“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.
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.
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.
> 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.
It does but only to live content not catch-up/on-demand. Technically if you watch, for example, a live football match on Amazon Prime you are due to pay the licence fee. This is of course completely unenforceable even by the already low standards of the licence fee and as live content is a very small % of what the streaming services offer they can't blanket charge it.
Twitch streams don't count afaik as they aren't TV-like content.
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.
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.
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.
They are going to do whatever they are going to do. I don't even know why I thought I would bother writing to my MP. The whole process is a waste of time and they just fob you off while repeating the party line.
They will do whatever they want anyway, whatever I write to my MP, so what is the point? Please tell me what the point of writing to the MP if it changes nothing?
I just find ways to circumvent these shitty laws. Mass disobedience is the only language these people understand.
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.
You currently need a license if you watch live broadcasts on UK TV channels (whatever technology is doing the live streaming), or use the BBC's on demand service iPlayer.
You can watch other on demand services such as Netflix, on demand services provided by non-BBC UK TV channels, YouTube, without a license.
Nobody is calling this the YouTube tax. This rage-bait tabloid has decided to try and call it that.
I also suspect that the "Whitehall source" they have spoken to did not provide the full picture.
Rather than floating unenforceable legislation, I suspect this is more akin to making sure people who watch the BBC though the iPlayer app or the website have a TV License.
I'm so happy to be able to not watch any UK terrestrial television, and avoid having to pay a license fee as a result. It's total shite - when you don't watch it and occasionally witness it in other folk's houses, you really see the decline. Just complete garbage.
I'll be so annoyed if they go ahead with this change and I can no longer avoid funding it.
39 comments
[ 0.16 ms ] story [ 67.2 ms ] threadHow 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'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.
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.
Twitch streams don't count afaik as they aren't TV-like content.
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.
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.
The government is stealing money from people to support a failing business
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)
Hopefully it will be unenforceable as the OSA.
I just find ways to circumvent these shitty laws. Mass disobedience is the only language these people understand.
Or, is this "people watching broadcast content on devices", or "you'll get YouTube TV for free"?
I also suspect that the "Whitehall source" they have spoken to did not provide the full picture.
Rather than floating unenforceable legislation, I suspect this is more akin to making sure people who watch the BBC though the iPlayer app or the website have a TV License.
A tax to watch AI slop on YouTube? No thanks
I'll be so annoyed if they go ahead with this change and I can no longer avoid funding it.