The Register Home Page

back to article Brit watchdog says public service TV must 'urgently' join Team YouTube

Public service broadcasters (PSBs) need to work with Google-owned YouTube "urgently," says the UK's communications watchdog, Ofcom. The warning comes in the Public Service Media Review, published [PDF] yesterday, which maintains that in a marketplace with services like Netflix and YouTube – with their "hyper-personalized …

  1. AMBxx Silver badge
    Boffin

    Interesting implications for the licence fee

    For non-UK readers, we in the UK need a licence to view anything that's being shown as it's broadcast. Doesn't matter whether it's BBC or Netflix/Amazon (showing live sport).

    You don't need a licence to view non-broadcast, so your Netflix streaming is OK unless you're watching something that's live.

    This leaves us in the ridiculous position that if a live stream video automatically starts when you open a web page, you're technically breaking the law.

    The exception is that you do need a licence to watch iPlayer which is the BBC's equivalent of Netflix - watch repeats or old stuff.

    If the BBC now moves its old content to YouTube, where does that leave the requirement for a licence to view old BBC content? Will iPlayer be the only place you need a licence to watch old BBC stuff?

    Time for the BBC to become subscription?

    1. Guy de Loimbard Silver badge

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      You make a good point, however, the BBC is already a subscription service.

      That said, if it put it's content behind a paywall, like all the other services, then you're onto something.

      Then there'll be push back about how do you view live TV if you have to login to everything, every time.

      There's room for overhaul of the BBC licence structure, I just have no idea what would be best or work for that matter.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        It's not subscription. You need a licence even if all you watch is 'the other channel'.

        1. Guy de Loimbard Silver badge

          Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

          Fair point.

          Maybe that's half the problem, as it's a mandatory requirement to have a licence, to watch live TV and access the BBC IPlayer, but it seems like a subscription that not everyone wants.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            2x

            BBC should be split in 2:

            The entertainment part can pay its own bills from ads and subscriptions, while competing for audience/talent as everybody else. The news part can be financed from the license.

            Suddenly the TV license will be 4x smaller. Or better be a tax to make everyone pay fairly.

            1. Alan Mackenzie

              Re: 2x

              > Suddenly the TV license will be 4x smaller. Or better be a tax to make everyone pay fairly.

              That latter system holds in Germany. Every household must pay the license fee (over 200€ a year) regardless of whether they even have a television (or radio).

              I don't have such equipment. I don't watch "television" through any online service.

              I resent very much having to "pay fairly" as you put it.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                > I don't have... I don't watch

                It is the matter of financing local culture, politics and community.

                Fair taxes are progressive. Poor should pay much less and rich much more. Not 200 euro each.

          2. Andrew Scott

            Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

            do you need a license to listen to the radio also?

            1. David Hicklin Silver badge

              Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

              > do you need a license to listen to the radio also?

              no - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102

    2. Scotech

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      Nah... Knowing our leaders they'll just make it so you need a license to watch YouTube too. Why build a better boat when there's plenty of gaffer tape around to deal with the leaks?

    3. MrBanana

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      "The exception is that you do need a licence to watch iPlayer".

      No. You just need to tell them you have a licence. I give my postcode as SW1 1AA, as I'm sure they wouldn't bother check the licence arrangements at The Palace.

      1. Scotech
        Big Brother

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        But but but... What if they send the vans round your street?

      2. Helcat Silver badge

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        They then have your IP address which they will happily abuse.

        1. katrinab Silver badge
          Black Helicopters

          Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

          A licence-holder can legally watch TV using your wifi, provided it is on a device powered by its own internal batteries (such as a phone / iPad / laptop), and it isn't plugged into a charger while they are watching it.

          It is up to them to prove that this didn't happen.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

            You still have to have a license for your home. The exemption is an extension of your home license for receivers that run on battery. But it is interesting. Several times in the license it is suggested that if your battery powered device is in a caravan, that the license covers either your home or the caravan, but not both being used together.

            "Touring caravans used for touring from place to place and motor vehicles do not need a separate TV Licence providing a licence is held at your main address, and the TV in your caravan / motorhome is never in use at the same time as the one at your main home." (taken from https://www.ukcampsite.co.uk/articles/view.asp?id=268

            I don't know how you would go about purchasing a license for a touring caravan to allow you to use both this and your home at the same time. I suspect that the TV licensing authority don't, either.

            The system needs an overhaul, but like so many others, I cannot see a workable solution that will provide the finances for the BBC while keeping it sort-of out of the reaches of UK Government control.

            I have another beef, this time with IP TV services like are being touted at the moment. Currently, as long as you have a license and power (and a television!), you can watch terrestrial broadcast TV. But if the public broadcasters move online only, that requires people to pay for a data service.

            I actually know several (admittedly older) people who don't currently have an Internet service. Maybe this is another reason why the UK government are so keen to turn off the copper telephone network, as people who currently don't have access to the Internet, but do have a landline phone will suddenly acquire access to the Internet when they are switched to an IP phone over FTTP.

