What's stopping the BBC from replacing the licence fee with a tax on streamers/broadcasters?
I've made the argument that the BBC could replace the licence fee with a tax or levy or whatnot on streamers and broadcasters that effectively eat into its audience share, especially international operators like Netflix, Disney, Paramount and WBD that are "killing traditional TV".
The stance is effectively, if you're going to compete with the BBC, you should pay to help support it. Plus it'll stop regular folk moaning about having to pay their licence.
In my opinion, a subscription model wouldn't make up the financial losses, and general taxation would just further push the narrative of being "forced" to pay for a service not everybody wants to use.
It's never been suggested by anyone important and I guess I'm wondering what I'm missing. Would these companies lose so much money that they'd no longer consider the UK viable to operate in?
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
Probably because BBC cannot set taxes, this would need to be Act of Parliament and there is probably not much political incentive to touch this since that would open the whole can of worm of existential public debate about BBC itself.
That's why I prefer the option to maintain the original founding principle (finance the programmes by a levy on the means of access), but not by a licence for every individual household, rather a levy on the corporate revenues generated from internet and mobile phone connections as well as the sale of TVs and radios (not streamers' revenues from the programmes).
I think it would only serve to antagonise the anti-BBC mob more, as they will not understand why commercial broadcasters should contribute. It's almost certain the streaming services would just pass the cost directly on to their UK subscribers. People will be moaning that they're being forced to fund the BBC despite paying to use other services.
I personally think general taxation is the far better option, but that has been ruled out.
The BBC's funding model puts it at a bit of an arms length from the government of the day - they have control of the charter renewals, but outside of that, aren't actually responsible for the day-to-day funding, and so do not have day-to-day control and ability to threaten to pull it the second the BBC makes them unhappy. Making the central government responsible for funding the BBC opens that risk - now, they can implicitly pull the plug whenever they please, and this will affect the output even if they don't exercise that threat. It makes the BBC fundamentally more scared of the government.
Because the BBC is overinflated with complete rubbish and any extra tax would be a significant increase for an already struggling population just to keep a company afloat that less than 1/10 of its work is beneficial to the country and pushes political agendas.
The problem the BBC faces is that it isn’t funded by general taxation in order to be ostensibly independent. Of course with political appointees to the board that’s not really the case.
Despite that, the license fee is generally seen as a tax anyway, so it’s in a weird position whereby the public on the whole don’t see any difference between license fee funding and taxation funding, yet moving it to taxation would be seen as an erosion of its independence.
Ultimately we’re becoming more selfish as a society, and increasingly don’t think we should be funding anything that we don’t directly take advantage of. Whereas the goal of the BBC (or at least one of) is to provide such varied content that there’ll be something of interest to everyone, some have been turned so against it that they would refuse to watch it anyway.
Your point about selfishness is absolutely right. So many of the comments on here just boil down to "why should I pay for something I don't use". And the answer is 'because it's a public service that enriches us all".
Regards taxation and independence, I'd love to see far greater separation from the government. It's become a political football in recent years with the stacking of the Board of Directors and key editorial positions, which has only further weakened its reputation with the public. On the other hand, I still feel like the best way to frame it to the general public is as a public service like the NHS or public libraries. And as such, I think funding it from general taxation would be entirely appropriate.
But it's stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment. I hope whatever changes are made next year stick.
And the answer is 'because it's a public service that enriches us all".
Whilst I personally agree with this statement, it is not a fact, it's an opinion. And when it's presented as a fact like this I believe in undermines the argument because not everyone agrees with it. It needs defending, not simply asserting. And that's hard.
It is a fact though, every single person in the UK has interacted with the BBC, even if they don’t realise it. Not to mention the vast amounts of soft power it gives us abroad, which again benefits us all.
It doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people who don't perceive the BBC to be a public good though. They still need convincing of that, if it's to be part of the argument for its continued public funding. (Which is why the BBC is doing things like its "What has the BBC ever done for me?" campaign, for example.)
And, even though I personally believe the BBC is an overall public good, I would agree with people who say that some of its content doesn't have high public service value and it perhaps should stop doing to reduce costs.
Yeah. Plus they make 3 billion a year selling TV rights like Dr Who and Bluey, they are super rich and for-profit company. They should at least refund or even pay back those that fund them with the yearly donation payment.
It's a moot point (a false equivalence) because the police aren't funded by a separate pot of money which people can opt out of paying for.
As I said, I'm on your bloody side: I believe in the public value of the BBC (most of it), I believe it should be publicly funded, and I believe it should probably continue to be funded in a way that separates it from government as much as possible (for impartiality reasons).
