BBC bumps telly tax to £180 as Netflix lurks with cheaper tiers

Brits will soon pay more to legally watch the BBC's output than to subscribe to some of the world's biggest streaming services, after the UK government confirmed the TV license fee will climb to £180 a year from April. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the fee will rise by £5.50 for the 2026/27 financial year, …

[BackInFiveMinutes]

Years ago I was a supporter of the TV license, not anymore. I think the BBC should stand, or fall, on its on merit and should now become a subscription serice.

[Lon24]

It's a difficult one. Subscriptions link usage to revenue. Popular programmes such as East Enders, the Archers and drama like Night Manager may be fine. But there is no incentive to provide a universal service. What happens to our six orchestras (and with that the Proms), the Russian & Persian World services - the music competitions - local news, reporters all over the world. I could go on. Indeed all the services Netflix et al do not do.

Do they matter or should we be prepared to take the cultural hit and attempts to get news to the parts of the world trying to suppres it? Everybody agrees the licence fee like democracy is broken. But the alternatives do have major downsides. I don't know the solution but the fundamental question is should we pay for things we don't use but are generally accepted as good for society?

That used to be unquestionable. But now it is. Beware of easy solutions to a very complex issue.

[EvilDrSmith]

"But there is no incentive to provide a universal service. What happens to our six orchestras (and with that the Proms), the Russian & Persian World services - the music competitions - local news, reporters all over the world."

Good questions that deserve proper thought, but which also reveal some of the core issues.

Do we need the BBC to have SIX orchestras? Why not just one or two?

Is there truly a threat to the Proms, given how popular it seems to be?

If the world service is valuable to the UK as soft power, should that not be directly funded by the Foreign Office?

Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

Global events (news / sports) often seem to be attended by the BBC in much greater numbers than other organisations - is that necessary for good journalism, or wasteful extravagance?

There seem to be a lot of people that want to scrap the licence fee and defund the BBC, and as many that insist that the BBC is a bastion of civilisation, and needs to be protected as is.

Perhaps a better idea would be a comprehensive review of what the BBC does, and what we, as a society (and ultimately the people that pay for it) want it to do?

[Paul Slater]

> Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

I think Reach PLC is doing a pretty good job of destroying all other local news outlets, without any need for help from the BBC

[Robin]

> I think Reach PLC is doing a pretty good job of destroying all other local news outlets, without any need for help from the BBC

Indeed. The idea that these unusable sites littered with ads would somehow improve if the BBC disappeared, is pretty laughable.

[Gordon 10]

Reach isnt the only game in many towns..., though it is in some.

[sten2012]

The others are often just as bad. Or in fact, indistinguishable, from Reach.

Often LDRS authored ones are literally the only articles worth reading.

I've never heard the argument of it stifling competition, much the opposite - that it was introduced because local news stopped being news and became a clickbaity shitefest.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see any ads on them

[Anonymous Coward]

re: I don't see any ads on them

And thus you contribute nothing to their bottom line.

In a discussion about funding you're not really adding any value other than "Look at me, aren't I clever".

Virtue signalling I believe it's called.

[Michael Strorm]

Never mind virtue signalling

No, virtue signalling would be "look at me, aren't I good/moral?"

Virtue signalling is undeniably a real thing to a certain extent, and always has been throughout history.

But... it's also noticeable that in recent years there's been a huge online upswing in fingerpointing accusations of "virtue signalling" at anyone apparently behaving in a remotely altruistic way. Or simply showing concern for others and being less than a self-centred piece of shit.

And it's odd that this always seems to come from people who come across as self-centered pieces of shit themselves.

People who- one suspects- would never behave that way unless there was something in it for them to appear "good" and project that mentality onto everyone else. Or people who resent others that make them look bad by comparison, and would rather invalidate the whole idea of altruism and make them out to be hypocrites than become better people themselves.

The type of people okay with (e.g.) Donald Trump being a fucking piece of shit because it validates *them* being fucking pieces of shit themselves.

Irony is that this makes these people suckers for grifters and careerists who want to cash in on appearing as "one of them" by simply pandering to such views and behaviour in a performative manner.

You might call that "vice signalling".

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

But... it's also noticeable that in recent years there's been a huge online upswing in fingerpointing accusations of "virtue signalling" at anyone apparently behaving in a remotely altruistic way. Or simply showing concern for others and being less than a self-centred piece of shit.

But when the media makes shows like Dr Who, or Starfleet Academy, it's easy to make those accusations because they're true. Kurzman is destroying Star Trek, but this is Paramount's problem. RTD destroyed Dr Who, which used to be one of the Bbc's biggest family brands. And it was also a big merch brand with everything from a toy TARDIS to Dr Who socks. Both shows are very much virtue signalling and when people point out the writing is attrocious and non-canon, the fans are promptly attacked by self-centred and self-serving PoS like RTD. Or as Christopher Ecclestone put it-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWh6JnN9bOw

The Bbc should have sacked Tranter, Gardner & RTD.. Except they can't, at least not directly because they moved from the PSB to Worldwide and then their own indie, leaving a trail of wreckage along the way. I think my favorite example was 'Viva Laughlin', a lavish co-production for Bbc Worldwide that was supposed to help the Bbc conquer America, but was so bad it was pulled after a couple of shows and the rest have never been aired. But along with Dr Who, much reputation damage for the Bbc, loss of revenues for Worldwide that are supposed to feed back to the PSB, and the 'creatives' involved don't care because they've been paid.

But the Bbc should have seen this coming. The female Dr was poorly recieved and the writing was attrocious. Then RTD gave the world a gay Dr, and it got even worse. There didn't seem to be any adult supervision at the Bbc to reign in RTDs ego and tone things down. RTD can't write SF and can't seem to do anything other than LGBT shows, which isn't necessarily a problem. Pitch an LGBT SF show, produce that and see what happens.. But they let him wreck Dr Who. Or the spin-off that might have been self-parody. Nepo-baby and girl-boss almost destroying human civilisation because they somehow neglected to mention they'd encountered the Sea Devils twice before. Both shows were abysmal, gave critics much to laugh about and damaged the Bbc's reputation as a drama producer.

Or for me, the Bbc probably isn't going to touch SF again for a long time, which is a shame because I'm an SF fan. But I think also would be a great case study into problems at the Bbc, ie the risk-reward issue and cost/revenue sharing. The idea of the Bbc's commercial activities is supposedly to feed money back to the PSB and keep the licence cost down. This has never worked, and an in-depth, public audit into how Dr Who happened would show why.. And it's something the NAO could do, because after all, we own the Bbc, including its subsdiaries.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

Why do you type "Bbc" like that? All your other capitalizations look okay, so is it a problem with you autocorrect or just an affectation or would-be joke?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

Why do you type "Bbc" like that?

Ask not, just wonder why the world's greatest broadcaster and guardian of the facts types NATO as Nato.. or doesn't type the UN as Un, the WHO as Who. I still think that's due to the Bbc and others giving in to the fight against their auto-correct software and not being smart enough to figure out how to fix it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

I suppose that's fine if you're okay with being the only one who gets your own overdone joke and everyone else assuming your autocorrect is knackered...?

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

I suppose that's fine if you're okay with being the only one who gets your own overdone joke

It's a small protest.

The Bbc is supposed to be a bastion of Britishness and use the English language correctly. I was taught that getting an entities name wrong is very unprofessional and can be a sign of contempt. Hence why I intentionally write the Bbc's name the way I do. But the Bbc can have an article showing someone like Rutte standing in front of a NATO sign and still get the name wrong. I have no idea why the Bbc (and other media companies) decided to alter their style guides to style NATO incorrectly, but it's wrong. I still suspect it's because the Bbc gave in to wrestling with MS and other auto-correct systems that by default can't handle proper vs common nouns, or when I was writing technical documents, acronyms.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Never mind virtue signalling

Well, okay. As I said, everyone else will just see it and just assume your autocorrect is knackered.

[Bottle_Cap]

It's pronounced retch ;)

[Sub 20 Pilot]

As always written by Private Eye !

[Anonymous Coward]

Retch media - aka Internet cut and paste and hot-hot-hot news about the best Chippy in Coventry.

[andy gibson]

And then regurgitated onto every regional Reach webpage so that you think it's in your area.

[Charlie Clark]

The World Service did indeed used to be entirely funded by the Foreign Office. Then it was decided to force the BBC to do it without additional funding.

Please, not another "comprehensive review": this would just yet another opportunity for politicians and lobbies to get the boot in. Reviews are done periodically as part of the charter renewal. In addition, there is a board of governors which are supposed to oversee operations. But there's basically been the same kind of explosion of management that government advisors forced on the NHS and this has been to the detriment of almost everything else. News and current affairs were neutered under Greg Dyke and have been repeatedly cut since: for example, there is no coverage of the upcoming Gorton and Dention by-election under "UK Politics".

[nijam]

> ... this would just yet another opportunity for politicians and lobbies to get the boot in.

All too true. Every UK political party believes the BBC to have long-term bias against them.

Possibly because news media based of factual reporting will tend to be biased against almost all political opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

There seem to be a lot of people that want to scrap the licence fee and defund the BBC

Most of that coming from those who mistakenly think it'll be good for their bank accounts: the Daily Heil, the Murdoch press, Farage, etc.

[Jellied Eel]

Most of that coming from those who mistakenly think it'll be good for their bank accounts

Alternatively, it'd be bad for washed up hacks like RTD and countless other 'celebrities' that rely on corporate welfare from the Bbc. There's plenty of other opportunities for 'talent' to make money, if they have real talent.

[Tom Graham]

No, it's just coming from people who rightly don't want to be forced to pay for garbage entertainment and biased news they don't watch.

If you don't like "the Murdoch press" - guess what? No one is forcing you to buy it.

[Richard 12]

Lose Auntie and "the Murdoch press" will be literally the only option for "News".

We've seen what has happened in the USA. Do you genuinely want that in the UK too?

Except it'd be far, far worse, because the BBC also acts as a worldwide backstop. Everyone can get BBC news and thus have one non-commercial option.