    4. Helcat Silver badge

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      There's already talk that this is the BBC trying to get the licence fee extended to cover more areas, including youtube and netflix. There's also been a call for it to be added to council tax so everyone pays regardless of if they watch any form of TV. Even someone living in isolation with no signal, no internet, no electricity: They'd still have to pay as long as they're paying council tax.

      Which is why there's a growing call for the licence to be abolished, or as you say: A Subscription model. It's not hard to implement, and if they go subscription I'll be very happy (no subscription and no concern they'll send goons around to see if I am watching live TV... which I don't. I do, however, watch youtube videos on occasion: Mostly for work as work uses YT as a platform for mandatory training videos).

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        I used to pay the French TV licence. I don't watch TV (live in a place where signals don't go), but since I have computers and screens and such I figured it would be a massive pain in the arse to demonstrate that I don't watch French TV should somebody come and check. It was a built-in part of the house tax.

        Well, the government did away with that, and the licence fee, a few years back. The world didn't end, so I'm guessing some other funding arrangement was reached...

      2. nijam Silver badge

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        > Which is why there's a growing call for the licence to be abolished.

        Same as healthy people shouldn't have to pay to fund the NHS, people whose children have grown-up shouldn't have to pay to fund schools, ... etc. Is that what you mean? Yes, of course it is.

        1. Alan Mackenzie

          Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

          > Same as healthy people shouldn't have to pay to fund the NHS, ....

          No, it's very different. The NHS and schools are essential services, a necessary part of civilised society. Television is a luxury.

          I'm fine sharing the costs of the NHS, schools, (to a certain extent) roads. I'm not fine about sharing the costs of other people's television viewing or attendance at football matches or concerts, or buying music. They're all forms of entertainment, which each person should decide on and pay for him/herself.

    5. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      Why would I watch BBC content on YouTube?

      On YT I get deluged with ads, on iPlayer I do not.

      BBC content on YT may be of interest to those outside the UK, but to anyone UK based (who has a licence) then ad free iPlayer content a better option (unless you love ads* or are someone who pays the extra for ad free YT, in which case YT may be a good option).

      Though there are huge flaws in the TV licence, as mentioned if you are watching a live sports event e.g. football on a streaming service (as an example Prime do some UK sport live streams) then you need a TV licence, even if you never watch any BBC, ITV, C4 etc. content. That loophole really needs to be sorted out for "non TV" sources of viewing

      Given the way, whenever it is anything vaguely controversial, the BBC acts as a state broadcaster (e.g. not airing various documentaries on Israel atrocities in Palestine) i.e. not even a pretence at being impartial, then the whole licence thing needs junking, and funding come from general taxation then all UK tax payers (or residents that do not have to pay direct taxes e.g. pensioners, unemployed) could just watch what they wanted licence hassle** free.

      * Get treatment!

      ** Lets not forget people imprisoned (WTF!) for TV licence non payment are disproportionately lower income women 2024 article

      1. Fred Dibnah

        Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

        There are ads on iPlayer and BBC Sounds, they call them ‘trailers’. Not as annoying as YT ads, but still.

        Also, the BBC being called Auntie isn’t out of affection. It dates from the time when the BBC had the prudish morals and condescension of a frightening aunt.

        1. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
          Mushroom

          Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

          BBC had the prudish morals and condescension of a frightening aunt.

          Mary Whitehouse would probably spontaneously combust if she were alive today and switched on the TV

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

            Which is a pity because that would be a Very Good Thing,

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

          "had"?

          Still does. Unless you are one of the people favoured by the people now running the BBC, in which case you get carte blanche to say or do anything you want and it's all acceptable.

          Just don't question them on anything.

    6. MatthewSt

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      You don't need a licence to watch the BBC's old content; just IPlayer. We already have this scenario with Britbox (fee paying) and all the other streaming services (eg Sherlock on Prime) so I don't see how YouTube (ad-supported) is going to be any different to that.

      What I'd argue is the opposite: as a licence payer I should have access to all of the BBC's old content, not have to go find some of it on Britbox, some of it on Prime, some of it on Netflix etc. Like you say, make it a subscription (and drop the cost of the Capita strong-arm team) and see if it pays for itself!

      Then again, licensing the content to other platforms is already subsidising the licence fee, so you'd have to take that into consideration too.

    7. katrinab Silver badge
      Megaphone

      Re: Interesting implications for the licence fee

      Slight correction: You need a licence to watch BBC content on iPlayer. You don't need one to watch S4C (Welsh language) content on iPlayer.

  2. Guy de Loimbard Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

    Auntie is a self description of the BBC, by the BBC.

    Most Brits find BBC to be a little "meh", unless you were born in the30s and 40s where the BBC may still have some reverence as a bastion of good and truth, which, if you're not up to speed, the BBC has been held to account in the recent past for not being truthful, or good for that matter.

    Look up Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc.

    I for one certainly do not look at the BBC with affection and call it Auntie.