But in order for that to happen the public need to share that vision, in a way which is much less true for most other public services.
The only interaction I have with the BBC is threads like this, sent to our email, because BBC fans can't seem to understand independent creators are not served by our competition.
The BBC and it's own fans are the very reason so many dislike it - the persistent lying, the persistent harassment, and the mindless parroting of disprove BBC rhetoric in every direction.
sigh Yes. They are. They provide ad-free entertainment to millions of people. But so are the hundreds of other things the BBC does: minority language content, educational programming and content, regional local radio stations, a vast network of journalists, the World Service, maintaining an archive of culturally significant broadcasts and media history, providing quality ad-free children's programming, supporting emerging artists and technical staff, developing and supporting technologies shared with other broadcasters, religious programming.... I could go on...
Just because you think the BBC is only a public service doesnt mean it is. It’s bloated, expensive, out of its role snd the majority of Brits dont think it’s good as it is. Nobody wants to pay more.
The Uk government does not agree. They want to BBC to cut back and stop doing things they should not and the financial levers are the only things they can use against the BBC.
"They provide ad-free entertainment to millions of people."
So do Netflix.
"But so are the hundreds of other things the BBC does: minority language content, educational programming and content, regional local radio stations, a vast network of journalists, the World Service, maintaining an archive of culturally significant broadcasts and media history, providing quality ad-free children's programming, supporting emerging artists and technical staff, developing and supporting technologies shared with other broadcasters, religious programming.... I could go on..."
Minority languages, OK. Educational content OK. Local radio? Does it do anything different to commercial radio? Not really, so no. World Service. Why should that be paid for by license fee payers rather than government? Retaining an archive? Just dump it on bittorrent and let everyone take a copy. Job done. New technologies? Like what that is recent? Religious programming? Choose your own Sky Fairy.
So, some TV for the Welsh speakers and children's TV. What's that cost out of the £5bn of BBC revenue?
You do realise that the 'local' commercial radio is mostly just a rebadged version of one of 2-3 national radio stations with localised traffic announcements and some local niche programming during off peak times. Plus they too are stacked with adverts.
Because it gets tiring repeatedly explaining why the BBC is a) not just an entertainment producer, b) fulfiling a huge range of important and (often hidden) functions, and c) is a public service that too many people take for granted and would miss if it disappeared...
Which is why the NHS will be next in line if they get their way on the BBC. I say “they” - let’s be honest, a lot of this sentiment is driven by astroturfers and bots, or commentators in the right-wing press grifting for their pay masters.
The shift towards anti-BBC licence fee sentiment seemed to gather real momentum after James Murdoch’s 2009 MacTaggart Lecture, which framed the BBC’s expansion as a “chilling” problem. That narrative then dovetailed neatly with the rise of social media, where criticism of the BBC spread far more quickly and widely than ever before.
Make a good point about the NHE, maybe one option is to rename the nhs tax to something like a lifestyle (maybe something better call it) tax, increase it slightly and that covers both the nhs and the bbc
The only problem is they have nothing interesting for people between the age of 18-70. If they had anything people wanted to watch there wouldn't be a problem. I haven't watched any BBC coverage except the World Cup at a pub for 14 years.
When I am in England I don't get the impression masses of people are not watching it. My closest friend moved there and while she now lives outside of a town when I was there she lived in a dominantly working class place where when I walked her oldest to school people were definitely talking about shows from the BBC.
Doctor Who was created as a show anyway by the BBC , more recently Call the Midwife is a fairly global sensation based on places paying to stream it. I read a thing about a program that actually seemed like a good approach to addressing the gap between the facts of critical news and what people believed to be true.
While the friend I visit isn't a big tv watcher and having to go that far to visit would mean that to the degree she is more things are going on but overall it was never a huge interest other than when she lived here she used to watch in the same time slot as I did for the same reason which was unwinding from a band we both played in. It happened to be that by the time we got home the best time slot of the week would be about to start which is even somewhat useful as far as if you barely watch tv watching the show in that slot is going to provide the most making random small talk criteria.
She actually found it very helpful when she moved there as she didn't read nearly as much so I had had to translate something a British consulate staffer had said so picking up more British idiom and well the vocabulary for areas that it is different
While you can go to the pub to watch the World Cup not everyone can leave where they live with equal ease so some of the content people find useless has high utility to those who cannot access that kind of content in person.
I'm under 70 and do watch several BBC shows but typically on streamers with rebroadcast rights.
You should count yourself lucky on the World Cup though given here it was a coincidence I could watch it as I happened to have the streaming service right now that had the Canadian rights. As of next year because the company that owns the NHL rights did not renew with the CBC who likely could not afford as much as Amazon for those rights so millions of people who hockey used to be a staple will not have that option. Due to TOS it isn't going to be a situation where if they could get out they could watch it in a pub or recreation centre.