[Jellied Eel]

Except it'd be far, far worse, because the BBC also acts as a worldwide backstop. Everyone can get BBC news and thus have one non-commercial option.

Careful. If 'everyone' can get the Bbc 'news', then that rather harms the Bbc's defence in Trump vs Bbc over creating fake news in their 'flagship' Panorama show. Which was curious in that they produced a hit show about Trump, but neglected to provide balance and do one about Harris as well. Funny that. But the Bbc's trying to use the CNN defence and claim the creative editing didn't matter, because nobody watches it anyway.

Or just the kind of beviour that destroys the Bbc's reputation and credibility

[Richard 12]

News != a specific show.

www.bbc.com/news is available worldwide.

Panorama is a television broadcast that is only available in the UK and specific regions that purchase a licence to individual shows.

But then, that doesn't suit your narrative and you've never cared for reality.

[Jellied Eel]

But then, that doesn't suit your narrative and you've never cared for reality.

My reality involves sometimes being in the US. So I know what a VPN is. So do many Brits that travel. Or even.. Americans who want to watch the Bbc! You.. have heard of VPNs, haven't you? Pretty sure the Bbc's even got some explainers for you, if you don't understand what they are or how they work..

[Anonymous Coward]

It was also 2 years ago.

[iRadiate]

VPN? Then they watched a BBC program illegally.

Anyway. .

Do you honestly Americans get a VPN specifically to watch Panorama?

Do Brits go to great lengths to watch 60 Minutes?

Behave.

[Jellied Eel]

Do you honestly Americans get a VPN specifically to watch Panorama?

Do Brits go to great lengths to watch 60 Minutes?

If you look at the marketing for things like NordVPN, one of their selling points is to bypass content restrictions. If you know any Brit expats, or just some of the comments here you'll see people using or wanting to pay for a proper Bbc sub from the US. Dunno if any of our Vultures that moved across the pond do this, but it's very common. The Bbc and other content providers try to stop this, but things like iPlayer work from the US. Having done troubleshooting for people with geolocation issues, it's not always very reliable and sometimes just relies on using latency to try and deduce where the user is. So might work more reliably from say, NYC than LA.. But then I know people in LA & SF that do use iPlayer via VPN from there.

[Roland6]

>” The Bbc and other content providers try to stop this”

Depends, remember the film/visual art industry loves geo blocking of content - remember DVDs and players were region blocked because of their demands…

Listen to radio and things are different with them (both BBC and commercial radio) often promoting their global online audience.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey no-one’s perfect, and Panorama was only shown - 2 years ago - in the UK. In general the fully investigate, and some top people owned it and resigned.

Trump has yet to demonstrate any harm or legal standing for his dimbass $bm’a damages claim.

However Trump was help responsible for the Insurrection on Jan 6th 2021 in USA, regardless of impacts of after the event reporting.

[Jellied Eel]

Hey no-one’s perfect, and Panorama was only shown - 2 years ago - in the UK. In general the fully investigate, and some top people owned it and resigned.

It's a credibility issue. People think the Bbc is a trusted source and Panorama is supposedly their flagship investigative news show. Yet for some reason, the Panorama team, its editors and maybe lawyers thought it was OK to splice together words from a Trump speech to entirely alter the context and meaning. So prima facie evidence of the Bbc creating fake news. The fake clip was also repeated on Newsnight and timed so an anti-Trump hit piece went out just ahead of the US elections.

The 'top people' didn't 'own' it either, not until the Prescott memo was leaked-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_BBC_editorial_bias_allegations

Showing concerns about the fake news had already been raised, and ignored. Or as wiki puts it-

In response to the criticism, the BBC acknowledged the issues raised but defended its editorial decisions, insisting that corrections were made when errors were identified.

But with the Panorama incident, no such corrections were made and the Bbc attempted to defend the indefensable, ie the edited speech was fake and wasn't what Trump actually said. In an era of fake news, misinformation and the ability to use AI, this is not OK, and the Bbc should have known this.. And it certainly should have known that Americans would watch this, or hear about it via secondary sources, so the Bbc should have known this would allow claims of election interference because it was.

Trump has yet to demonstrate any harm or legal standing for his dimbass $bm’a damages claim.

Except he has. The claim has been filed and accepted by Florida where Trump clearly has standing. The Bbc has filled to dismiss the claim, but the case is still ongoing. The hatchet job was clearly defamatory, so assuming Trump wins then damages will be assessed. Which could get interesting, ie Trump could use discovery to try and get data from the Bbc to show how many Americans watched Panorama or Newsnight. Legally, I think he only needs 1 to make the case, more could help with damages. But then Trump's usual tactic is to sue bigly, then take a settlement. So the Bbc might be on the hook for a few hundred million instead of $10bn, as Trump did with fake claims that he was a rapist.

And then it's been interesting to see people rallying to defend the Bbc, claiming press freedoms or First Amendment protections.. which are never a shield agains defamation claims. And also means that 'journalists' are defending the Bbc's right to make fake news.

[Roland6]

Trumps own defence is already compromised, the edited speech was first aired on Newsnight in 2022 and most people missed it. In much the same way as those calling Starmer out for his lack of judgement over Mandelson, when if what they say was true, members of Parliament and the media would have been raising the issue at the time, but they didn’t…

[Jellied Eel]

In much the same way as those calling Starmer out for his lack of judgement over Mandelson, when if what they say was true, members of Parliament and the media would have been raising the issue at the time, but they didn’t…

Some people did, and criticised Mandleson's appointment as US ambassador. So-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Mandelson

Mandelson's career has been marked by controversy, which resulted in his twice resigning from the Cabinet and being dismissed as ambassador in 2025. He bought a home in 1996 partly with an interest-free loan of £373,000 from Geoffrey Robinson, a Cabinet colleague whose business dealings were subject to an inquiry by Mandelson's department. He had not declared the loan in the Register of Members' Interests and resigned in December 1998. In January 2001 he again resigned from the government following accusations of using his position to influence a passport application for S. P. Hinduja.

Not exactly a safe pair of hands. So he got up to his old tricks of abusing his position, and allegedly shared classified government informaton with an Israeli spy ring. But the whole Epstein fiasco is also one of those great media failures. The MSM didn't seem to want to investigate or touch the story, probably because of the number of rich, shameless and very influential people involved.. Some of whom either owned or controlled media interests, or could sue them out of existence.. Which is where we're at with this story. Massie's asking pointed questions. Victims should be protected, perpetrators and collaborators should not. Wexman's been named, but then the relationship between Epstein and Wexman was already public, which raises questions as to why his name was redacted in the first place.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the BBC news is bias d, best you check out the shitshow that is GB News (shame on you Ofcom) and others newly UK streaming like NewsMax.

[rg287]

Do we need the BBC to have SIX orchestras? Why not just one or two?

There's the slippery slope. If you're opening the door to putting arbitrary limits on things, then why not have a limit of zero? You are presuming that the management at the BBC are champagne-swilling socialists with a blank chequebook. The latter part at least is very much untrue.

Those orchestras all have a role. It's not like 5 of them are sitting in a green room coming out one at a time to perform. The BBC maintains them because it needs them to fulfil it's various broadcasting and performance programmes. They're all doing different cultural things at the same time. And why not? BBC-maintained groups do more than 400 concerts a year (hard for a single orchestra!) as well as many, many studio sessions, some of which will derive commercial income (e.g. the BBC Philharmonic gets in a studio for a day, spends a morning recording bits for BBC productions and then spends the afternoon recording commercial scores for £).

It is worth noting that the list of disbanded BBC ensembles is rather longer than the list of extant groups. They come and go as required by the BBC's programming.

Since you obviously couldn't be bothered to google what the six orchestras are (there's actually five, since the BBC Big Band isn't actually BBC-funded, albeit they pretty much exclusively perform for BBC, but as freelancers. So yay for paperwork and "technically not on the payroll"!), we have:

* BBC Concert Orchestra - London, smaller than a full Symphony, plays light classical, pop music, resident on Friday Night Is Music Night.

* BBC National Orchestra of Wales - only professional SO in Wales. In-residence at St David's Hall, Cardiff and record a lot of BBC TV soundtracks

* BBC Philharmonic - part of BBC North. Based in Bridgewater Hall, Manchester

* BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra - shocker, based in Glasgow

* BBC Symphony Orchestra - principal Broadcast Orchestra, is responsible for a lot of the Proms season at RAH.

There are also a number of singers and Choral groups. There's no NI orchestra - this was folded into the Ulster Orchestra in 1981. The Ulster Orchestra are a professional outfit, but still derive a lot of income from the BBC doing Proms in Belfast, etc. Much of their funding comes from Art Council NI and Belfast City Council, so it's not clear you could just spin them off as a fully self-managed, profit-making ensemble.

Now I appreciate that you obviously think the UK is "the United Kingdom of London and outlying areas", but the BBC has a national mandate, and so maintains cultural efforts nationally. The BBC is about a lot more than TV and Radio. Aside from their substantial educational remit (online, and through OU programming), they have always maintained a substantial programme of in-person cultural events - concerts, shows, etc around the country.

This is a good thing.

John Maynard Keynes:

Let us not submit to the vile doctrine of the nineteenth century that every enterprise must justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence of cash income … Why should we not add in every substantial city the dignity of an ancient university or a European capital … an ample theater, a concert hall, a dance hall, a gallery, cafes, and so forth. Assuredly we can afford this and so much more. Anything we can actually do, we can afford. … We are immeasurably richer than our predecessors. Is it not evident that some sophistry, some fallacy, governs our collective action if we are forced to be so much meaner than they in the embellishments of life? …

Yet these must be only the trimmings on the more solid, urgent and necessary outgoings on housing the people, on reconstructing industry and transport and on replanning the environment of our daily life. Not only shall we come to possess these excellent things. With a big programme carried out at a regulated pace we can hope to keep employment good for many years to come. We shall, in fact, have built our New Jerusalem out of the labour which in our former vain folly we were keeping unused and unhappy in enforced idleness.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great and comprehensive post.