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

      Indeed - not Auntie, more like Uncle Ernie* as far as lot of the UK public are concerned

      * see "Tommy", the rock opera by The Who for reference

    2. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

      > Auntie is a self description of the BBC, by the BBC.

      Twaddle.

      The Beeb was given the appellation "Auntie" by the public - well, by the print media, such as cartoonists - as a way to describe its output as being a bit staid and polite when compared to the bright and brassy (not sassy, far too early for anything in Britain to be sassy) offerings from those rude upstart channels that were obviously just going to be pandering to the desires of the advertisers that will pay their wages.

      1. andy gibson

        Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

        How many decades ago though? Nobody calls them "Auntie BBC" any more and probably hasn't since the 90s and those awful clip shows

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auntie%27s_Bloomers

        1. that one in the corner Silver badge

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          Because the phrase is "Auntie Beeb"?

          Please don't fall into the trap of assuming that, because nobody in your circle does something, that means nobody anywhere does it.

          And, no, trying to dig up references - or a lack or references - as convenient URLs is not a proof, either.

          I agree, the phrase is not one even I utter every day, but then again I don't use the words "diplodocus" or even "T-Rex"[1] every day.

          [1] yes, the dinosaur reference is deliberate, saves anyone else the need to belabour it

          1. NapTime ForTruth
            Flame

            Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

            I was hoping you were referring to the band, but I guess that's actually T. Rex. Regardless, thanks for the memory cue!

            (Icon for dinosaur fuel.)

            1. that one in the corner Silver badge

              Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

              Glad you had some good recollections.

              Although I have to admit that I'm more of a Tyrannosaurus Rex man than T.Rex; more "Stacey Grove" and "Salamanda Palaganda" than "Jeepster" or "Born to Boogie". Although, "Ride A White Swan" - let's just call that a transition piece.

          2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

            Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

            Ok then, give some non-BBC usages of the term. I can wait.

            1. that one in the corner Silver badge

              Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

              > Ok then, give some non-BBC usages of the term

              Talking about the Pomona Times in the US:

              >> An early use occurs in the following from The Daily Progress (Pomona, California, USA) of Monday 1st April 1901: “Felix Grundy’s” reputation for veracity and honor is not surpassed by that of any man in Pomona, not excepting the proprietors of Auntie Times.

              The same article also refers to a mention of "Auntie Times" in the 'Bystander' from1935, although that one is referring to the London Times newspaper, rather than the Ponoma Times. It then goes on to give a few more before giving its first reference to the usage directed at the BBC, which he dates to a piece in 1948.

      2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

        The Beeb was given the appellation "Auntie" by the public - well, by the print media, such as cartoonists

        And there's yer [citation needed], right there. Or course I am open to correction, but I have never read or heard anybody call the BBC "auntie", except the BBC itself, in "Auntie's Bloomers". I do not believe that the name is or ever has been in common usage.

        See also: "The Clockwork Orange", a term never used by Glaswegians to describe the Subway, no matter what lazy journalists plagiarise.

        1. that one in the corner Silver badge

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          > And there's yer [citation needed],

          Well, in addition to the reference I gave in response to the first of your posts...

          Let me just Google that for you...

          How about this:

          ‘Auntie’ has been the jocular, and once derisive, nickname for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) since the mid-1950s .The first known citation is believed to be a Leslie Illingworth cartoon, which appeared in The Daily Mail in 1953 welcoming the news of commercial television in competition with ‘Auntie’, namely the BBC.

          That disagrees about the date of the first citation (please feel free to nip down to the British Library newspaper archive and check for yourself) but the date and content of the cartoon are in agreement with the other article's citation of Paul Holt, published in the Daily Herald (London, England) of Tuesday 18th November 1952: talking about the 1953 start of commercial television in contrast to the BBC "The film men have decided to bank all on the calculation that dear old Aunty BBC will continue to offer viewers those neat, nice little family dramas while they go out after bigger stuff."

          The start of ITV was a Big Event in 1953 and a cartoon at the time would have a wider audience than the 1952 wordy article, so giving Leslie Illingworth credit for bringing the phrase into the wider usage is quite reasonable - even if he did not coin it, as I'm sure you are aware, Leslie Illingworth and his peers (as if!) were reknown for helping the public remember the occasional - appropriate - phrase.

          The use of "Auntie Beeb" was very familiar in the 1960s as well, when BBC Radio became the "target", as its output, even on "The Light Programme", was being unfavourably compared to the Happening and Now overseas stations like Radio Luxembourg and the not-quite-UK-based pirate radio stations like Radio Caroline.

          Of course, after that, the phrase was kept alive by "Cuddly Ken", Kenny Everett, and his wireless show - even whilst he was on Capital Radio, telling us how he got fired by the BBC for being flippant and pushing Auntie just a bit too far (although was what he was saying about politician's wives or the Musician's Union that made Auntie's lorgnettes fall?).