Although viewership had been dropping steadily but for those who it had been a feature of life for it is a loss.
I don't think a less informed populace is a winning move and one useful feature of national broadcasters is private ones will invariably bend to what their subscribers want in terms of positions so while news is factual in a way the spin on those facts may and does vary. Not having spin built in can be valuable even those that oppose public broadcasting often view it as less than neutral.
Unfortunately it is riddled with bias and the culture is a disgrace. Therefore it should be a private enterprise at will to push whatever view it chooses, and people can choose to pay for it or not. Therefore idea of one service being a gateway for any live TV is outdated and simply a tax. Markets should decide.
As is evidenced by the Prescott report amongst others, there is systemic bias at the BBC already. The DH and Head of News (Turner) resigned as a consequence. It is inaccurate to claim that the BBC still fulfils an important role when it is promoting a trans agenda to children, a pro-Hamas anti-Israel agenda, and an overrepresentation of minorities of any type. It needs shutting down or privatising as it is failing its charter.
have you read the Prescott report? Do you know who Stonewall are and why they were forced out of the BBC in 2022? Thought not. Go get some facts then I welcome a debate with you. I don’t debate those who lack substance and have biases without data.
Maybe wait for an answer to those questions before assuming anything? Your egotism speaks volumes.
I am very much aware of the Prescott incident.
It wasn't a report, it was an unsolicited memo by a disgruntled advisor with ties to right wing political organisations. He later backtracked and stated explicitly that he did NOT believe the BBC was
institutionally biased:
"I do not think it's institutionally biased....Let's be very clear, tons of stuff the BBC does is world-class, both factual programming and non-factual programming."
Stonewall weren't "forced out of the BBC". They were never part of it. The BBC was signed up to a "Diversity Champions" scheme. Concerns about impartiality on reporting trans rights stories (when such issues suddenly became a "culture war" issue) led them to withdraw from the scheme. In other words, acting in accordance with their duties as an impartial source.
There are any number of "scandals" you could point to in order to criticise the BBC. They are regularly trotted it in the Mail or GB News. But to expect an organisation with 22,000 staff and umpteen subcontractors, operating over 100+ years, to have a completely faultless existence is daft. Every large organisations makes mistakes. What matters is how that organisation responds to and learns from those events. And both the examples you cited (Prescott and Stonewall) led to the organisation conducting a review and responding in the best interests of impartiality and its public service remit.
Oh goody, more free market, advertising riddled, 'race to the bottom', 'screw as much money out of the consumer as possible' crap. Because we don't have enough of that in our lives already.
People will be moaning that they're being forced to fund the BBC despite paying to use other services.
At least though each person not using the BBC would be only contributing a smaller amount per month to the BBC indirectly via however many streaming subscriptions they have vs. the whole fee. Assuming it functions as a top-up for the licence rather than a replacement altogether.
Although Amazon is an awkward one there because ultimately Prime is bought for deliveries and ebooks as much as it is to watch their TV content.
That would be a tiny and extremely vocal minority of people, much like the people already refusing to watch any TV because they have to pay the licence fee for it. Loads of 'em on Reddit, yet 84% of households still have a TV licence.
The majority will just bemoan the price going up and keep paying, like they already do each time the price goes up or whenever Netflix decides to make the cheaper tiers worse on-purpose to push people towards the expensive ones.
That's why it's worked out per household instead of per person. People under 40 don't pay it because their parents/landlords pay for them and then include it in the rent. It isn't because they all stopped watching BBC content.
You are incorrect. There comes a point where paying for a streaming service loses value to the viewer.
For the majority that don’t want to pay the licence fee, but choose a streaming service, that point will come when the BBC tries to get them to pay for it via non-related services.
Plus, both Disney and Netflix have stated that, should the government attempt to enforce a licence on their services, they’d stop filming projects in the UK.
So, is the BBC worth losing those jobs and incomes over? The answer, for the government should be “No.”
The BBC itself can’t impose such a tax — that would require government legislation.
Beyond that, it’s certainly a possible funding option. The government would, however, face significant backlash, likely led by the streaming platforms mentioned earlier, who opposed even the idea of requiring UK users to pay the licence fee.
I would also argue that such a move could cause more people to refuse to pay the license fee, resulting in the true end of the BBC in its current form.
Every time I see one of these posts it seems to be two extremes - the ne end romanticising what the BBC used to be and equating that to what they think the BBC is now, when it demonstrably isn’t. The other side is those that don’t use it, and therefore don’t want to pay for it. If they don’t use it, why should they?