[rg287]

Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Right, now I've picked myself up off the floor, you think that getting rid of BBC Local News would make the ad-riddled pit of Retch PLC better? The only reason BBC local is decent is that journalists are being paid to be f-ing journalists without having to clickbait the shit out their articles. Reich would still clickbait their horrible, horrible sites if the BBC weren't around - because reporting follows ad-revenue. This very much suits the Murdochs, et al who want to profit from "news" but also don't actually want any serious investigative journalism that might be inconvenient to themselves. For their faults, the BBC is one of the last bastions of such now that most of the newspapers have gone to shit.

Global events (news / sports) often seem to be attended by the BBC in much greater numbers than other organisations - is that necessary for good journalism, or wasteful extravagance?

Compared to whom? Lots of European nations cover those events in great detail. You're not comparing against the - universally derided - coverage that NBC cobbles together for the States are you? Major cultural events like the Football World Cup and the Olympic Games should be made available free-to-air for everyone to enjoy. Or what, is sport only for the rich, and those who can afford a £££/mo TNT sports subscription?

The BBC does lots of stuff I think is pish - Eastenders? Dross. But I accept some people seem to enjoy it (for reasons I can't fathom). I also accept that some content isn't aimed at me (CBBC, Bitesize), and that some simply falls outside my interest (Radio 3). But I don't begrudge others what they get out of it, because I get Night Manager, Radio 4, Olympic coverage, Quizzy Mondays, and imperfect-but-serviceable local news

There seem to be a lot of people that want to scrap the licence fee and defund the BBC, and as many that insist that the BBC is a bastion of civilisation, and needs to be protected as is.

Like who? The Dubai-funded owners of GBNews? Rupert Murdoch and his mouthpieces? Go on, show me people who want the BBC defunded who are either not conflicted (stand to gain financially from the BBC's downfall), or who are not the subject of BBC journalistic scrutiny and find it jolly inconvenient. I bet folding money anyone who hates the BBC and is not in those categories, is directly under the influence of them (a GBeebies follower or similar Frottage fan).

Perhaps a better idea would be a comprehensive review of what the BBC does, and what we, as a society (and ultimately the people that pay for it) want it to do?

That happens every time they renegotiate the Charter. And what we want from it is a broad base of public-access cultural and educational content. Which is broadly what we get.

[werdsmith]

Local news reports from the BBC are often claimed to be stifling competition from local news papers etc, and killing off true local journalism.

Look up Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Reporters working in local newspapers, funded by the BBC.

[Robin]

I wonder if this is part of the broader argument along the lines of "I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools?" Some people's view that they should only pay for exactly what they use is so entrenched that it's difficult to even have that conversation. The schools argument you can kind of see, but what about fire? Police? Street lights? Where does it end?

Over the weekend I saw a discussion about a glimpse into what a post-licence fee world would look like, in the form of adverts running during the Six Nations rugby coverage on ITV (as in, during the actual period of play). It's not hard to imagine that getting worse, without ad-free coverage from the BBC to compare against.

I do believe there should be some kind of national broadcaster in each country, but I also agree the system isn't perfect like it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Over the weekend I saw a discussion about a glimpse into what a post-licence fee world would look like, in the form of adverts running during the Six Nations rugby coverage on ITV (as in, during the actual period of play). It's not hard to imagine that getting worse, without ad-free coverage from the BBC to compare against."

I have zero interest in sport, I fail to to see the argument for the BBC to waste its limited resources on wildly expensive sports broadcasting rights when there's other funding options for those who enjoy it.

[rg287]

I have zero interest in sport, I fail to to see the argument for the BBC to waste its limited resources on wildly expensive sports broadcasting rights when there's other funding options for those who enjoy it.

/s ?

Some people have zero interest in classical music. They fail to see the argument for the BBC waste its limited resources on wildly expensive 55-people orchaestras when there's other funding options for those who enjoy it.

Some people don't have children. They fail to see the argument for the BBC waste its limited resources on kids TV and all that Bitesize stuff when the government already funds schools.

Some people don't want to do further education. They fail to see the argument for the BBC waste its limited resources on Open University programming when there's other funding options for those who enjoy it.

Some people have zero interest in quizzes. They fail to see the argument for the BBC waste its limited resources on University Challenge/Mastermind/Only Connect when enthusiasts can just go to the pub for a quiz.

Some people have zero interest in dramas. They fail to see the argument for the BBC to commission wildly expensive shows like the Night Manager when the private sector could just pick it up instead and drama fans can subscribe to Netflix. And Amazon. And Paramount+. And Disney. And Apple TV.

Some people have zero interest in nature. They fail to see the argument for the BBC to commission wildly expensive natural history or Attenborough shows when the private sector could just pick it up instead (have you seen private-sector nat-history, or watched NatGeo productions? It's 90% condescending tripe, and mostly rehashed versions of old films - not new "never before captured on film" frontier-research stuff, because that involves sending people to uninhabited islands in the Southern Ocean, which is fucking expensive when you can just remix some old video of manatees off Florida and have someone record a new commentary).

Some people prefer their news outlets to be owned by Russia and Dubai. They fail to see the argument for the BBC waste its limited resources on newsgathering when there are other outlets you can follow.

Just what do you actually want the BBC to do? You want "AC's personal channel and nothing else"?

[Roland6]

>” I have zero interest in sport, I fail to to see the argument for the BBC to waste its limited resources on wildly expensive sports broadcasting rights”

If you have been keeping up, the BBC and ITV have dropped out of the sports rights competitions, limiting their coverage to whatever the organisers have allowed for terriestrial broadcasters.

Currently, if you want to watch the Winter Olympics to any great extent you need a Discovery+ / tnt sports subscription.

[dak]

When STV had the Formula 1 coverage, all live racing was uninterrupted.

[AMBxx]

If there was proper competition, you could have competition for sporting events with the choice to pay for an ad-free service.

[Roland6]

The competition is run by organisations like UEFA awarding the broadcasting rights for say the World Cup to the highest bidder; a competition that is open to all broadcasters … naturally UEFA want to maximise their income and so will include a selection of broadcast rights that encourage large bids.

Similarly with the FA over Premier Leavue match coverage.

To delivery what you envisage actually requires regulated competition…

[Jellied Eel]

I wonder if this is part of the broader argument along the lines of "I don't have kids so why should I pay for schools?" Some people's view that they should only pay for exactly what they use is so entrenched that it's difficult to even have that conversation.

Most people would hopefully assume that schools are a public good, and education is a fundamental to a thriving economy.

But this is also an argument against the Bbc given it doesn't do much in the way of education, and certainly nowhere near the amount of STEM content available for 'free' on YT. Which then goes to what the Bbc should be, and how it's funded. I wouldn't mind if the Bbc showed STEM content, especially if it goes back to the good'ol days and showed Open University stuff. I do mind when I'm threatened with criminal prosecution for refusing to fund East Enders, celebrity barrel scraping shows like SCD, or renting a Lineker.

Which is then a 'right sizing' thing. So there's no reason why the Bbc couldn't become a hybrid model with FTA (free to air) PSB content being subsidised from taxation, or better yet, the Bbc's vast swathe of commercial content. Move that to subscription, then people who value the Bbc's 'entertainment' content could pay say, £10 a month for that. But the Bbc has been very strongly opposed to this sort of model. It argues that everyone loves the Bbc and it's 'worth' more than £180 a year, yet won't put its money where it's mouth is. If it's so well loved, and such great value, it should have no problem doing this.. But then Dr Who strongly suggests that it's capable of spaffing millions on garbage that people didn't watch. Even Disney seemed to be embarrassed by being assosciated with that trainwreck.

But also one of those slightly sad things. So Dr Who was orginally a pretty sneaky way to sneak some science & history education into an entertainment show. There's no real reason why it couldn't still do this, other than it picked RTD as showrunner and gave him 'creative control'... and probably a few million quid of 'our*' money. How that was allowed to happen is anybodies guess, but provided much embarrassment.

But there's also the myth of Bbc independence, which isn't true because it's governed by the Charter & Framework agreements that impose conditions on what the Bbc should be doing, and are set by the government of the day. So that could be used to split the Bbc along the original Reithian ideals of 'Inform, Educate and Entertain'.. with entertainment being carved out to subscription. That process is also why the Bbc love-bombs everyone around Charter renewal time as it attempts to justify its existence.. Which is failing, because people are increasingly voting with their wallets and deciding the Bbc simply isn't worth £180 a year.

*By 'our', I might mean 'your' because I stopped subscribing to the Bbc well over a decade ago.. And entirely legally.

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC does a lot of educational content and produces a lot of content for schools for nothing (nothing other than the license fee) you just might not be aware of it.

BBC Bitesize for one.

But even some of the other programs for kids are education lite. They've done Shakespear for primary aged kids. Ballet for kids and classical music as none under an 'educational' heading.

Quite frankly the adult programming could use some itellectual uplift rather than chasing the lowest denominator

[Anonymous Coward]

More accurately, the BBC produces mass indoctrination output for schools to implant in young minds unable to discern historical facts from woke DEI hype. I spent many years working in 'education' and as a school governor I met teachers who refused to use the heavily biased BBC output in their classrooms, however younger university indoctrinated and lazy 'teachers' loved it as they could simply put it on the screen and sit back...

[Fruit and Nutcase]

The schools argument you can kind of see

I don't have children as the stork flew by without stopping. But I wish we had well a well funded education service, accessible for all, free at the point of delivery. They are our destiny.

Tertiary education in England is for profit. City and Guilds' sold off their qualifications arm to a foreign entity recently. Job losses, jobs going overseas. Next up profits going up and inevitably standards will go south.

[rg287]

Tertiary education in England is for profit. City and Guilds' sold off their qualifications arm to a foreign entity recently. Job losses, jobs going overseas. Next up profits going up and inevitably standards will go south.

I did a couple of Qualis from home during COVID when I was furloughed (via Pearson proctoring). Imagine my disappointment when I was charged 20% VAT on what I had expected to pay for the exams.