          For the majority of the time, the BBC itself most certainly did NOT refer to itself as "Auntie"; your recollection of the show "Auntie's Bloomers" was from the 1990s, when the BBC was poking fun at itself and was ready to loosen up a bit. It didn't even refer to itself as "The Beeb" - this not even being acceptable on "Just A Minute" (although that may be because of the number of players who fell foul of the buzzer for repetition when reverting back to "B - B - C" after being caught out on the deviation of "Beeb"). Irreverant broadcasters such as Terry Wogan might use the abbreviation, but it wasn't used by any formal representative of the management and it was a genuine surprise to some when an official channel name formally recognised "The Beeb", in the form of CBeebies.

    3. Khaptain

      Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

      The BBC should have a look at it's content and rethink it's purpose..

      It was once the bastion of truth, now it is simply the bastion of Govt propaganda. It has become a truly pathetic dark shadow of what was once a world renowned forerunner.

      And let's not speak about the recent scandals which it has tried to hard, and failed so miserably to keep quiet. The wrong heads rolled.

      1. Scotech

        Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

        While there's a fair consensus of analysis that supports the idea that the BBC's news output skews mildly pro-government in terms of coverage, the same body of work also tends to find that when it comes to coverage of individual political parties and the issues they care about, most people tend to think the BBC is biased towards the opposing viewpoint, with the perceived bias becoming more pronounced the more extreme the party's position is on the political spectrum. That would indicate that the BBC is actually fairly balanced overall in terms of the content, even if it does tend to devote more airtime to the government than to the opposition or anti-establishment figures. Most bias rankings tend to find that the BBC is located somewhere between fairly centrist and moderately centre-left in terms of its overall output. The one place the BBC excels is in accuracy, and it's still internationally regarded by most fact-checking services as being one of the most accurate and trustworthy news sources out there.

        1. ICL1900-G3 Silver badge

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          Compare and contrast: BBC and Fox News.

          1. Martin Gregorie

            Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

            IME the BBC news is generally good in terms of coverage and the reportage is very little biased. The BBC World Service has always been excellent when I've been working outside the UK or travelling.

            However, last time I tried listening to or watching US news it was all biased to hell and somehow managed to loose important items in a shower of adverts and bloody incomprehensible US 'football' and games of rounders. International News? Forgeddit - there was nothing.

          2. Strangelove

            Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

            As her late majesty ER II might have said

            What's the Fox that?

            As per the 'you are going to Shepton Mallet ? Wear the fox hat!' joke for non UK readers.

        2. Missing Semicolon Silver badge

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          It leans "pro-government" now, not so much pre-election. The comically long faces on election night gave that away.

          Also, the volume of complaint in each direction is no real gauge of accuracy. And when the BBCs "fact-checkers" are demonstrably biassed too, the being the most "fact checked" is no great accolade.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          "it does tend to devote more airtime to the government than to the opposition or anti-establishment figures".

          Apart from the attention given to that arsehole Farage - wildly out of proportion to the share of the vote his political parties get. IIUC he's been a guest on Question Time far more times than anyone else.

    4. that one in the corner Silver badge

      Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

      > which, if you're not up to speed, the BBC has been held to account in the recent past for not being truthful, or good for that matter.

      The Beeb has always been under the eye of the watchdog - and broadcasts whenever it has been caught not doing its best.

      > Look up Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc

      Clearly, not going to justify anything that happened with those - except to point out that, unfortunately, there are bad apples - and outright scum - at about the same (low, very low - that is why it is newsworthy) rate everywhere, in every organisation. With the same levels of cover-up pro-rated by the power of the individuals. The BBC is large, so, with deep regret, statistics imply...

      But where were we able to follow the court cases? The BBC news was giving them coverage. All that kerfuffle with Cliff Richard getting rightfully annoyed with the BBC? Heard about on Radio 4 on the drive to work.

      > I for one certainly do not look at the BBC with affection and call it Auntie

      Tarring everyone and every output from an organisation by highlighting the worst is - well, I don't accept that as rational.

      We have had Andrew Wakefield, Harold Shipman, a number of "Nurse Death" cases and there are plenty of issues around funding and NICE, but I'm not going to turn my nose up at or my back away from the NHS.

      The BBC is not what it once was, from my p.o.v. But it can not be - the environment around it has changed. As have I (with the best will in the World, Pogle's Wood no longer holds my attention as it once could, even just as a lover of animation).

      The London Times was another institution that was once referred to as an Auntie to The Nation - the BBC has held its place far better than some.

    5. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

      More like Nasty Auntie Beeb - she keeps sending me letters to say that I don't have a TV licence - Given that I stopped watching when the dumbing down got too much to bear - now over 20 years, I wish they'd switch to a subscription model and do away with the licence.

      They don't seem to be able to accept that there are people who can function without watching TV.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

        "More like Nasty Auntie Beeb - she keeps sending me letters to say that I don't have a TV licence"

        She doesn't. Those letters come from Crapita.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

          Getting the local gangster to go and beat up someone does not absolve you of responsibility of actions subsequently taken by the gangster in carrying out your request

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: the BBC – affectionately known by Brits as "Auntie"

            The TV Licensing Authority, currently run by Capita, is given a goal by the BBC of getting people who need to have a license to buy one.