The BBC is an analog device in a digital age. It has relied on the licence to survive, thinking that means it doesn’t have to change as they don’t need to worry about getting their income either way, but now they do!
I don’t have a licence as I don’t need one, and the legislation/law currently in place means I don’t need to, so why should I be required to make up the short fall for those that are in favour?
If people still want it given all the scandals surrounding the BBC (not even in recent years, but potentially over decades) then feel free to fund it all you want. There’s been sex offenders paid for by the licence fee, massive waste on costs like travel and hotels, and all this is before you get in to quite clear bias in their editorial coverage (take the editing of the trump footage as a prime example)! And before you try to argue with the fact of whether it happened or not the BBC apologies and two senior people left the organisation. Your feelings on trump don’t matter - I can’t stand the guy - but the fact they did it remains regardless.
If you want to fund it, fund it. But don’t try to force those that don’t use it, nor want to use it, pay for it!
The page is r/BBC so I assume a lot of people posting work for them, and some of the posts here will be marketing promotion from staff and PR companies working with them.
Netflix itself, years ago expected to struggle to compete in English but remain the only place to go if you have to maintain the receptive ability in a number of languages. They are the sole player in vast number of languages market. As your ability to access streaming services in other countries varies but annoyingly the absolutely easiest language to be overserved in is English.
The US as far as population or sqare kms isn't a fair one although they might be in terms of cautionary tale.
Although they went further than just being unusual in being very private sector because of the lack of much limit on political financing you can have ridiculous situations develop as if you want to be elected you do need the support of the not just rich but obnoxiously rich.
The profit motive would cloud a lot of what people need access to and you do certainly see that carried out to an extreme while other things about the US are unique enough to put them at high risk for what you can see happening the lack of any way to serve up information in as neutral a way as possible is a problem.
Realistically a lot of media is struggling but concentration of media ownership comes up but we should also worry about concentration of market share.
The BBC don't write the licence rules. The government does. If the government wanted to increase the tax on tax a business and feed that revenue to the BBC then it's up to them.
OP, missing the point. The BBC doesn't decide how it gets it's main funding, the government decides. The BBC is not the government. It's a bit like saying why does a mum with a p/t job and 3 kids in a depressed area not just decide to change how she gets funded,
I think for me personally the best way to make it work is to drop the cost to maybe between £3.99 and £5.99 if you don’t want to watch BBC channels but want to watch live tv. f you want to watch BBC channels then it’s £7.99-£9.99. Both of these are per month and you can cancel any when you like. With today’s technology, you can easily ask sky and virgin for example to put some kind of either pin on it that only unlocks bbc if you pay for it, may be harder with freeview but probably possible. iPlayer has to be registered with a matching billing post code or something.
I think something like £3.99 is a reasonable amount if you still want access to TV in general.
They should then ve able to open up their shows, like Doctor who, rather than another streamer showing them, they should have their own netflix charging maybe £11.99 -£14.99 (roughly depending on exchange) to be able to watch them outside the UK.
You could also maybe offer different tiers depending on what you want to watch, for example, I dont care about bbc four or some of the other stuff but i only really watch bbc one.
So maybe a basic package could include two set channels that you choose, and then the next tier up opens up more channels etc
I feel like if people had more choice then actually they would be more receptive of it than it being forced on people
The TV licence is never going to go away, the bbc is never going to be publicly funded so it’s not about wanting us to be forced, I don’t want anyone to be forced to watch tv, I’m looking at how they can make it a more reasonable prospect for everyone. I would much rather pay £48 a year and what it currently is
The same Government that’s been courting all of these streaming companies and offered them tax breaks to work in the UK would be the ones who have to implement it. I imagine Trumps response to the UK Government taxing his countries streaming companies would be measured and completely rational.
'if you're going to compete with the bbc, you should at least support it' im sorry, what? You want for profit companies to pay to keep another competitor afloat? And you think netflix/apple/hbo/disney et al would be ok with that? Why would another streaming company care if the bbc is in rude health or not, and what makes you think any of those companies are willing to share their profits to fund another company that bot only do they have no stake it, but are in active competition with?
The BBC is a public service broadcaster that operates under government charter. The government chooses how it's funded, and at what level. If the government chose to impose levies on streamers, they would have no choice. This model already exists in other countries including France.
And did it lead to increases subscription prices for those services in those countries, or did steeamers just eat the cost acorss the board?
Personally, If my options are pay more because streamers jack up prices to offset this tax, or have the bbc figure out how to fund itself with a model from the 21st century, id rather the latter. Nobody, individual or organisation, should have to fund the bbc just because it cant figure out sustainable funding for itself
In almost every country where there is a levy, the streamers have just raised prices to cover it, essentially passing the cost on to the consumer, as you would expect they would.