Turns out exams are VAT-eligible, but education establishments are exempt. And of course if your employer pays for it, they'll claim the VAT back. Which means the only people stuck paying VAT are those people stupid enough to try and improve themselves, learn new skills¹ or move careers.

I did write to my MP about it at the time, suggesting that this could be zero-rated with little impact on revenue, since the vast majority of exams taken will be booked via exempt institutions, but it would help out private learners. Never did me the courtesy of a reply, but then they were a one-term, 2019-intake career-climbing Tory who landed a minor portfolio within a week of being elected and were a generally awful/absent constituency MP. Think Farage, but personally related to a member of the Cabinet at the time. Yay nepotism.

_{1. Obviously you don't need to take exams to learn new skills, but they are handy for demonstrating certain things to employers if you're trying to move sideways or into a different field which doesn't exactly match your work history.}

[sten2012]

I often rant about VAT on these. Really I think they should be deductable from income tax too (as they would be from corporation tax if my employer paid).

The benefits to future income tax from the skills people could learn and the benefits to national productivity are surely overwhelmingly overpowering the pittance of tax received now.

So they get delayed, my employer often pays for them but is held back by an accumulating 6-12 month delay per course/exam that I could just pick up and buy myself if I didn't loathe paying 40%+20% than my employer for the exact same product.

[rg287]

I often rant about VAT on these. Really I think they should be deductable from income tax too (as they would be from corporation tax if my employer paid).

Quite. It's not like there isn't precedent - professional registration fees, such as to chartered bodies or the likes of the BMA or RCVS (required to practice) are tax deductable. Exams ought to be too (or just straight zero-rated and make the admin easier for everyone).

[Bill 21]

The local school does not send you snotagrams every year suggesting you've probably spawned since last year and therefore need to pay them money. Or else.

[Richard 12]

No, but HMRC sent me a lot of emails about my tax return last month, and try stopping paying your council tax to see what happens. Those are primarily how the schools are funded.

So what was your point, exactly?

[rg287]

Over the weekend I saw a discussion about a glimpse into what a post-licence fee world would look like, in the form of adverts running during the Six Nations rugby coverage on ITV (as in, during the actual period of play). It's not hard to imagine that getting worse, without ad-free coverage from the BBC to compare against.

I do believe there should be some kind of national broadcaster in each country, but I also agree the system isn't perfect like it is.

God yes. This should just be law. BBC gets flat-rate UK-broadcast rights to key sporting events, or they don't broadcast in the UK at all.

The BBC has their magic music license which means they can use anything they like in broadcast and just pay a flat fee - whether it's Elgar or Coldplay. They ought to have the same for key cultural and sporting events,

The golden era of Olympic and CWG coverage was ~2012-2014 - iPlayer was mature enough that you could stream any live event Now it's been farmed off to WBD/TNT, they get a single network TV channel, and a second broadcast stream. So just two options. Which is not too much of a problem for the Winter Olympics because there are fewer events overall and some of them (like the skating) are on at night, which reduces overlap. But it's deeply limiting for the summer Games.

And yeah, the Rugby shrinking to a PIP whilst ads played against live action was jarring in the extreme. They did at least try to time them into dead time when the players were re-arranging for set pieces, but still it's the thin end of the wedge.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don’t use offshore tax havens, so they should be banned.

I don’t take my income as dividends- at a lower rate than PAYE - so it should be banned.

I don’t run my ‘business’ via Monaco where I don’t need to pay any income tax, so that should be banned for UK citizens.(looking at you F1 drivers).

[nijam]

I don't post as an AC, so they should be banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bored with the Russian AI driven auto-down voting bots attached to my username.

[Helcat]

It's more a point of: If I don't have children, should I be paying towards other people's children? If they can't afford to raise their kids: That's on them.

The licence fee for the BBC is tricky. Mine is just coming up for renewal and I've not watched live broadcast for... think it's 3 years now. But I still pay. Sounds mad but I choose to. However, I am also looking at what the BBC do and to be blunt: I'm really thinking of cancelling the licence and telling them to jog on. Specifically the threats and bullying tactics they deploy against people who do not have a licence. That's disgraceful.

As to the argument of why pay to watch live broadcast on a channel other than the BBC: That's a fair point. If we pay a licence fee for live broadcasts, it would seem fair to share that fee between UK broadcasters.

There's an argument as to why we're paying the insane wage packet for the likes of Lineker: Wages at the BBC should be set to a standard framework, much like the NHS (A4C). Not competitive? No, but it is fair and means the public purse isn't being robbed to line the pockets of the few. Okay, I'm not a sports fan so Lineker's pay is just wrong.

Perhaps the best approach would be to split things up: Licence fee for radio and news. TV goes to subscriptions, broken down by programming type (sports, documentaries - which they should really focus on again as they used to be good, films, entertainment and music for example: Give people the choice as to what they watch and what they pay for). Children's channel should be free (or covered by the licence).

Basically, technology has moved on, and the BBC needs to update itself. Ditch the old model of licencing and welcome the new. And it's not difficult. Goes along with them making a deal with youtube: They can use the subscription model there, for one, and monetise their content for another, so why would we need to pay a TV licence fee to watch youtube (something that's being predicted, and hopefully is wrong).

[Jellied Eel]

There's an argument as to why we're paying the insane wage packet for the likes of Lineker: Wages at the BBC should be set to a standard framework, much like the NHS (A4C). Not competitive? No, but it is fair and means the public purse isn't being robbed to line the pockets of the few. Okay, I'm not a sports fan so Lineker's pay is just wrong.

Legacy media like the Bbc is facing an adapt or die challenge. The old ways aren't working, and young people see the old guard as irrelevant, or out of touch. Something neat happened last weekend with the cinema release of 'Iron Lung'. An indie film that cost a few million and knocked a Sam Raimi movie off top spot in the box office charts, and made the producer a lot of money. Ok, so the producer was Markiplier who's got something like 35m followers on YT, and leveraged that to get his movie into more screens. Or the way other streamers or traditional talent are becoming indies, moving online and producing their own shows.

Which is something I think the Bbc should be doing more of. Rather than renting a Lineker, it should be developing fresh talent. They might not be able to keep them, but cheaper than being corporate welfare for z-list celebs that can't get work anywhere else.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware TV Licence fee collection was outsourced - due to funding pressures from NuLabour - to scum like Capita as a consequence of the 2003 Broadcasting Act. They have a legal responsibility to collect.

Prior to that the Home Office was responsible until 1991 when the Tories took it away from the Home Office (1939 Wireless Telegraphy Act) and dumped it on the BBC.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15

[Helcat]

I am aware of how things have changed over the years. I really am that old.

However: The BBC has ultimate responsibility: They operate the TV Licencing Authority.

They are also responsible for contracting out the enforcement to the likes of Crapita, and so they are ultimately responsible for the methods used to collect the licence fee.

If they opposed those methods, they could cancel the contract, or make it public that they object: They've done neither. Hence the BBC should be accountable for the methods being used. Especially where they're bordering on illegal, if not actually illegal.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that's all a bit ...

... colonial isn't it? Seriously, the UK should be forcing its views on misguided brown/yellow/pink/blue people abroad? Isn't that considered bad these days?

And the BBC is not good for society. That ship has long since sailed. Their part in encouraging the authoritarian covid imprisonment of the population should have been the end of them. The BBC is and has been a haven for paedophiles for decades. They no longer educate - there is no science coverage to speak of (just soft human interest stuff), the news is riddled with bias (as much through ommission as directly paying Hamas for screentime) and it's been 20 years since they demonstrated any technical lead or advancement.

There is no point or purpose for them anymore. Let them become a UK PBS - if they are as good as you say, there'll be plenty of donations and subscription income to keep them going.if they don't want advertising.

Whatever happens to them, it is morally unacceptable for a person to be forced to fund the BBC when they use none of its output.

[RegGuy1]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Brexit did it for me. I always thought the BBC was fair to all sides, but basically it was a coward, refusing to call out the disaster that most people that had thought about it said it would be. No, no, we can't say that and alienate those who didn't think, just 'felt' brexit would be good. I remember somewhere Emily Maitlis saying, when she had left the BBC and could speak freely, that for 'balance', ie not showing 'bias' and certainly not pissing off their core, older, viewers, that they had 30 or whatever economists saying it would be stupid, and one, Patrick Minford, prophesying sunlit uplands.

Well the cowards bowed to the Tory vote and now we are in the shit we find ourselves. That was when the scales fell from my eyes. I no longer watch or read anything from them. No TV and the sky hasn't fallen in.

The more that simply refuse to pay the bigger the crisis. Now if the government shits a brick and forces all of us to pay, regardless of whether we use it, then that could be explosive. And you know that's the way it's going to go. Scum.

[LogicGate]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

I would be careful about throwing the child out with the bathwater.

The BBC, for all it's flaws, remains a reputable name in worldwide reporting AND entertainment. This means that the BBC gives the UK a way to influence worldwide opinion and viewpoint.

It is a tool for UK soft power and a marketing tool for UK tourism, culture and entertainment.

By accident of birth (colonialism) the UK of today happens to be the source of what is closest to being the "world language". This puts the BBC into a position which similar actors from other countries, sich as Deutsche Welle or whatever the French equivalent is only can dream of.

Get rid of the BBC (and NPR), and you leave the field wide open for other state actors such as RT, and these do NOT have what is best for you in mind.

[werdsmith]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

TV5 Monde simply offer an English language option. No need to dream of anything.

They also do a very decent educational output.

[rg287]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Well the cowards bowed to the Tory vote and now we are in the shit we find ourselves. That was when the scales fell from my eyes.

