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.
At that point fold it as you’ve lost the point of it existing. I was lucky enough to grow up in Prime BBC times when they worked with industry to help education thrive. Where is the BBC micro movement for this generation and the shows to match oh no they’d rather try to be Netflix.
You’re a public service first and foremost then a world service, then you can start thinking like a traditional corpo.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 so 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.
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.
Genuine question, which part of this is referring to income tax?
The only tax reference i’m seeing is the one that specifically prefaces it with “if you drive a car”.
Another genuine question, i’m not seeing how
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.
Relates to anything in my reply.
Not looking for a fight , it seems i’m legitimately missing something important here.
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.
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.”
As a vocal critic of the BBC, it should be defunded. It projects transphobic and zionist propaganda internationally, through heavily biased and manipulative reporting.
Don’t forget their Yellow Middle East (or Latin America) Filter, or Gray Communism Filter they always make sure to use when reporting on the rest of the world outside the European Garden.
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.
Im not paying for Zionist propaganda