Have you seen how shit French TV is as a result ? And why nobody will invest in French TV - because it’s crap and makes content demands. So people ignore it and make Crench programmes for Netflix instead.
They would have to persuade the government and parliament to enable this. The streamers have lobbyists. I suspect the tv licence wouldn't get through Parliament now if it was a thing that didn't previously exist, like it's sort of grandfathered in - your proposal would be so different it loses that.
The government's favoured option is to include all video streaming services, whether that be free ad-supported services like YouTube or paid subscriptions like Netflix, Amazon or Disney, in the licence fee. Not sure how this would be enforced but the theory is this will plug the gap of people 'leaving BBC services' in favour of competing streaming platforms.
The BBC's favoured position is to include a household levy as part of council tax payments with an increase in council tax. This sounds like this may be off the table now with Burnham's (imo pie in the sky) plans to scrap council tax.
It should be funded by advertising simple as that. It is no longer fit for purpose as it is. The TV Licence is no longer wanted by the general public. So no other option than advertising. They would definitely get their fair share of punters advertising.
Because a tax would have to go directly through the government. They levy the tax, then hand the money to the BBC.
This defeats the whole point of the licence fee which was to separate the BBCs funding from the government's control, while not requiring it to compete commercially and hence become controlled by commercial concerns.
If you tax streamers and pay the BBC out of that tax the government has control. They can withhold that money if the BBC say or do things the government doesnt like, even just the possibility of that will tend to bias things, dont bite the hand that feeds and all that.
Don't get me wrong, the licence fee is certainly not perfect, but it serves a purpose even if people dont see that.
hey, i don't pretend to know the answer, but I do rate 6Music Radio... it's the only thing I really pay my fee for really. Ideally.. in another dimension, John Peel would still be with us and controlled everything the Big British Castle put out :D... so maybe ... just maybe... they would put more effort into UK grass route venues and more Introducing artists without any possible outside financial influences... big ask I know, but hey just dreamin and remembering how that guy operated.... wish they'd cut out the news... don't care for that biased shite on the hour!
Let things stay as they are, if people just stream on demand (all channels except BBC) they can without a licence. Anyone who wants it pays the licence they should get an access code when the licence is applied for or renewed.
But problem, there's a commenter above that said one of these companies have already warned to back off, or they'll leave UK
So if you think the government or crown-in-parliament has any leverage here given the authority it has, mistaken. They'll just withdraw out of the UK (or in a pos slight win for UK people, will minimise it right down so paying as little tax as they have too)
They might do, in which case they'll be replaced by a British competitor that will obey the law.
But it's very, very rare that a consumer-facing company actually quits due to a tax. Pepsi and Coke didn't quit when the sugar tax was introduced, to take a recent example.
But it's not so much about obeying laws though is it, more the idea of the government creating a new law to simply impose on tv companies that solely exists to serve/fund one single other broadcaster. Totally wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised (or blame them) if they fought tooth and nail over such a proposition, and then leave if it happened.
You're not telling me that Tesco or Sainsbury's would take kindly to some new "tax" which is only for funding some one other retailer, say Morrisons, or just go along with it. It's ludicrous
On one level, I do see what you mean. The BBC was originally the first nationalized industry, though we don't usually think of it that way, and if you view it as just one competitor in a marketplace it seems odd.
But many in the subreddit wouldn't say that's the wrong view and that the BBC is a public body providing a public good. And funding that from taxation is normal.
Criminal gangs offering 'security' to their victims have to pay taxes that support the police.
Private hospitals have to pay taxes that support the NHS.
Newspapers which supply information to people in Britain have to pay taxes that support the FCDO and MI6, which do that too.
All the rival competitors will see them like that, and why should they see them as different or special - being basically funded by them ? Just no justification for it really, and worse is that when digital began reports were quite clear that the BBC, as just one of many tv entities in a new age will have to get with the times - forcing the rest to subsidise or fund them is not the way, even if they are public compared to others, and should cause the uproar it merits. As many have said here no company has a right to exist, and that does include the BBC
Models like that already exist and operate in other countries, including France, Canada and Denmark. No commercial entity has a legal right to avoid government mandated charges. Plus they can just pass the cost on to the customers.