            I think the BBC itself actually recognises that not everyone needs a TV license, and the legislation regarding it definitely says that you only need a license if you watch or stream any live content (with some minor exceptions), or watch iPlayer for non-S4C content. But the BBC are concerned about lost revenue due to people avoiding the license fee when they should really have one.

            It is the blunt assumption that Capita makes, that all home and work locations need a TV license, which generates the nasty behaviour. They have a default position that you need a license unless you tell them you don't. But this is just the way they operate. There is nothing that says you have to declare that you don't need a TV license although you can, and the legal obligation is that they have to prove that you do need a license order to prosecute. But they seem to operate like an extortion racket, attempting to bully people, especially vulnerable and/or insecure people into admitting that they do, even when they may not.

  3. msknight

    I don't understand the financials of this. I viewed the BBC content as a competitor to YouTube.

    How is the BBC going to survive? Nix the license fee and get advertising income from Alphabet? I can't see that working. I'd either be paying my license fee, or I'd be paying more in Red subscription to view BBC content without ads.

    If someone has more details on how this is supposed to work I'd be grateful.

    1. Guy de Loimbard Silver badge

      I echo your thoughts.

      The BBC is in need of a licence model overhaul.

      Also, people's content consumption is changing and has been for a while.

      Some of the absolute gash that I hear my kids watching on youTube, just makes the mind boggle, but it has the kids captivated and drawn in, so clearly something is working, even if the content being served up is less than appealing to adults.

      1. abend0c4 Silver badge

        The BBC is in need of a licence model overhaul

        People have been saying this for a long time and in earnest since satellite TV introduced the subscription model to the UK. The problem is finding a viable alternative - especially when there are various agendas being served (local content creation, educational children's programming, regional diversity, UK-focused news, national and local radio, media access for UK politics...) whose costs viewers might not all want to bear.

        Advertising would cannibalise the income of the other PSBs - and it's not so lucrative these days (which is why the ad breaks get ever longer on the other channels). The UK market alone is unlikely to produce enough subscription income to invest in any significant home-grown productions or sustain a news operation, let alone one with correspondents around the globe.

        One possibility would be to place PSB-like obligations on the online services - they'd then either have to find content partners in a hurry and shove money at them or develop their own.

        Public service TV is pretty vestigial in many places now - news programmes that consist of talking heads interviewing "commentators" via videocalling, the occasional sports match, low-budget game shows and reruns of The Love Boat dubbed into the local language. Better shut it down than have to suffer that fate!

        1. Scotech

          At one point, I'd thought the most likely solution would have been to axe the TV license and replace it with a broadband license, but I think the ship has sailed on that one. There was definitely a time where you could have argued that having an always-on internet connection was a luxury, but with the push these days to get rid of all offline modes of interaction with any kind of public service or utility, that argument just doesn't fly. Only way I could see that solution getting any traction now would be if there were discounts or exemptions based on income or employment status.

          Of course, assuming it's to remain publicly-funded, the best approach would be to replace it with a funding model out of general taxation. Given the government can and do meddle with the license fee funding settlement already, we may as well just stop pretending that the BBC's funding is anything other than a political decision.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            The problem with making it paid out of general taxation is that the BBC then becomes completely beholden to the incumbent government, and will further attract the accusation of being a "government mouthpiece".

            I know that many people regard the current TV license as a tax, but there are appreciable differences. You don't have to pay it (you can avoid broadcast material and iPlayer), the money is directly paid to the BBC Finance and Business division not directly to the Government (although it does then go to the Government and back to the BBC as a grant for some strange reason), and in theory the BBC Board of Governors and the BBC Director General are not directly beholden to the Government. There are four members of the Board who are nominally appointed by the Monarch, but on the recommendation of members of the Government. Other members, including the Director General are appointed by the nomination committee of the BBC board itself.

            This may only be a token out of arms-reach of the Government, but it is there, and the Government does not make any recommendations about day-to-day operation, leaving that to the board and the communications regulator.

    2. Ian Johnston Silver badge

      I don't understand the financials of this. I viewed the BBC content as a competitor to YouTube.

      Financials? Easy. Stream the BBC on YouTube and then demand the licence fee from anyone who watches anything on YouTube. There have been mutterings about ending the exemption for those who don't watch live TV; this is simply the mechanism for making the change.

  4. may_i Silver badge

    TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

    The Swedes abandoned TV licenses some ten years ago. Instead, they added an extra tax burden for everyone to finance their public broadcaster.

    I object to this as I don't watch the propaganda created by the public broadcaster and don't see why I should be forced to finance something I have no interest in. I rarely watch any broadcast TV and haven't for longer than I can remember. It would have been nice to be able to watch Wimbledon on the public broadcast service when I was on holiday, but instead, that was only available on the HBO Max streaming service by buying the extra "sports" package. When the public broadcaster can't even get the rights to show content which people are interested in, they become even more irrelevant.

