The BBC has an important role. Millions of people fall asleep when watching the BBC every night without resorting to addictive sleeping tablets. Gardner's World has helped me fall asleep many times over the years for example. I believe it is important that people are forced to pay the licence fee even if they can't stand the BBC. For their own good.
The BBC license fee is weird. Functionally everyone has a TV of some sort. If you want to tax everyone to pay for BBC content, why not just charge every taxpayer consistently (minus whatever discounts legislators think are appropriate). This “extending to streaming services” thing is bizarre. Netflix licenses BBC content if they stream it (right?) so this is asking for double payment.
The licence fee is currently only due if you watch live content. Owning a TV is not sufficient as there are now many people who own a TV set but don't actually use it to watch TV broadcasts, and there's not really much distinction between a TV and a computer screen other than size (kudos if anyone reading has a 70" computer screen though) and having a TV tuner built in these days.
That's the root issue really. The BBC is a provider of media that's increasingly irrelevant, and even if approval of it hadn't declined precipitously over the last decade or so it'd still have a big issue with the youth mostly not being interested in that format at all. It's not the only reason for declining ratings (declining quality is a big one) but it's a bad sign for the future.
> The licence fee is currently only due if you watch live content
That is what I thought, but the article characterizes it more broadly: "Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC"
I think they must have meant to say live television content, otherwise the fee would already apply to streaming services or anything you can watch through the tv.
To be fair, they dug their own grave. Schmoozing to the party in power for the last decade practically destroyed all of their credibility in the eyes of the youth. Not to mention, the BBC was the champion of empty virtue signalling in its programming, which gave enough fodder to neo-right online media outlets to render it irrelevant in the eyes of the right-wing population. Perhaps the only ones who'll clutch their BBC pearls are the Telegraph readers still dreaming of the good old days of yore.
Yeah, I don't honestly know anyone who's even remotely happy with the BBC these days. There are different hopping off points, but no-one really respects them all that much any more and they don't exactly do a lot to keep people tuning in with the absolute rubbish they fill their schedule with.
Without getting into the territory of if the tax should exist at all, in general I think the way it works in Germany is the optimal way to approach a tax of this kind: tax each household (not individuals), with few exceptions. This gets rid of the whole trouble of people checking if you should pay the tax, because you have to, and so it dramatically simplifies the system.
“It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”
How about this: it’s not fair that one propaganda-centered corporation that shelters pedophiles is forcing people to fund its existence. They think they own the airwaves and everyone else is merely riding their coattails. Now they’re trying to go after YouTube, Netflix and Disney? Hopefully they’ve just bit off more than they can chew. RIP BBC.
That quote is incredible really. The current fee and its terms are just about justified because the BBC plays a big role in maintaining the transmission infrastructure and the relevant standards for the formats. What does it have to do with YouTube or any streaming service's material getting from A to B? Bugger all as far as I know. It has no role in the UK's Internet infrastructure. And if it's part of any of the consortiums that are responsible for the standards it's getting a cut of the patent fees already for that.
Might as well ask me to pay an OpenReach licence fee to support the national standard even though I'm using Virgin Media.
I don’t know what the pedophile statement is about but funding public broadcasting is a reasonable thing for a government to do. The US is currently showing that independent journalism does not necessarily protect from a decline into government propaganda.
Many years ago; 2012, the BBC were exposed to shielding pedophiles. Operation Yew Tree exposed all the dark-murk going on within [0].
The BBC knew this but covered it up. Jimmy Savile was the main vile person in the case but it was later revealed that many of children's TV presenters had inappropriately conducted child abuse.
Did they cover it up? I have heard about Savile. I had not heard that the BBC was implicated in actively hiding it (vs being incompetent/negligent and having no pathways to report it).
You might not have seen it, but "propaganda-centered corporation that shelters pedophiles" is the new media norm ever since the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger.
How about the BBC actually give me a reason to pay the license fee rather than trying to force me to pay it when watching someone elses (usually superior) content.
TV licensing is unfortunately notorious for trying to convince people they need to have a TV license when they don't. Their letters mention things such as Amazon Prime, YouTube and Twitch.