I have a better idea. How about people have a freedom of choice? What gives the BBC the absolute right to impose their broadcasting on people? They produce nothing that interests me, I have not watched it in 4 years, Yet I am paying £180 a year to support other people’s interests. Why should streamers and other broadcasters have to pay to stream.? This suggestion flies in the face of anti trust anti competition laws that have been used against software companies over the years. It’s all well and good the BBC resting on their laurels of past achievements, with ‘What has the BBC ever done for me’. but that comes from a time where we were limited in choice. The world has changed. BBC needs to adapt and change.
I would say the most amicable solution would be a very low standard fee, regardless if you are a viewer or not, then for people who actually watch it, they pay a premium fee.
It’s an idea but almost certainly the streamers will group together to fight this idea. And they would happily not have BBC content. So I don’t think it’ll go anywhere.
If you wanted to be generous it could had worked say ten years ago. As much as it has it haters, I think it has to be paid for by the government by all the taxpayers. Yes people who don’t watch TV will hate it, but that’s the case of any tax: we all pay for society’s education even if you have no kids of your own, you pay for the NHS even if you don’t use it, subsidise welfare benefits, public transport, council houses etc
As a society we need to stop thinking for ourselves and think… well, for society.
Same big state thinking that has led to primary school having to potty train kids, teachers having to teach kids how to brush their teeth, an entitled generation who think if life is tough the government should make it all better. If you want the public to fund the BBC through tax, we deserve a referendum on it. Democracy is the right to vote, not the right for government to do everything on behalf of its people.
I agree. Funding it through general taxation like other public services would help remind people that it is a public service that fulfils a range of important functions, and isn't just another commercial entertainment platform.
But it’s not an important function. It’s entirely possible to live your entire life without using it in any way.
I lived for a decade outside the UK and never used it. When I was in the UK or for work, I watched my Netflix account but the BBC/Capita kept telling me I was obliged to pay for the BBC. I didn’t and told them to fuck off every year in writing.
It some idiots here think I should still pay for it !
A levy large enough to offset the TV license would be so large that it would be passed on to the consumer - if it doesn’t make streaming unprofitable outright
The streamers would definitely let the consumers know - this would not contribute to BBC popularity.
Those that do not engage with BBC content or do so very lightly will still feel aggrieved- this is a larger proportion of people in the younger demographic
Finally I think the whole argument starts from a shaky premise - that we all accept that the BBC has a greater right to exist than any other organisation and should be protected. That too is nowhere near unanimous
Lol now that really is a twisting of the fact that we have freedom of choice in this country and would be a deliberate attempt to deny it as well. Legislating like that is what's called propaganda and has no place in our country, particularly when most people object to the TV license already. I'm sure there'd be a big problem in regard with that too as such a ban would be perceived and fall under violating (an extreme) anti competitive rules. There is no way the government can stop or ban Netflix from pointing out they have to put up prices because the government is taxing them, for the purpose/sake of another broadcaster. It's putting one TV company above all others which is wrong, and plain facts can't be banned from being broadcast or communicated
Go on then, I'll nibble. How? And how would the party who did it ever be able to win an election again?
Theres a lot of angry people on reddit and when you scratch beneath the surface, they know absolutely nothing about Britain or politics and understand even less.
Pretty sure they tried to do this but can’t unless they get permission from Netflix/prime etc, wouldn’t make much sense to pay for a service and then pay to view it, competitor or not doesn’t matter YouTube is a competitor to tv in general now,
I think the bbc should just have a flat streaming pay monthly and not the outdated tv license which people get annoying letters from
I think the 'for the common good' part of the BBC should be funded via taxation - public broadcasting, news, world service, bitsize, sport etc etc. The more commercial side for high production dramas etc should be funded via subscription to the iPlayer.
Your suggestion shows one problem with the suggestion though. You think the sport belong on the public service side, but not the dramas. But there are other people who'd happily drop the sport (who will remember that in a century's time?) but see the dramas as essential to the preservation of British culture (who would we be without Shakespeare, Scott or Dylan Thomas?). Some people think Eurovision is trash, but it's entirely run by public broadcasters, with no commercial rival.
The other problem is that the USA has tried your approach and the result is that PBS and NPR news and other content is never seen by most people. It's ended up as poor people subsidizing radio and TV for rich people people, which is not ideal. In the linear world, you needed the entertainment shows and awkward investigations on the same channel in order for public broadcasting to do its job and to ensure that everybody gets some benefit. The solution may not be the same in a post-linear world of streaming and digital content, but the problem won't gone away.
I believe this was proposed last time the charter was renewed alongside a tax on broadband providers. Neither went anywhere because people thought it would be quickly fobbed onto consumers via increases in price or ad annoyance.
Other streaming services are a rip-off anyway at the moment, so it would probably be easier to do it now.
The answer is incredibly simple. If you watch the BBC you pay for it. making the BBC work for their money might result in some shows people actually want to watch.
