BBC licence fee to be extended with 'YouTube tax' to force more to pay
independent.co.ukThe 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.
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.
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
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.
“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).
Yes it was covered up.
Time to find out about Jimmy Savile:
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.
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.
No you're right. The idea that UK legislators, of all people, would push through ridiculous unenforceable legislation is simply not plausible.
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.
"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.
Please UK pass some actual reforms. Fold BBC funding into the general taxes, people would forget about it in a month.
I think the reason they don’t want to do that is then its funding gets controlled by government which puts pressure on their intended impartiality.
If it's government funded from general taxation I don't see how that changes.
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"?
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.
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.
The BBC has been lobbying the government hard for months. It looks like we're at the trial balloon stage. Something is going to happen, they're just trying to decide the most politically acceptable version via the trial balloons etc. So worth writing to your MP anyway
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.
Hopefully it will be unenforceable as the OSA.
Yes, doing nothing is definitely better.
They will just fob you off with some bullshit response or just repeat the party line and tell you that you are wrong.
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've heard the argument where it gets fed back to the gov if enough people complain, while they lie to your face. The whole process is based on deception.
Mass disobedience is the only language politicians and corporations understand. You circumvent their shitty laws whenever possible.
Why is any of this even being considered?
It is 100% obvious that the BBC license fee is an antiquated relic of the past. People are becoming less interested in its output now as better alternatives now exist. It should be scrapped and they go to a subscription model and people that want to continue to pay for it can.
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.
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.
Yet we have this thing called VPNs which make this completely unenforceable.
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
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.
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.
Well that is well timed with my blocking YouTube on my router last night and I'm probably going to sell my Apple TV.
A tax to watch AI slop on YouTube? No thanks
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.
Here come the downvotes - clearly Zelenskyy hasn't cleaned up enough Yandex data centres yet.