    The UK government would do well to adopt a similar model to finance the BBC. Imagine how much money they'd save not paying Crapita to harass and threaten people and waste the legal system's time and resources in enforcement actions.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

      "The Swedes abandoned TV licenses some ten years ago."

      Australia abolished tv & wireless licences in 1974 about the time colour broadcasts commenced with the Aunty Jack Introduces Colour special. ;)

      The two public broadcasters ABC and SBS are government funded with SBS running advertising for supplemental revenue.

      1. Fara82Light Bronze badge

        Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

        That is the problem. As soon as the funding model becomes dependent upon government handouts, the media services can no longer claim to be independent.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

      "I object to this as I don't watch the propaganda created by the public broadcaster and don't see why I should be forced to finance something I have no interest in."

      Downvoted because I don't have children and neither am I likely to, so why am I paying towards keeping the local schools running? Speaking of which, why am I paying for the street lighting in my village? I live far enough away that I can only see the glow in the distance (or exactly nothing at all on a foggy night).

      The idea is that we all throw some money into the pot and trust the government to allocate it as is needed and not piss far too much away on dodgy contracts with mates or the pockets of outfits like Oracle...

      If some of that keeps the Beeb going, fair enough. If you watch TV in other countries (and notice how prominent and frequent adverts are) you'll start to appreciate that the Beeb still exists (even if you don't watch it).

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

        In principle, maybe, but as someone who has done a lot of work with the BBC my experience is of spectacular levels of waste and inefficiency. Give them taxation directly and they'll get even worse, if that's possible.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

          "From our own correspondent"

          Goes out on the World Service and Radio 4.

          The script is written by the producer.

          The Radio 4 edition is presented by Kate Adie.

          The World Service edition by a World Service presenter.

          No doubt the World Service presenter gets a lower fee than Adie.

          Why the duplication?

          Given the main content is spoken by the correspondents themselves, why not just broadcast the World Service edition?

        2. tiggity Silver badge

          Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

          Given the rules on needing a TV licence, its almost compulsory in UK (bar those few people who do not watch a few live events) so general taxation would be a big improvement as currently a licence is yet another thing that is disproportionately hitting the poor as very difficult to avoid.

    3. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

      @may_i

      " It would have been nice to be able to watch Wimbledon on the public broadcast service when I was on holiday, but instead, that was only available on the HBO Max streaming service by buying the extra "sports" package."

      BBC love their wall to wall coverage of Wimbledon *.... however, coverage of the other Grand Slam events is distinctly patchy (better than it used to be, but still hardly any coverage until last stages).

      ..BBC coverage of Wimbledon is not necessarily representative of other countries tennis coverage & I can understand why Sweden TV may not have Wimbledon coverage (maybe they need a new player to rival Borg, Edberg or Wilander & then tennis coverage demand may rise). Plus there are often big costs to sport as companies angling for sporting monopolies out compete generalist broadcasters (e.g. in UK, this is last year we get Tour de France coverage on terrestrial TV as WB Discovery has exclusive rights in upcoming years, long had pitiful cricket coverage in UK (1 hour highlights shows of test matches at best) as Sky have most of the rights)

      * I don't mind a bit of tennis but BBC coverage is rather OTT - especially in first week, when bar the odd "shock" there are a lot of dull matches - though I think some of that approach is because BBC has broadcast rights to so few sporting events now, when it does have rights it gets a bit carried away on amount of coverage as they want to make the most of it (& they pay a huge amount for it)

    4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: TV Licenses to fund public broadcasters are an anachronism

      "It would have been nice to be able to watch Wimbledon on the public broadcast service when I was on holiday"

      Nice? It would be nice to not find bloody Wimbledon on both BBC1 & 2. Even, in those halcyon days when the Beeb almost covered Test Cricket properly they still suspended coverage so that plink-plonk could be forced on viewers with no alternative.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Subscription better than ads?

    I've no personal issue with the BBC licence fee but, if things have to change, then moving to a subscription would be far better than being inundated with ads. I rarely watch any other channel live - those programmes are recorded so I can swiftly FF through the ads. It's disappointing that some standards in the BBC have dropped, but I wonder if the issues that make the news headlines are only there because, well, they make news headlines. That's not to condone the behaviours, and those matters must be investigated and stopped, but I have to wonder whether any of it is worse now than in the BBC's "glory years" - with the increased scrutiny the BBC now gets, the situation could well be much better. And it's much easier to hit a target when there are more to aim at, especially if they have a high profile and nobody is really perfect. Without wanting to belittle the faults of those in the news, today's access and scrutiny means most of us could be vilified if it sold headlines.

    However, I still have a major beef with the BBC - it has fallen to the curse of chasing viewing numbers, competing in a market with an unrealistic KPI (aka success measure). Take Saturday evenings on BBC - last Saturday it was a procession of quiz programmes. Yes, they attract viewing numbers but, in relation to the BBC charter that requires education as well as entertainment, they're probably best described as viewer numbing. Freedom from a reliance on advertising revenue should release the BBC from the commercial pressure of viewer numbers, but the nature of the TV licence brings other pressures.