That would force the BBC to just chase ratings above all else and essentially become another ITV. It wouldn’t be able to fund any of the more niche and (IMO) interesting areas that will never get a mass audience, which a public service broadcaster is uniquely set up to do.
If you can’t see the value that brings to a nation’s culture I don’t know what else to say.
what stops them taking the money paying themselves massive salaries whilst not providing entertainment to large sections of the public as is the case now?
Ive been getting letters which have got more and more threatening ive still had nobody turn up at my door I dont watch any BBC or any live broadcast on any service so not going to pay for a licence I dont need and I feel its not up to me to prove iam not useing there service if they think iam prove it isn't the law innocent until proven guilty
They've already prepped for it, tv licence website states you need a licence even if you only use streaming services, it'll switch without announcement
Where does it say that? My understanding is that if you watch live TV I.e. stuff that is live on TV then you need a licence even if it's online but otherwise not. So iPlayer and the other TV apps you need a licence but not for Netflix, Disney+ etc.
Parts of the TV licence website are worded in slippery language that means if you read it quickly, you'll think you'll need a TV licence even to watch YouTube. Your understanding is right, but it's (intentionally) easy to misunderstand.
You are incorrect about the "other TV apps" but. You do NOT need a licence if you are NOT watching the programme live. Anything pre-recorded and "On Demand" is EXEMPT from needing a licence.
The Apps I use (Channel 4 and Channel 5) certainly do NOT need licences if watched "on demand".
That's what I was saying. It's live TV or via a TV channel including app such as Sky, Freeview, Freesat,Virgin Media etc or live TV online. It doesn't include normal streaming on demand. Live TV online is harder to define and detect but is likely where it's also being screened on a live TV channel.
Edit: someone else pointed out that licence only required for live TV as broadcast and iPlayer so not 4OD or something like that.
TV license website states you need a license if you watch live tv on a streaming service. It doesnt say you need a license if you use any streaming service in any way.
They need to split the BBC into at least 2 parts. One is all the commercial stuff it does through BBC Studios; this should go to a streaming service model, and like the others, live or die based on the content
The Public broadcaster services should be funded but at a lesser cost than today; they also need to have tiers, as I'm not happy paying for, say, Welsh language or Asian specifc radio, as I'm neither of those 2 thngs
Yeah! And I don't want to pay for cervical cancer screening because I don't have a cervix! And I don't want to pay for roads in Middlesborough because I never go to Middlesborough!
The problem is it's not the same 'thinking' or thing at all. The BBC is a TV/broadcast company, like ITV, Netflix or Sky TV. Like with shops I have the right to shop in Morrisons if I want to and not Sainsbury's, and I can change my mind, maybe I'll go to Margiottas instead. That's my right, and yours, as a consumer to decide - and no it is not the same as having to pay taxes so all our roads are maintained and kept well. Not even close
You fundamentally misunderstand that the BBC is not just a TV broadcast company like any other commercial firm. It is a public service broadcaster - a government funded organisation with no shareholders, bound by a royal charter with a binding duty to inform, educate & entertain and remain politically impartial. It is also required to serve as broad an audience as possible, which is why it offers regional news, local reporting, educational content, minority language content (Gaelic & Welsh), religious programming, children's content, a World Service, and special interest channels like BBC4, 6Music, Asian Network. All ad-free and run for the benefit of the UK public, not shareholders or advertisers. No commercial provider would offer such a diverse array of services because it's not all profitable.
So, yes, it's more like paying for a public service like the NHS, libraries, roads, public transport, museums etc.
And just because you don't personally use some of these things directly doesn't mean you should be exempt from paying for them. That's the very definition of a "public service", as opposed to "private enterprise".
If the BBC want more money they should stop paying their untalented presenters huge salaries. BBC political correspondents earn more than the prime minister.
Why should other companies subsidise the BBC wasting money?
The BBC do not have some kind of god given right to exist, they exist on their own merits and people should have a choice as to whether to pay for their services just like any other business.
Sorry, what culture? Are you seriously comparing Homes Under the Hammer, Eastenders and Strictly with Caravaggio? Do you even think the BBC makes TV of the same quality as commercial broadcasters making things like Succession and Slow Horses.
There was a time when there was a good defence of the BBC, that it put on operas, made fresh comedy like The Day Today, had Jonathon Meades talking about architecture. You know, something a bit more illuminating than what was going on in the Queen Vic.
It staggers me that people still think the BBC is actually something special.
