.50 a year, an amount that usually rises annually with inflation.
Even if they don’t watch BBC programmes, households are required to hold a TV licence to view or stream programmes live on sites including YouTube and Amazon Prime Video.
It is not, however, needed if people only watch on-demand, non-BBC content.
If the licence fee is expanded to those who only watch video-on-demand, it could risk a backlash from consumers who may argue they already pay subscriptions for the same services.
Another option under consideration includes making users of the BBC’s on-demand app pay a subscription fee rather than the licence, mirroring the business model of services like Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime and Apple TV.
Ministers are also looking at tiering the licence fee so that lower-income households don’t pay the same rate as more affluent users.
Another option was to leave the licence fee largely as it is, with a few tweaks, but with better enforcement, a person familiar with the internal deliberations said.
A spokesman for the DCMS said that they wouldn’t comment on “speculation”, adding: “We will provide more details about charter review plans in due course.”
A government source said the process was at an early, information-gathering stage and was not being actively considered by Ms Nandy.
Say I lived there. BBC needs fundings I get it, but what the BBC contributes to when I watch VoD? Not even watching live programmes as zero of the content have BBC ever contributed. When the content is licensed via BBC, I already paid part with my subscription. Thst’s a disgusting double dipping. If no one watches your programmes that’s your problem, and citizens have no responsibility to keep a corporate from collapsing. This shit reminds me of how NHK works in Japan.
Just fund it with taxes, you dolts. Should’ve done it in the first place. It’s a function of the state, like anything else that some people use and some people don’t.
there are just a few countries that work this way japan is another one
Oi oi matey, u got a loicence for that
tellystreamin’ service?Stupid
Sweden did something similar for a long time, making every owner of a TV pay a license fee. Then the enforcing body tried to reclassify all computers as TVs, including smartphones, since these could technically access the online streaming version of the state-owned media. A ridiculous interpretation that was ultimately struck down in court.
All this did was cause unnecessary friction, and kept a bunch of really useless people on payroll to collect this fee.
We resolved it in the end by just making it a tax instead, and it’s never been better. Rest in piss, Radiotjänst, nobody ever liked you
Was same in Finland, we also nowdays just apply a income dependant tax here.
Sounds like a good way for Mr Pirate Fire Stick Man to sell more of his £50/year IPTV packages.
It’s already easy enough for the average joe to do this. Having the BBC double-dip their Netflix sub may well be the push that has them cancel subs & go ‘elsewhere’.
If we want a public broadcaster, it should be recognised as a national service and funded directly through tax. Unfortunately, that would put a lot of Crapita licence fee collector dogs out of a job and we simply can’t have that(!).
Just look at the crap you get shoved through your door if you decide not to play their game: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/
Before anyone mentions that you can submit a ‘no licence needed’ declaration - they’ve got no business even knowing my name, let alone my media choices.
They also actively ignore those ‘No licence needed’ declarations, I’ve submitted three, two online and one by mail and they still routinely threaten to show up on my doorstep ‘any day now’
Why ask me to declare it if you’re going to ignore that? There’s probably cause for a complaint there but I’d rather not waste the oxygen.
I just treat their letters as scrap paper or kindling. They are very carefully worded to give the illusion of power where there is practically none. Capita are masters in mismanagement, so I’m not surprised your declarations have been ignored in the past. Just don’t bother.
If you’re truly not doing anything required to have a licence, then they can’t prove you do. Licence dodgers are usually clever enough to not give it away too.
Don’t answer the door to them on the rare off chance they come prospectively calling. If you do, just close it on the scum without a word, and go about your day. No warrant = no entry.
Lol, fuck the BBC, bunch of transphobic asses who every many think are ‘unbiased’ but have showed that they’re not or that ‘unbiased’ is not the way to be if they are as it causes harm.
I hope they die off.
The UK, one of the worst countries.
Nah,
Not even the tram can kill you
But politics and toxicity will make you wish
Why not make everyone pay? That’s how it’s done in Austria or Germany
It’s much less bureaucracy
Edit: And most people who claim that they never saw something from BBC on YouTube or heard it somewhere are lying. Let’s be real
Yeah, but hardly any
This is a tough one! Since we don’t have concrete numbers, any guess is going to be very broad. But, based on the information we have, here’s a very rough stab at it:
I’d guess that BBC content likely accounts for somewhere between 1% to 5% of the total video views on YouTube in the UK. Here’s my reasoning:
- YouTube’s sheer size: YouTube is absolutely massive. The amount of video uploaded every minute is staggering. Even if the BBC has millions of views, it’s still a drop in the ocean.
- Global vs. UK: While BBC content is popular in the UK, it doesn’t have the same global appeal as some of the biggest YouTube channels.
- Niche focus: The BBC’s YouTube presence, while strong in certain areas like news and music, isn’t trying to compete with the general entertainment that dominates YouTube. Important Caveats:
- This is a VERY rough guess. It could be higher or lower.
- “Content” is hard to define. This guess assumes we’re talking about official BBC uploads, not fan clips or anything like that.
- Viewing habits change. What people watch on YouTube is constantly evolving, so this is a snapshot in time.
Ultimately, without more data, it’s impossible to be more precise. But hopefully, this gives you a general sense of where BBC content might fit in the vast landscape of YouTube.
Obviously that’s asking AI to guesstimate. But there’s a bunch of channels people watch more than the BBC on YouTube, should we pay them too?
The BBC isn’t a government body and isn’t funded by taxes, it’s primarily funded by the license fee (and selling broadcasting rights overseas).
The internet has royally fucked the funding model - as everyone and their mum has equipment capable of receiving live broadcast tv, but unless it becomes an official government mouthpiece it’s unlikely to become something we pay for out of taxes.
becomes an official government mouthpiece
Uh… “becomes”?
It’s not a government body, so it can’t be official. The closest it gets is unofficial mouthpiece for the British Establishment™.
This is also known as “taxes”
Taxes aren’t collected for a specific purpose. Any tax can be used for any purpose a state sees fit (e.g. income tax may be used for infrastructure, schools or defense).
The “Rundfunkbeitrag” is a purpose-bound fee which can only be used for the public service broadcasting.
Edit: It’s a mandatory fee like you’re forced to pay for waste disposal. Not a tax.
TV licence costs don’t go to the BBC. Parliament gets a number and decides how much to send the BBC.
Call it like you want, in the German Sphere they are explicitly not taxes. The politicians don’t decide over the sum, and also the state doesn’t charge it directly, it’s the broadcasters.
But it’s important that public broadcasting is well funded to provide a good alternative to the private shit media owned by billionaires and not having your interests in mind
“No! We cannot demand higher taxes to wealthy families to pay the BBC! That would create a big black hole and destroy us all!”