I don't disagree that their diea of balance has been poorly calibrated over the years. Stephen Collins did a very good sendup of it - ‘Please let Mr Hitler speak’: the trouble with ‘hearing from both sides’

My question though is which billionaire do you get your news from if you're not using the BBC? As LogicGate says, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Newspapers - basically all Rothermere:

The Daily/Sunday Telegraph; Daily/Sunday Mail; Metro; The i Paper - Daily Mail and General Trust (i.e. Viscount Rothermere)

The Times - News Corp (Rupert Murdoch)

The Independent - Lord Lebedev

Reach plc - <vomits slightly in mouth>

TV:

GBNews - Legatum (Dubai-based private finance)

Sky News - Comcast (Public/US)

Al Jazeera - Qatari

BBC News - UK Independent(ish, depending if there's a GE before the next charter renewal)

Like, really, the only "independent"-ish general news outlets you have that aren't foreign-influence or billionaire-influence are the BBC, The Guardian (Scott Trust, editor elected by newsroom) and upstarts like Byline Times. Along with Private Eye of course, but their problem is they think themselves "above the papers". The fortnightly publication schedule lets them filter out overnight nonsense - but thre's still a whiff of snobbishness.

The BBC haven't covered themselves in glory, and the whole Trump-Panorama scandal was stupid and avoidable. But they're also - on the whole - not too bad. And really ought to be part of most people's news circulation (taking in a variety of sources).

[Roland6]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

> GBNews - Legatum (Dubai-based private finance)

Is just another Fox News (Murdoch) outlet - just with a British accent.

Remember the big cost associated with news is maintaining a network of reporters and there are few such networks, so most simply join one or more of the global syndicates…

[Cruachan]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Sky and ITN (who produce ITV, Channel 4 and 5 news programmes) are at least committed to neutrality on their news programs the same as the BBC (I am not for a second saying that the BBC or Sky or ITN gets it right all the time, they're still run by people and people have agendas and beliefs and make mistakes). Print media in the UK is unashamedly biased and largely proud of it, and they've hated the BBC for years, partly because of the neutrality policy and also because since the smartphone revolution the BBC website has given away for "free" (paid for by the license fee) what their websites won't.

It's also clear that there is an appetite for public service broadcasting that caters to as many people as possible, if we look for example at the mass outrage when Mad Nad Dorries floated selling off Channel 4 (which although publicly owned, does not cost the taxpayers anything). That may of course just have been outrage against anything said by a woman who is pretty much always wrong.

[Roland6]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

>” Channel 4 (which although publicly owned, does not cost the taxpayers anything).”

That might be how things are presented, however, lift the covers and tap the wheels and you’ll find there is a lot of coproduction between BBC, ITV and C4.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

So, it is morally unacceptable for a person to be forced to fund hospitals when they use none of its output? Is it morally unacceptable to force the overwhelming majority of the nation's taxpayers to subsidise London Transport when they don't use its choo-choos and buses?

Perhaps one day you can finally see how stupid and utterly bankrupt that PoV is.

[rg287]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Is it morally unacceptable to force the overwhelming majority of the nation's taxpayers to subsidise London Transport when they don't use its choo-choos and buses?

Actually, I sort of do have an issue with that. Last year, Govt spent ~£1100 per capita on public transport inside the M25 but only £650/capita outside.

I don't expect to get London-levels of public transport out in the sticks. But I do have a reasonable expectation that there should be the same spending per capita.

Over the past 15 years, London has built up a public transport spend £10k/capita higher than the rest of the country. When you consider that Leeds or North Staffordshire have populations in the half-million range, it becomes apparent those areas are due ~£5Bn each in extra transport spending, which is desperately needed to sort out the dire local rail, build out a modern tram network and get nationalised/regulated bus services in place.

This all sounds very bolshy, but there are plenty of case studies showing this dearth of infrastructure investment is directly harming economic activity and access to both healthcare and education. Which leads me to the next question: where is all this blessed growth supposed to come from without infrastructure to support it? Seems about as likely as Trump's proclamations that tariffs and billionaire tax breaks will see a revival in the Rust Belt, or that Bethlehem Steel will magically spring back into life like it's the 1970s or something.

[Aladdin Sane]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Bethlehem Steel, the backbone of America

[patl]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Except the maths isn't quite that straightforward. Transport in london isn't only used by those who live within the m25, somehow you have to account for all those people who commute to and travel through London.

[rg287]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Except the maths isn't quite that straightforward. Transport in london isn't only used by those who live within the m25, somehow you have to account for all those people who commute to and travel through London.

It's not far off. There are towns of 8,000 people near London which get 10 trains per hour - you could evacuate the entire town into London solely by train in an hour. And no, 50% of the population do not actually commute daily. It's wildly and hilariously over-served.

And I'm not even mad about having good public transport but there are towns in Staffordshire of 20-35,000 people who don't have a train station at all. All transport down into major conurbations like Stoke-on-Trent are via car or bus. Or not at all if the M6 is closed and the traffic spilling off the motorway gridlocks the region (ask me how I know!).

Some London papers have tried to spin this the other way by complaining that the government spends more (in absolute terms) outside London than inside, even though more than 50% of rail journeys are made in London (when including the Underground).

This is course rather conveniently forgets that people use London Underground and Overground for multiple short journeys daily, which is impossible in the provinces (outside Brum/Manc) where trains only work for occasional long-distance travel, and the equivalent journeys are made by bus or car, even when you're driving parallel to a railway! Of course, if they invested in local rail (which actually means building HS2 to get ICE trains off the existing lines), then people could use them for local travel and rail journeys outside London would skyrocket (every time a new line or station is - belatedly - opened, it exposes huge latent demand. See: Borders Railway, Glasshoughton Station).

As one example, there is enough population density to support at least 6 local stations¹ between Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent. As it is, only one station (Stone) is open, for a miserly hourly service. Instead of being able to make a journey in 20minutes, you're on the bus for 90.

The provinces are owed billions.

1. Norton Bridge; Stone; Barlaston; Wedgwood; Hem Heath; Bet365 Stadium

[R Soul]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

"Bethlehem Steel will magically spring back into life"

A very well known book of fairy stories claims Jesus rose from the dead. Maybe that could happen for Bethlehem Steel.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

Leeds is the principal centre of a larger conurbation, with a population of around 1.75 million. And public transport is utterly shite - no urban rail / trams, not much heavy rail (and of what there is, a lof it it is not electrified and is served by two and three car diesel units). For much of the area, it's basically just buses.

[rg287]

Re: Well, that's all a bit ...

For much of the area, it's basically just buses.

Which is then counter-productive, because buses are heavy and tear the roads up, leading to a bigger pothole/maintenance bill.

Which is not to bash on buses - buses are great as a lower-density feeder service (and allowing route flexibility). But when you have them running at the density Leeds does on core routes, it is decades past time that the core routes were turned into tram lines (50pax per bus vs 200-300pax per tram, and once you make the upfront investment, steel rails don't pothole and last longer than roads).

Alas, British governments have hated transport investment since the early 1980s - even though BR were starting to turn a profit following sectorisation (the InterCity unit was generating a surplus by 1985).

[Tricky-Tribble]

Would they be popular programs if people had to pay for them though.

The main issue I have is that there is no test of affordability or sensibility.

Scott Mills for example is a terrible DJ for value.

There are loads of great community radio DJs who could do a better job, yet we pay north of 6 figures for them, why, because the BBC can afford to.

What's the downside, none.

If there was a subscription payment and I can choose not to pay for Scott Mills, he'd soon go.

The second point is this, at some people are just going to go no.

So today we pay £57 million to Capita to "enforce" license fee collection. That's nearly 2% of the population getting "free licenses" they don't publish how many people they actually get.

Secondly, it would only need 3% of the current license payers to say, no, for the income to be less!

Question to ai was how many people dropping out due to the rise would equate to lower revenue. (yes it's AI, but having look at the links it looks at first glace correct)

The answer:

Licences would need to drop from 22.8 million to 22.1 million

That's a loss of 700,000 licences

As a percentage of current payers: 700,000 ÷ 22,800,000 = 3.07%

Answer: Just over 3% of current licence payers would need to opt out for the BBC's income to be less than it is today.

Put another way:

If 3.07% of current payers (about 700,000 households) cancelled

The BBC would earn less at £180 than they currently earn at £174.50

The £5.50 increase would be completely wiped out

This is quite significant because:

300,000 licences were already cancelled between March 2024 and March 2025 - source GB News

The evasion rate has climbed from 5% in 2014/15 to 12.5% in 2024/25 Honest John

The trend is already going in that direction, with declining licence numbers year on year

So at some point the license fee will be paid by a small percentage, but cost £18,000 each...

[Jellied Eel]

300,000 licences were already cancelled between March 2024 and March 2025 - source GB News

A possibly more reliable source here-

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5901/cmselect/cmpubacc/1230/report.html

Summary

The BBC collected £3.8 billion from sales of over 23 million television licences in 2024–25, but 3.6 million households declared they did not need a licence. Evasion rose to 12.5% or about 1 in 8 users of the BBC not paying to use BBC services. Combined, household declarations and evasion represent over £1.1 billion in lost income.

Or not, because the summary doesn't really consider legal vs illegal 'evasion', so the £1.1bn isn't really 'lost income' because of people like me who don't pay, don't need to pay, and are unlikely to ever pay the Bbc. It can't even get NATO's name right, so why would I even consider the Bbc a 'reliable source'? But the report goes into some more detail and the current threat is the government decides to take the nuclear option and add the licence fee to council tax, Netflix subscriptions and try to make it unavoidable rather than just reforming it completely and making the Bbc subscription funded.

[Evil Scot]

Thankyou for informing us about the deceased.

Please note we will still harass you for at least two weeks as we will not update our records of occupancy as quickly as our direct debit records.

They didn't say this exactly (they told me to ignore these letters)

[Anonymous Coward]

True. Although I disagree with their heavy handed treatment of people that don't pay.

I like no adverts and love that Antiques Roadshow exists. What does annoy me is despite us paying they don't make their old back catalogue available.

More reason I don't feel guilty about using get_iplayer.

[werdsmith]

I would pay the licence fee for BBC Radio 4 alone. They have the most compelling content for me.

On the other hand, there is nothing, absolutely nothing on max-dumbdown Netflix for me.

Even when I stayed in a hotel and somebody had left the tv logged in to Netflix with their account, I had a look then switched it off and put Radio 4 on.