    I say I'd prefer a subscription to advertising, but I'm not sure how viable that would be. A lot of people would just not subscribe as switch to other channels for what they current watch on the BBC, which would probably mean a significant reduction in revenue. Public service broadcasting, without interminable advertising breaks, just isn't commercially viable.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Subscription better than ads?

      In what way would a subscription be different from a licence except in name? The current nature of terrestrial broadcasting is such that non-subscribers can't be locked out. To change that would need a repeat of the digital switch-over but without any gain from the viewer's PoV.

    2. Fara82Light Bronze badge

      Re: Subscription better than ads?

      The fundamental problem with the TV Licence is that you still have to buy it even if you do not consume BBC content. That is the equivalent of having to subsidise the Guardian whenever you buy a newspaper.

    3. Fara82Light Bronze badge

      Re: Subscription better than ads?

      You mean that if the consumers were given the choice, many of them would not be prepared to pay for BBC content and thus the BBC prefers the current arrangement where the consumer has no choice but to pay if they want to consume TV.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

    How do they even know you’ve got a TV?

    TV detector vans?

    1. Scotech

      Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

      They don't. The vans were a myth. Nowadays, they basically just send you scary letters in the post until you either pay up, or tell them you don't have a TV. If you do the latter, they occasionally used to send someone around to check, but I don't think they even bother with that any more, given how ineffectual it was.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

        "The vans were a myth."

        They weren't. You must be a pasty-faced yoof.

        The detector vans ended when analogue broadcasting stopped and CRT TV sets were no longer a thing => no more RF signal from the receivers.

        1. Scotech

          Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

          OK. I'll concede the vans were real. Too bad they were unwilling to disclose to the courts how they actually worked and thus weren't able to admit their 'detections' as evidence. Didn't stop them running scare ads about them well into the 2000s, but they were effectively never anything more than a piece of propaganda.

      2. Fara82Light Bronze badge

        Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

        As of this year, they will send you aggressive emails and letters even if you are registered as not requiring a TV Licence.

        1. Fara82Light Bronze badge

          Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

          It is no good for the BBC fanboys to be voting down the comment; that comment is an accurate reflection of what is happening now.

    2. tony72

      Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

      Retailers used to be required to inform TV Licensing when someone bought a TV, however that was ended about a decade ago. However, I think the general assumption is that every household is going to have at least one TV in this day and age, so they probably send letters to any inhabited address that doesn't have a license.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

      "How do they even know you’ve got a TV? TV detector vans?"

      Basically yes.

      [In AU]

      It wasn't and offence to possess a wireless or tv receiver without a licence but operating one without a licence was.

      Obviously when the PMG detector van appeared in a outback town a queue formed at the local Post Office to purchase the requisite licence(s) but I believe the visitation was advertised in advance in any case.

      Years ago a Telecom tech told me that at the time receivers were invariably (super?)heterodyne designs and that the detector vans looked for the intermediate frequencies (IF) presumably those typically used.

      I assume that was factual or they could have used sensitive microphones and listened for Blue Hills theme around midday or the ABC tv news fanfare at 1900/7pm. [The Archers didn't run here.] ;)

      I recall car radios and portables aka transistors were covered by your household licence. Possibly the most useless fact I have retained, so far, but at this point far is relative.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge

        Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

        With the old CRT screens, they could pick up the use of the TV from outside. With modern TVs, that's no longer the case.

        1. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

          But it was not at all accurate. A residential area or, worse, a block of flats, would have radio noise that would indicate that a TV was being watched, but it would take more advanced hardware to pick out where exactly the TV was. So they'd often just have a person walk around and look through people's living room windows to see if a TV could be spotted.

          That's how they got my neighbour. Drove up in a TV detector van, got out, walked around, saw people in unlicenced homes watching TV, knocked on the door...

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

        "the detector vans looked for the intermediate frequencies"

        More likely the local oscillator. Of course CRT sets emitted huge amounts of RF from the HT generation as anyone who tried listening to AM radio in the presence of those beasts will be well aware.

    4. mark l 2 Silver badge

      Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

      They did have detector vans which would be able to detect you were watching your chonky CRT back in the day. A good video on their history here https://youtu.be/GCVps7N0YYE?si=67gv0MwgFSrJJvxZ

      But these days its just a matter of having a list of all UK addresses who don't pay for a license and sending someone around to knock on the door if they suspect you're watching TV without a license.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

        FFS! it's licence, not license.

        License is a verb, not a noun. Unless you're a USian and therefore have no understanding of spelling or grammar.

    5. Fara82Light Bronze badge

      Re: I’ve never understood the UK TV licence thing

      They assume that every household should have a TV Licence and thus bully those households that do not have a licence registered to their address.