Is this official or just an idea they are floating? I will be writing to my MP if this is the case. I do not watch any BBC programs, I use my TV simply for online content and playing console games.
Revenue tax all media services, and put the money into a public pot for whichever broadcasting company wants to use it for 'the public good'.
Maybe split it up between education which will support the local industry in the sector, infrastructure, mitigating any negative externalities, etc.
A "TV license" is the most retarded way of collecting taxes, ever. It's just so utterly dumb.
In fact, split off the department of media and culture, and have it fully self-funded by this tax. Let industries govern themselves to streamline national government.
I'd rather media-industry related stuff be voted on by the workers in that industry, who have a more informed view of matters, than the general public.
The current style of party politics is a GO SPORTS!!! fest. Democracy needs dragging closer to home.
Also has a benefit in that if people in an industry want a bigger budget, they have to get out there and make it happen themsleves rather than whinging about 'muh guvmunt' all day long.
The BBC has an important role. Millions of people fall asleep when watching the BBC every night without resorting to addictive sleeping tablets. Gardner's World has helped me fall asleep many times over the years for example. I believe it is important that people are forced to pay the licence fee even if they can't stand the BBC. For their own good.
The BBC license fee is weird. Functionally everyone has a TV of some sort. If you want to tax everyone to pay for BBC content, why not just charge every taxpayer consistently (minus whatever discounts legislators think are appropriate). This “extending to streaming services” thing is bizarre. Netflix licenses BBC content if they stream it (right?) so this is asking for double payment.
The licence fee is currently only due if you watch live content. Owning a TV is not sufficient as there are now many people who own a TV set but don't actually use it to watch TV broadcasts, and there's not really much distinction between a TV and a computer screen other than size (kudos if anyone reading has a 70" computer screen though) and having a TV tuner built in these days.
That's the root issue really. The BBC is a provider of media that's increasingly irrelevant, and even if approval of it hadn't declined precipitously over the last decade or so it'd still have a big issue with the youth mostly not being interested in that format at all. It's not the only reason for declining ratings (declining quality is a big one) but it's a bad sign for the future.
> The licence fee is currently only due if you watch live content
That is what I thought, but the article characterizes it more broadly: "Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC"
I think they must have meant to say live television content, otherwise the fee would already apply to streaming services or anything you can watch through the tv.
To be fair, they dug their own grave. Schmoozing to the party in power for the last decade practically destroyed all of their credibility in the eyes of the youth. Not to mention, the BBC was the champion of empty virtue signalling in its programming, which gave enough fodder to neo-right online media outlets to render it irrelevant in the eyes of the right-wing population. Perhaps the only ones who'll clutch their BBC pearls are the Telegraph readers still dreaming of the good old days of yore.
Yeah, I don't honestly know anyone who's even remotely happy with the BBC these days. There are different hopping off points, but no-one really respects them all that much any more and they don't exactly do a lot to keep people tuning in with the absolute rubbish they fill their schedule with.
Without getting into the territory of if the tax should exist at all, in general I think the way it works in Germany is the optimal way to approach a tax of this kind: tax each household (not individuals), with few exceptions. This gets rid of the whole trouble of people checking if you should pay the tax, because you have to, and so it dramatically simplifies the system.
They always tried to avoid framing it as a tax which is exactly why it is not done this way
[dead]
“It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”
How about this: it’s not fair that one propaganda-centered corporation that shelters pedophiles is forcing people to fund its existence. They think they own the airwaves and everyone else is merely riding their coattails. Now they’re trying to go after YouTube, Netflix and Disney? Hopefully they’ve just bit off more than they can chew. RIP BBC.
That quote is incredible really. The current fee and its terms are just about justified because the BBC plays a big role in maintaining the transmission infrastructure and the relevant standards for the formats. What does it have to do with YouTube or any streaming service's material getting from A to B? Bugger all as far as I know. It has no role in the UK's Internet infrastructure. And if it's part of any of the consortiums that are responsible for the standards it's getting a cut of the patent fees already for that.
Might as well ask me to pay an OpenReach licence fee to support the national standard even though I'm using Virgin Media.
I don’t know what the pedophile statement is about but funding public broadcasting is a reasonable thing for a government to do. The US is currently showing that independent journalism does not necessarily protect from a decline into government propaganda.