[zebm]

The Persian World service? Are you deliberately making a joke? There are documentaries about how they pushed Khomeini before the Iranian Revolution. They even made one themselves https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk

[Alex 72]

Nordic states are moving from traditional license fees to funding public media via the general state budget or tax-based levies. These states have anti concentration laws limits on how much any one individual or legal entity can own of the media and state subsidy for private media you know like channel 4 that Boris and everyone else they criticise threatens to mess with all the time but more of it and new ones all the time. These countries are regarded as having the most free media in the world and all parties along with most of the population support the regulations. So outside of a strong BBC being bad for the billionaires who want to concentrate control of UK media like you know News UKs owners, what's the problem here with strengthening not weakening public media and encouraging more independence and biting the hand that feeds so to speak? Helping the electorate to hold the gov accountable, are UK politicians scared or just doing it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy...you rename the TV license to "UK discretionary news, technology and culture trust" (I know, snappy name right?) make it optional and offer a tax break to anyone that pays it a bit like gift aid for charities...basically whatever you pay, you get 50% back through an income tax deduction. There should be no minimum, but there should be a maximum cap (say £1000) to prevent super wealthy people dropping masses of money in and swaying decisions.

This should decouple it from TV, which implies that is its primary purpose is funding TV, and make it clear that the fee is about investing in art, culture and the technology to deliver it and hey presto...it's fixed.

I think this would result in better funding overall because not only is it incentivised with a small tax break, with a rename the purpose for it becomes clearer.

You also have a fairer system, those who can't afford to pay or do not wish to pay...don't have to pay...those that wish to pay more for a greater tax break can pay more if they wish (up to the cap).

It's also a semi democratic kind of taxation setup because with the tax break it allows people to offset taxes they're paying in place to go to another...so it's a kind of "soft vote" on spending if you will...you essentially get to decide where a portion of your tax is spent because you get the small offset against your income tax.

[sal II]

"simple" solution would be state/taxpayer funded ringfenced pot for the niche/local content, then subscription based funding for the content for the "masses".

But nothing beats forced subscription under threat of criminal offense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because ring fenced money has never been wasted, am I right?

The problem with ring fencing money is you end up with all the other bullshit that comes with it...preferred suppliers, nepotism, jobs for the boys etc etc.

Gatekeeping is the problem, not the solution.

If you've ever worked with anyone from the BBC, you'll immediately know that anyone that isn't BBC is treated like a parasite by people that are BBC...you might as well be invisible...it's jobs for the boys.

It is extremely difficult to get a job within the BBC unless you know someone that is already inside the BBC...even then you have to pass the sniff test.

I've worked with a lot of BBC folks over the years...the BBC seems to follow me around like a bad smell...everywhere I've worked in tech for the last 20 odd years has been touched by the BBC in some way and I've ended up on some contracted BBC work...iPlayer, broadcast testing, app development...you name it, it's found it's way oozing under my door and landed on my desk...I've always been like a third party to a third party on these sorts of things...the work has been critical to the projects, but you're so far detached from the BBC chain of command that you basically don't exist. The other weird thing about the BBC and it's staff is it's usually very easy to write a list of pricks you've worked with (bonus points if you can list one that has more than one email address, due to them being there so long, they still have addresses on defunct domains from a long migrated system...you know...just in case), because you never forget the miserable bastards that spend 7 hours of the 8 in a working day complaining about something (Why did you sent it there? I don't check that mailbox on Tuesdays)...but you never remember the names of people that gave positive feedback, responsive communication, decent input and brought good energy to a project (because they don't exist).

The BBC is so stuck in the 70s it's insane. It's so tragic, from my glimpses behind the veil, I can see lots of potential for the BBC...if only it would get rid of the fucking wankers in it's ranks that have been there for decades that still talk about fucking Top of the Pops and syndicating Only Fools and Horses etc...the 70s was half a century ago...fuck off.

Just like in politics, I would set a time limit on certain positions...you cannot hold certain titles for more than say 5 years. You can't work for the BBC for more than 20 years...the BBC should not be someones lifes work...it should be something you do for a while, then piss off the private sector...no job security desk camping...."Yep, I know Dave...20 years of service...yes, thank you...I'm sure you are the only person that can do the job and you're excellent at it...you should have no problem getting hired else where...fuck you Dave, get out...I told you piss off this is my office now, the job centre is down the street".

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly the licence fee also funds a good chunk of the transmission infrastructure. I wonder how long before Freeview is switched off?

[Fruit and Nutcase]

...will 2034 signal the death of Freeview?

"As most TV viewers tune in via broadband, will 2034 signal the death of Freeview?

The aerial-accessed service has a fast-dwindling audience but when exactly to switch the platform off is proving highly divisive"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jan/29/as-most-tv-viewers-tune-in-via-broadband-will-2034-signal-the-death-of-freeview

[Daedalus]

BBC news online just went behind a paywall. I can still see some stuff in a browser thanks to various script and ad suppressors, but the BBC app will stiff you every time. I guess I'm now an ex-expat.

[steviebuk]

Its not a paywall. They keep asking you to sign in but you can just so no.

[Fursty Ferret]

Agreed - and while they're at it they could link the account to iPlayer. It's utterly pathetic that they spend a fortune employing Capita goons in order to bully people who don't watch TV into paying, but at the same time the only way iPlayer content is secured is by asking "Do you have a TV licence?" every time you try to stream something.

[Anonymous Coward]

A good chunk of the recent rises was down to the Tory Government sticking the cost of the BBC World Service onto the BBC as a take it or leave it at prior funding rounds.

Prior to that the FCO always paid for it as British soft power in the world. Even more important now in about-Brexit World.—-

BBC is great value, not without faults, but needed more than ever in a post-Truth Authoritarian leaning Trump world.

Stands alongside NPR, PBS, New York Times, ProPublica, The Guardian, Private Eye (and others) in holding the rich and powerful to account as well as informing, educating and entertaining.

No wonder right wing shills are intent on destroying it (for their pay-masters).

[sabroni]

Look at what's happening in the US

Richest men in the world shutting down any criticism of them and their pedo mates. Pointless mergers that destroy popular media while fail upwards brunch lords line their pockets with massive payouts and the plebs that do the work get the boot.

Is that what you want? Because that's what'll happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Look at what's happening in the US

It's already happening/has happened. Though it's going to get worse in the not so distant future.

[thedarkstar]

I must be one of the few under 70s who doesn't mind paying the TV license.

Just this week I used TV to watch the Six Nations, radio to listen to it, my kids watched CBeebies/CBBC content live and on iPlayer, and I spent time reading the news.

£15/month for that doesn't seem much to me, and is better than it getting filled with adverts.

Of course if you don't use any of their output but want to watch live TV still, I can understand the frustration.

I can see it just coming under general taxation before this decade is out.

[BartyFartsLast]

I don't mind paying it either.

I get an awful lot of content for the money and good news reporting (yes, I'm occasionally convinced it's biased but it's generally pretty fair, no I won't argue it)

It worth noting the cheaper tiers on netflix and most other streaming platforms comes with ads and some severe limitations on quality (picture resolution that is, the content is often garbage too) the number of screens it can be used on etc. and the content is often utter crap (YMMV, depends on taste)

[Victor Ludorum]

yes, I'm occasionally convinced it's biased but it's generally pretty fair, no I won't argue it

I think the BBC does a remarkably good job of balanced reporting (ok, not every time, but most of the time).

With GBNews, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Guardian etc, you know and accept which side of the political spectrum to expect in their output.

If the BBC is upsetting people across the political spectrum, I think we can accept it's fairly neutral over all.

[BartyFartsLast]

Agreed.

[CountCadaver]

If the BBC was a person it would be Boris Johnson - Socially very conservative with a mindset of the 1950s, anti europe, pro environment, pro wealthy, anti poor and anti disabled

[R Soul]

Your characterisation of Shagger Boris is beyond delusional. Where can I get the drugs you're on?

[Tom Graham]

The BBC is not remotely neutral.

If people across the spectrum think that the BBC is biased then probably it is.

Why should I be forced to pay for biased news I don't ever watch or listen to?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same reason you're forced to pay for schools, the NHS, roads, public transport, police, state pensions, the military, etc that you don't ever use.

Even if you don't ever watch or listen to the "biased" BBC news, I'm sure you do watch or listen to shitloads of BBC content. If so, it's only fair you pay for that.

[Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?]

"If people across the spectrum think that the BBC is biased then probably it is."

If everyone thinks the BBC is biased, doesn't that by definition mean that it is actually pretty neutral?

[werdsmith]

It is true that BBC gets a roughly equal amount of complaints accusing it of being biased either left or right.

Which shows where the bias actually is.

[Jellied Eel]

It is true that BBC gets a roughly equal amount of complaints accusing it of being biased either left or right.

Which shows where the bias actually is.

As wiki would say.. citation needed

Which will probably be a report commissioned by the Bbc at great expense saying they're totally neutral, unbiased and gif moar money! Alternatively, the leak of the Prescott memo revealed bias issues, an editorial board that would happily fake news and is biased. So one of the outcomes of this was taking a closer look at how the Bbc handles complaints, ie it generally ignores them. And then whether Ofcom should be doing more to hold the Bbc's feet to the fire now it has more powers to regulate them. One area being it's 'reporting' on climate change, where the Bbc is incredibly biased and frequently publishes fake news.

But generally useful site for broadcasting complaints is here-

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/broadcast-bulletins

[Anonymous Coward]

GBNews

Seems to be there just to broadcast propaganda from Farage and his bunch of failed Tories in Reform. Who, in their right minds would vote for a failed Tory given that they have failed the country once. Fool me once etc...

I'm just waiting for a Reform PPC to come calling. They will get a dose of my mind (as does Labour and most of the Tories). My local Councillor is Labour. She lives 40 miles from her ward, does not answer emails nor does she hold meetings. The previous guy while a Tory lived in the ward and was approachable and got stuff done.