  7. illuminatus

    Call me old fashioned

    Maybe it's just me, but funnelling a lot of home grown content (that we have in fact already paid for) onto a service owned by one of the large tech companies that is busy cosying up to a US government rapidly doing the death march towards actual fascism doesn't seem like an altogether tactically sound move. Call me old fashioned, but it would be a bit like, back in 1938, selling the Daily Mirror to Mussolini, or something.

    Can't say I'm overly keen on that idea.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Call me old fashioned

      "1938, selling the Daily Mirror to Mussolini"

      Careful you will be giving Oswald Mosley (BUF) a wettie in his grave.

      Or alternatively selling the Grauniad to Völkischer Beobachter although the former's typos might have actually shortened the conflict.

    2. Fara82Light Bronze badge

      Re: Call me old fashioned

      The difference between Fascism and Marxist/Leninism is that the former could at least get the trains to run on time. :)

  8. This post has been deleted by its author

  9. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Ofc*nt

    Ofcom’s solution to a failing public media sector? Surrender it to Silicon Valley. Instead of asking why children prefer YouTube, or investing in a healthier media economy, they’re begging Google to give British broadcasters a leg-up - on its platform.

    The UK invented public service broadcasting. Now, rather than funding innovation or nurturing domestic alternatives, we’re asking a foreign advertising giant to decide which BBC clip deserves "prominence." It's the digital equivalent of asking Walmart to stock your local farmer’s tomatoes - for exposure.

    What happened to building infrastructure, talent, and platforms of our own? We had decades to adapt. But it’s easier to draft legislation that props up PSBs on YouTube than to foster a local alternative. Tick the box, collect your taxpayer-funded wage, and call it progress.

    The message is clear: the UK won’t lead in digital media - it’ll beg for a seat at the algorithm.

    Absolute shambles.

    1. heyrick Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: Ofc*nt

      "Absolute shambles."

      When has any British government since, say, Churchill, been anything different? From Brexit to WMDs, Eggwina to Reeves' budget, Thatcher to HS2... it's been a non-stop omnishambles.

      1. R Soul Silver badge

        Re: Ofc*nt

        Not quite. The Attlee government introduced universal health care and the welfare state. And Shagger Boris (or was it Camoron?) let Liz Truss transform our cheese and pork exports.

        1. Fara82Light Bronze badge

          Re: Ofc*nt

          ... and then got kicked-out of office because of the mess it created.

      2. Fara82Light Bronze badge

        Re: Ofc*nt

        ... more often than those stuck in the tram-tracks would accept.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Ofc*nt

      Instead of asking why children prefer YouTube

      That's easy, it's because YouTube is pre-installed on Android phones which parents pacify their offspring with and CBeebies and iPlayer isn't.

  10. Hugo Rune
    Stop

    Stupid idea.

    Giving away your content to You Tube is just daft. Whenever I watch you tube without uBlock Origin it is a mess of adverts inserted mid sentence. ITV is bad enough with the advert breaks now, why make it worse?

  11. ChrisElvidge Silver badge

    Children and young people spend less time viewing broadcasters' services than any other age group. Today's 4-6-year-olds spend a larger proportion of their in-home viewing on YouTube (27 percent) than they do on all PSB services combined (21 percent). These patterns intensify with children's age: 7-12-year-olds spend over a third of their in-home viewing time (35 percent) on YouTube and 13-15-year-olds spend nearly half (49 percent) on YouTube and TikTok.

    But I thought the idea was that kids under 16 shouldn't be allowed on "(Anti)Social Media."

  12. Fara82Light Bronze badge

    Sanctuary

    Many in the UK have taken to YouTube because the BBC and the other UK PSBs are using most, if not all, of their content for the dissemination of a progressive agenda rather than factual or entertainment content. If they establish channels on YouTube, they are going to be exposed to some very healthy competition.

    It is also of note that the BBC is posting a lot of archive footage on YouTube - the kind that was produced in the era when the BBC was a respected institution, and not so much of its current offerings.

  13. Fara82Light Bronze badge

    Off switch

    If the Government chooses to force independent platforms to carry and promote UK PBS channels, I hope they will also accept that UK users of those platforms would have a right to disable that promotion and indeed be able to block those channels if they so wished.

    1. Fara82Light Bronze badge

      Re: Off switch

      The fact that anyone would downvote a comment in support of freedom of choice just goes to show the state of Britain these days.

  14. Fruit and Nutcase Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    "Why Don't You"

    Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go and Do Something Less Boring Instead?

    The TV show "Why Don't You" encouraged kids to turn off the TV and do something more enjoyable and productive.

    https://nostalgiacentral.com/television/tv-by-decade/tv-shows-1970s/dont/

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266205/

    https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/august/why-dont-you

  15. Fara82Light Bronze badge

    Consumer Choice

    Essentially, if UK consumers of TV were offered the choice between a subscription service or an increased BBC Licence Fee, the BBC would become unsustainable in its current form.

    Thus, the reason why the UK Government has such problems with offering subscription services to the public because it would put many of their comrades in the BBC on the street looking for work.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like