Many years ago; 2012, the BBC were exposed to shielding pedophiles. Operation Yew Tree exposed all the dark-murk going on within [0].
The BBC knew this but covered it up. Jimmy Savile was the main vile person in the case but it was later revealed that many of children's TV presenters had inappropriately conducted child abuse.
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree
Did they cover it up? I have heard about Savile. I had not heard that the BBC was implicated in actively hiding it (vs being incompetent/negligent and having no pathways to report it).
Yes it was covered up.
Time to find out about Jimmy Savile:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35658398
You might not have seen it, but "propaganda-centered corporation that shelters pedophiles" is the new media norm ever since the Paramount/Warner Bros. merger.
Don’t forget Disney.
I am so confused. You need to pay a tax to ... watch content of any kind? Like a book tax?
Or, is this "people watching broadcast content on devices", or "you'll get YouTube TV for free"?
How about the BBC actually give me a reason to pay the license fee rather than trying to force me to pay it when watching someone elses (usually superior) content.
Please UK pass some actual reforms. Fold BBC funding into the general taxes, people would forget about it in a month.
"Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC."
This is simply not true. Which puts me in doubt about the rest of this "article". The rules are:
1. Watch or record live TV on any channel or service
2. Use BBC iPlayer
Note the "live" part of this.
I'm not a fan of the BBC, and so I don't pay a license. Being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use would force me to break the law.
TV licensing is unfortunately notorious for trying to convince people they need to have a TV license when they don't. Their letters mention things such as Amazon Prime, YouTube and Twitch.
I wish I could pay the BBC license fee here in the US and get access to iPlayer.
The only way bbc can go off it should become a subscription service. Just like Netflix.
The government is stealing money from people to support a failing business
They should know this is absolutely unenforceable.
If they decide to do this hilariously unpopular thing, they'll tax at the ISP/Service Provider level so it won't really be avoidable.
Don't forget - this article is from a ragebait tabloid that my cat won't even shit on if I use it in her litter tray.
Is this official or just an idea they are floating? I will be writing to my MP if this is the case. I do not watch any BBC programs, I use my TV simply for online content and playing console games.
It's made up by someone at the "newspaper", which is a Russian-owned ragebait pump.
For anyone else wondering (as I was), I got the following from a quick google (it's AI -so bear that in mind), apologies for the crap format:
The website independent.co.uk (The Independent) is owned and published by Independent Digital News & Media Ltd. [1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent), [2] (http://www.mediaownership.ie/outlet.php?uuid=9e052d2a-d0d5-4...)
Its primary shareholders include:
[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent) • Evgeny Lebedev (https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=%2Fm%2F05lmj3j&q=Evgeny+...) (approx. 41%) – Russian-British businessman and media owner.
• Sultan Muhammad Abuljadayel (approx. 30%) – Saudi investor (via a 2017 stake).
• Justin Byam Shaw (https://www.google.com/search?kgmid=%2Fg%2F11fxx2vbk4&q=Just...) (approx. 26%) – British businessman. [1] (https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40762906), [2] (https://pressgazette.substack.com/p/independent-to-take-over...), [3] (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40762906), [4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Independent)
I can't find any mention of it elsewhere other than iffy sites. So you are probably right.
[dead]
Revenue tax all media services, and put the money into a public pot for whichever broadcasting company wants to use it for 'the public good'.
Maybe split it up between education which will support the local industry in the sector, infrastructure, mitigating any negative externalities, etc.
A "TV license" is the most retarded way of collecting taxes, ever. It's just so utterly dumb.
In fact, split off the department of media and culture, and have it fully self-funded by this tax. Let industries govern themselves to streamline national government.
>Let industries govern themselves ...
I wonder what could go wrong with that.
I'd rather media-industry related stuff be voted on by the workers in that industry, who have a more informed view of matters, than the general public.
The current style of party politics is a GO SPORTS!!! fest. Democracy needs dragging closer to home.
Also has a benefit in that if people in an industry want a bigger budget, they have to get out there and make it happen themsleves rather than whinging about 'muh guvmunt' all day long.