[CountCadaver]

The BBC litters its daytime schedules with utter dirge like faked "antiques hunt shows", umpteen various flavours of property shows "Hi this is Bob and Sue, Bob works part time in a pub and Sue is a retired part time cleaner in a supermarket, their budget is £3 Million but they can stretch to £5.5 Million for their dream home" and various other shows to make hospital waiting rooms even more tortuous.

They could turn off their daytime output and it might well improve the country

[illuminatus]

"They could turn off their daytime output and it might well improve the country"

Except it wouldn't - the audience would just find their dreck somewhere else.

[AndrueC]

Well at least we wouldn't be paying for it.

[Richard 12]

If you look, you'll notice that daytime TV has always been like that - that stuff is cheap to produce.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this "we" shit?

I for one am more than happy to pay the licence fee. Less than £4/week is a fucking bargain for so much output. Just compare it with what the cable/satellite/streamers are charging. I accept the BBC wastes money on shite like daytime TV that I never watch. That's one of the trade-offs of living in a reasonably civilised society, just like I pay tax so others benefit from roads, schools, hospitals, public transport, etc that I never use.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

"Hi this is Boris and Carrie, Boris works part time... their budget is £3 Million but they can stretch to £5.5 Million for their dream home"

https://www.mansionglobal.com/articles/boris-johnson-is-buying-a-400-year-old-moated-house-in-oxfordshire-a97165d4

[Lon24]

"I can see it just coming under general taxation before this decade is out."

It is one solution. Is it really that different to the household of the situation when nearly every household had an aerial driven TV?

Except it would be a more progressive tax but the danger is that puts it directly under the diktat of the Treasury. Pleasing government rather than the audience becomes a greater incentive. People complain the BBC is too establishment biased but they wouldn't have seen anything yet. Trying to achieve the impossible task of being unbiased would simply be replaced by not trying. Replaced by swinging to be the current government's mouthpiece as in so many countries.

[wolfetone]

"better than it getting filled with adverts"

Is it though?

You watch all these things on live TV and there is always a f**king podcast being advertised through BBC Sounds. The same podcast that is available outside of BBC Sounds and is jammed packed with adverts. Adam Buxton, I am looking at you as an example.

If, for whatever reason, a license is required to watch TV then allow that option. I do not want to fund the BBC for various reasons, primarily the idea that they are impartial and unbiased in reporting news has long been debunked. And I do not want to fund an organisation who insist on sending people door to door without appropriate warrants to intimate people in to paying for a license they don't require. There is a lot of money to be saved right there actually, the red ink must cost a fortune.

I do find it a fascinating mechanism in how the UK lives it's life though. More effort is put in to finding people watching Great British Bake Off live on Channel 4 to see if they've paid for the privilege than we do in implementing licenses for dog ownership. We used to have that, we don't now. Yet we're faced with an increase in puppy farms and general anti-social behavior which, really, a dog license program would go a long way to combat.

Just an odd, odd thing.

[thedarkstar]

For the viewer yes, I fucking despise adverts.

Take the Six Nations for example that I mentioned. Yes odd mention of a podcast and follow ups on the BBC televised games.

Those cunts over at ITV have now taken to putting adverts on during the game, removing commentary and splitting the screen, example here: https://www.gbnews.com/media-library/itv-came-under-fire-for-showing-adverts-during-the-six-nations-match-between-france-and-ireland.jpg?id=63854905&width=800&quality=85

Who signed off on that deserves to be fired in my opinion.

[wolfetone]

They're practicing for the World Cup with that. As shit as it is, in a dead ball situation like that shown, I don't think it matters as much as if they did it during the actual phase of play. But I remember when they had the F1 and they would cut to a commercial break, often missing action on track.

I know from the last World Cup though that the hoardings are changed digitally during the broadcast to suit the market they're going in to. So say in Qatar, obviously, you're not advertising Budwieser. But for the UK market? Yeah, you saw it. You'd never know it either.

[thedarkstar]

Sadly it might well end up being a slippery slope and it'll be interrupting game play before you know it.

That was just one example in another there was a man down for injury, normally you'd be getting commentary of what is going on. Instead the window shrunk to about quarter of the size so you couldn't see it, and the audio was replaced with some crap from Virgin Atlantic if I recall correctly, along with their ad being shown.

It's just another thing to ruin the viewing experience. Before long it'll be available on ITVX without ads for those that want to pay.

Advertising is an important part of broadcasting, I get that, it's how these broadcasters (excluding BBC) fund their operations despite my hatred of them. And I'm pro-capitalism as well so I fully understand.

But broadcasting, along with capitalism, should have lines that don't get crossed and better regulation to enforce it.

[Roland6]

>” Those cunts over at ITV have now taken to putting adverts on during the game”

That’s the future of TV sport. One solution is for the various governing boards/associations being less greedy (the leading exemplars being the Premier League and UEFA) and awarding contracts at much lower returns to just the terrestrial national broadcasters.

[CountCadaver]

Dog licencing has been debunked multiple times - all it does is penalise dog owners on a low income, while those with money but are "bad" owners are ignored and those who cause issues don't bother buying one in the first place.

[Pickle Rick]

Just want to ask (I've never been a dog owner): How much was a dog licence? I can't imagine that it's a drop in the ocean compared to daily upkeep. Then bring in vet bills and I suspect that "low income" is on pretty thin ice for affording TCO - which I find sad TBH. Pet insurance? Okay, it's still a cost that's prohibitive to "low income" - although I get we haven't established the bar here.

Quick anecdote, from about 15 years back. Some friends of mine took on a cat, as the owner was going over seas. They agreed, on condition that pet insurance was paid for. Lucky they did. Some time later "Lewis" needed an operation to remove an eye. I looked at the bill. Among the other items listed was "Surgery @ £90/minute". Holy feck! (He was a great cat - and after that I could never help myself but say "Why is there only one "I" in Lewis?)

PS. Love El Reg's forums for tangents :D

[Sam not the Viking]

You're not going to believe this, in the UK: 7/6d (37p).

More than two pints of beer!!

[Pickle Rick]

I can only give one back :)

[Fruit and Nutcase]

PS. Love El Reg's forums for tangents :D

As the article is about the BBC, we should also note in the interest of balance, in addition to Tangent, other trigonometric functions are available.

Sine = Opposite / Hypotenuse

Cosine = Adjacent / Hypotenuse

Tangent = Opposite / Adjacent

"Some Of His Children Are Having Trouble Over Algebra"

[Pickle Rick]

SOHCAHTOA

Mad you should say that, I was measuring up a new staircase yesterday. Phone calculators are shite, with rise/run, the angle I was looking for was ~45 deg, phone kept coming out at <1.0 --- that ain't right! No idea why, looked like it wanted to play in rads. Where's my PB100? (That thing has been run over by a car and still works, a bit dented tho!)

[Jellied Eel]

Re: SOHCAHTOA

Where's my PB100? (That thing has been run over by a car and still works, a bit dented tho!)

Ah, did you ever take that apart? If you did, you'd find an extra rubber button on the keyboard membrane that was blanked off on the case. So I dutifully unblanked it and made a key out of araldite & blu-tak, which gave it a function key and turned it into the more expensive FX model :p

[MashedPotato]

Dogs are an expensive luxury and their welfare should be prioritised by their owners and considered prior to purchase. They are for life (the life of the dog).

[Richard 12]

BBC podcasts only have adverts when downloaded outside of the UK.

So your comment is rather telling.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

I gave up sitting in front of the box over 2 decades ago. The last time the TV in my house (not connected to an aerial or internet) was switched on was in 2017. I really should give it away whilst it's still got a serviceable life. The frequency of the BBC/Crapita letters has now increased to an annual hounding. I think it was 18 months or 24 before.

It is not possible to avoid hearing about BBC's "finest" even without watching TV - Mrs Brown's Boys, The Traitors, Strictly Come Dancing. Is that the best the BBC can do/well, I guess it's cheap TV. Reams of newspaper columns get filled with the goings on of these programmes - just can't escape from the mind-numbing rubbish.

Scrap the licence, make it subscription - leave a core public service broadcasting, including children's TV (no sponsorships/no adverts, even on commercial TV during those programmes) to be funded from central government. Let the above named programmes and their ilk sink or swim in the world of subscription TV,

[Mark Ruit]

Crapita chase rate

"The frequency of the BBC/Crapita letters has now increased to an annual hounding."

Twice a year, here; and the last "hounding" was four separate letters threat-o-grams - all sent to an address which has not had a TV licence for 54 years ie since we moved-in here. I am well within the law, since I last lived in a household (my parents or my own) where there was a television (which was duly licenced, but not by me), in1963. After 62 years without the "idiots lantern" I cannot see the position changing.

Crapita say that I can submit a "No licence required" declaration and they will stop bothering me but - the declaration only lasts a year and has to be submitted annually - ignoring the letters is easier. I know of no other area of private life where one is required to make an statement that "I am not breaking the law".

More important to me, is that the submission of such a declaration would require me to supply to Crapita my Personal Identifying Data: which they have no legal basis for holding.

So they can go forth and multiply.

[PinchOfSalt]

I'm with you.

I'd happily pay the licence fee just to have I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue and The News Quiz on Radio 4.

[James Wilson]

Don't forget More or Less.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm under 50 and I'm ok with paying it.

It's not perfect and I don't often get what I want but it's the best option we have to not be drowned in AI slop.

It also provides the closest to unbiased new you can get.

Again I know it's not perfect but it's a lot better than you get with private money. Just spend a few minutes looking at the Mail online to see the other side of the coin.

If I had my wish it would push the boundries a bit harder, stop assuming everything is a bit thick. Challenge people again.

[cyberdemon]

Money well spent IMO

The Beeb needs to stay. They are one of the last bastions of proper journalism, and a haven for brilliant satire, like the News Quiz on Radio 4.

But they could save a lot of money and restore some public goodwill if they simply sacked the enforcement goons. Those who want to get TV without paying for it aren't worth the effort trying to force them, they will find a way. But the majority (so I believe - i have no evidence of course) of those who do pay the licence fee, do so willingly, i.e. honestly paying for a service. Most of us wouldn't start shoplifting if the shops stopped having CCTV. A small minority would. But if it's a small minority "stealing" TV, who cares?