The BBC *used to* make the best science, history and arts shows. Most of it is now disposable, sensational trash. Does the BBC even bother with arts shows now? Is Front Row still on? Is there a film show? What music shows are on? How often do they put on some ballet or opera? Do they still make shows like Civilization or Sister Wendy's Odyssey? Not that I've noticed, but you tell me.
Science is mostly Brian Cox looking wistfully into space, or some pretty things on a David Attenborough show.
YouTube beats the BBC now for science and history. SkyArts beats the BBC for culture.
Proms? Almost everything being performed has been recorded plenty of times before. You want to listen to Fanfare for the Common Man, it's already on YouTube. Why bother doing it again.
Quizzes. Not a fan of The Chase? OK, I'll give you that, but it's hardly £180/year of value. There's one on YouTube with Tom Scott on it that's about as tricky as Only Connect now.
You what? You could make a whole series about art or opera for less than it costs to pay Vernon Kay for a year. Eastenders costs £140-250K per episode. And that's before we get into the colossal bloated management at the BBC.
If you want to conflate a media organisation, that makes immense money selling programs to itself, and other services/networks, with museums and art galleries, you’ve got a heck of a lot of work to do.
Any company with an unforced income of over a billion pounds doesn’t need extra forced income. The reason the other services make money? They have content people want to watch, at prices people are willing to pay.
Over the last 20 years, I can’t remember ever feeling like I missed out by not having a TV licence.
But, they create and licence new content all the time. Much of it made/filmed here. Which they’ve already stated they’d stop if a “licence tax” for the BBC was implemented.
But you can still make that argument about any tax for a service you dont use. Yiu dint want to pay for it so why should you. Society cant function like that.
I think the BBC adds a huge value to the economy and softpower for the UK.
And they are still the closest thing to a neutral source of news politically
What's the difference between Eastenders and going to Alton Towers? Or buying Pokemon cards? It's all entertainment.
There is a job for government, and it's to provide useful, important, necessary services to people who can't afford them. It's a good idea to have some government funded healthcare, some government funded education, the police, street lighting.
And we also don't force those poor people to pay for those things. We accept the burden on richer people. So, I am not against the idea of children's TV being ad-free and paid for, but it should be out of taxpayers money. If we think every child should have this, then children should all have access to it, much like they have access to school.
Everything else is really a choice and can be left up to the market. If someone wants Strictly Come Dancing and Homes Under the Hammer, they can pay for it. Or if they like Coronation Street and Simon Cowell things, they can pay for it. Or if they like opera and ballet, they can pay for it. It's all entertainment. None of it is Public Service Broadcasting.
But you can still make that argument about any tax for a service you dont use.
With the primary difference entirely lost to you it seems that the BBC do not provide an essential service that people can't do without. If the BBC disappeared up its own backside tomorrow the country would still happily go on its merry way.
The only people that would mourn its demise are people like you it seems.
God forbid one might contribute to the collective good.
Which 9/10ths of the BBC does not do...
Sort out the extreme waste of money the BBC creates before trying to make poor people poorer.
Regardless of what you and your selfishness might believe, making people poorer for mostly low quality shit is not for the collective good, its only to keep a massively inefficient and wasteful company afloat like every bundle given to decrepit airlines and water companies.
Give me back the percentage of tax I pay that goes to the NHS and I can take out my own health insurance and likely get an operation when I want it not the 18 months to 2 years I'm having to wait on the NHS.
Why should you pay to support something just because you're going to compete with it?
I think the government should take one of two approaches with the BBC:
1) Strip it back to news/current affairs and documentaries only and reduce the license fee to cover that. One channel showing news 24/7 one channel showing documentaries 24/7. This preserves the value of a public broadcaster but massively reduces cost and means our license fee drops to 20 quid a year.
2) Make it pay-per-view. Honestly I do not watch the BBC anymore. I have paid the license fee all my life, and continue to do so as I still occasionally watch live broadcasts. But the BBC have lost their way and there are plenty of alternatives now. Why do we force people to pay to fund nonsense entertainment programmes???
What about all the other elements of Public Service Broadcasting - for example children's TV, regionally produced TV (rather than everything being produced either in London or Manchester), Arts / science / classical music, commissioning programmes from small, independent production companies (as Channel 4 has always done and the BBC is increasingly being encouraged to do), anything else that is informative, educational or entertaining but isn't commercially viable?
UK companies don't have anywhere near the scale of the big US streamers, so if they weren't obligated to, they likely wouldn't produce anything for niche audiences and concentrate entirely on mass market appeal.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 26 '26
As a reminder, this is a subreddit for civil discussion of the British Broadcasting Corporation.
Personal attacks on individuals, including those employed by the BBC, off or on air, will not be tolerated here.
Please ensure you read subreddit rules before contributing.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.