Also, I have noticed quite a few coffee shops, bars etc with a small TV in the corner playing music channels. Apparently if you have a TV license and are playing music from a TV, then you don't need the PRS license.

[Like a badger]

Re: Money well spent IMO

They are one of the last bastions of proper journalism,

No they're not. One of the last bastions of centrist journalism, but there's no real desire to do proper heavyweight investigative journalism, to hold the powerful to account. When the powerful are already half down, then the Beeb will join in, but the corporation has a track record as long as my arm for being silent on its own scandals, never mind those of others. The limits these days of their journalistic bravery is chasing down a dodgy roofer, or some unlicensed tip operator.

And none of that is very surprising, the BBC is wedded at the hip to government, who appoint its boss and its grandees, and set its income. At least the Telegraph keeps a beady eye on the left, and the Guardian keep an equally beady eye on the right. The BBC doesn't keep any beady eyes on anybody.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Money well spent IMO

A vote here for Channel 4 News that continues to fund the kind of investigative report and long format interview that used to the staple of British journalism – much of which was introduced by ITV in the 1960s when it knew it had to compete for quality.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Money well spent IMO

A vote here for Channel 4 News that continues to fund the kind of investigative report and long format interview that used to the staple of British journalism – much of which was introduced by ITV in the 1960s when it knew it had to compete for quality.

I think a lot of people don't realise that Channel 4 is kind of the other Bbc. We also own it and we don't really need 2 PSBs. So another option would be to do a full or partial merger of the two. Which might have negative consequences, depending on who ends up in control of what.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Money well spent IMO

Channel 4 is not another BBC. It's a commercial service governed by charter that has its financing guaranteed, but is essentially funded by advertising. There are areas of crossover, but there always will be and I was pointing to an area where it has successfully resisted bowing to commercial pressure or political fads.

There have been arguments against it since it started but it has repeatedly proved detractors wrong: it has pioneered many formats and introduced content that has since become standard and much of this has been possible because it has not sought to duplicate the BBC's universal remit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Money well spent IMO

>” the BBC is wedded at the hip to government, who appoint its boss and its grandees, and set its income.”

The results of Tory maladministration of public services, of constantly appointing people who dislike a strong and successful public broadcaster…

[R Soul]

licence fee enforcement

The enforcement goons work for Crapita, not the BBC.

The government decided a long time ago that it was a good thing to split the organisation collecting the dosh from the one that was spending it.

Oh and it's TV licence, not license. In the civilised world, license is a verb, not a noun.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: licence fee enforcement

The enforcement goons work for Crapita, not the BBC.

No, they work for the Bbc. They're the only entity authorised to collect the licence fee. The Bbc might like to use legal fictions to pretend it isn't responsible, but it's very much Aunty's jackboots knocking on doors. They may outsource some functions to Crapita and others, but the Bbc is still responsible and accountable for the actions of their subcontractors. Which is also one of the slightly entertaining aspects, so getting weekly threatograms telling me they're opening yet another investigation into the heinous crime of being informed, educated and entertained without topping up the Bbc's jacuzzi of cash first.

[Pickle Rick]

Re: licence fee enforcement

You're conflating proximate and ultimate causality. "The Goons" work for deCapita, DeCapita "works for" Auntie.

+1 for "threatograms" - I'm keeping that!

(BTW, don't do a web search for "BBC Aunty" with the kids about!)

[Sp1z]

Re: licence fee enforcement

"getting weekly threatograms"

You are not getting them weekly.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can’t compare BBC to Netflix or Disney+, that’s a completely nonsense comparison.

[TVU]

"BBC bumps telly tax to £180 as Netflix lurks with cheaper tiers"

Unfortunately, a previous chancellor, George Osborne, had a cynical and deliberate go at the BBC by forcing them to take over the funding of free TV licences for pensioners over the age of 75 which reduced the BBC's net income. Then certain irresponsible newspapers started non-payment of licence fees campaigns.

Personally, I would now want the UK to follow the example of France and fund the BBC out of VAT with the level of VAT being decided by a wholly independent royal charter body so that ignorant and third rate Conservative and Labour politicians have no say whatsoever in that matter or in the appointment of BBC governors or the director general.

That said, I am not uncritical of Tim Davie with his show pony 'woe is me' deep cuts to radio and TV services when he should have been trying to creatively preserve such services.

[Like a badger]

a wholly independent royal charter body

Other than sortition, how would that happen? A more likely outcome is that like all arms length bodies of government, these are overseen by a well paid and underworked committee of minister's mates and they please their patron.

I can think of a royal charter company that exists to do work without government interference: It's chief executive helps herself to over a million quid a year, would that be independent enough for you?

[Jellied Eel]

Unfortunately, a previous chancellor, George Osborne, had a cynical and deliberate go at the BBC by forcing them to take over the funding of free TV licences for pensioners over the age of 75 which reduced the BBC's net income. Then certain irresponsible newspapers started non-payment of licence fees campaigns.

Err.. No it didn't, and one of the reasons why I hate the Bbc. It is a compulsive liar. So once upon a time, the Bbc got a licence fee hike to fund DSO (Digital Switch Over). That's long done and dusted but the licence fee wasn't reduced. Then there were claims of making (from memory) £800m a year in 'real cash savings', which if true means it doesn't need a licence fee increase. And then there's all the Bbc's 'commercial' activities that in theory should be subsidising the PSB, but in reality seem to do the reverse and suck money out. But their commercial stuff clearly isn't working, because if it was, there would be no need to increase the licence fee at all.

And then there's the stupidity of indexation, so there's a big hike in the licence fee because inflation, driven by a big increase in tobacco duty. Tobacco isn't a big input cost to the Bbc, so that increase isn't justifiable. Or it's just the weird nature of Fagflation, indexation and how the government could knock inflation back to <2% by simply halving tobacco duty. The Bbc also gets other unearned windfalls, so the growth in housing means an increase in theoretically licenceable properties, boosting revenues at no additional cost. Well, other than enfarcement costs, but enfarcement is a sick joke.

But something I'd love to see is a detailed breakdown of say, Dr Who. One of the Bbc's most expensive productions, but also a ratings failure and damaged the Bbc's IP. The Bbc would scream 'commercially sensitive', which would be true, except the we/government owns it and it should have to justify its spending. There's also some other oddities coming, like scrapping iPlayer and moving its online content to YouTube. It'll be interesting to see how that one plays out. The biggest problem the Bbc has though is it's just entirely irrelevant to an increasing number of 'viewers', especially the younger generation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Horrifies me that I'm agreeing with Jellied Eel, but so be it.

[thedarkstar]

"There's also some other oddities coming, like scrapping iPlayer and moving its online content to YouTube"

Found no evidence to support this so you're twisting what is actually happening.

The BBC has announced it is introducing some new shows first onto YouTube followed by iPlayer and Sounds in an attempt to reach a younger audience. At no stage has it been mentioned they'll be scrapping iPlayer in any way sense or form.

People like you just like posting off fake news.

[Jellied Eel]

The BBC has announced it is introducing some new shows first onto YouTube followed by iPlayer and Sounds in an attempt to reach a younger audience. At no stage has it been mentioned they'll be scrapping iPlayer in any way sense or form.

The Bbc already closed the ability to download content on iPlayer. If the Bbc is going to be putting its new shows onto YT, then why would it waste money duplicating what YT already does? Which might be a rhetorical question, because wasting money is what the Bbc's best at. Which is also why there's speculation that by parking the Bbc's tanks on YT's lawn, it'll use this as an excuse to justify needing a licence to watch YT. Currently there's an option to block 'channels' on YT, which I already use to block Bbc garbage, and apparently the YT content will be ad free in the UK. But currently a licence is needed for iPlayer, and there isn't a YT option to check for a licence if you subscribe to a Bbc 'channel'. But that could happen, and perhaps why there's so many pop-ups demanding a login to the Bbc 'News' site so it can link email/device IDs to licences.

People like you just like posting off fake news.

No, I leave fake news to the Bbc.

[thedarkstar]

Speculation with absolutely no backing by people like you sitting on forums.

The BBC is going to be putting "select" new shows targeted at a younger audience, you seem to have some warped that into all new content will be going onto Youtube and iPlayer will be closing of which there is not a single element of truth in.

Content is duplicated on multiple platforms around the globe for many reasons, not just from the BBC.

And there is a clear distinction with regards to the TV license that it specifically applies to iPlayer. For the same reason you don't need a license to watch content the BBC upload to their social media feeds (Instagram, TikTok etc)

Sadly you seem to be of the anti-establishment, four-chan type of which there is no way to have a friendly debate with because you just spout conspiracy theories and crap that has no backing or evidence. Are you a X user by any chance?

[MrReynolds2U]

"The Bbc already closed the ability to download content on iPlayer."

I just downloaded something from iPlayer on my mobile. So... ?

[jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid]

"the Bbc got a licence fee hike to fund DSO (Digital Switch Over)"

I don't think that's right. DSO started in 2007 and completed in 2012. From 2000 (the earliest I can find numbers for, but 7 years before DSO started), the license fee was rising every year by a fairly fixed amount, which averages out at about 3.4% per year, at which point (in 2000, while DSO was still happening) it was actually frozen. There's no sign of any license fee hike beyond the regular year on year increase.

You might be thinking of a fund to help people with the digital switchover, which was part funded by the BBC, but it didn't mean a hike in the licence fee.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-60027436

[Jellied Eel]

You might be thinking of a fund to help people with the digital switchover, which was part funded by the BBC, but it didn't mean a hike in the licence fee.

Nope, it was increased to fund DSO. And no, I'm not going to go digging, but it was part of the Bbc's lies, ie making 'real cash savings' and demanding more money. There was some other oddities, like post-DSO the 'windfall' also being used by the Bbc supposedly to fund broadband rollout, and also moving funding for World Service from FCO to the Bbc. Reason why I'm not going to dig for links is because the Bbc really hates financial transparency and loves to plead poverty at every opportunity.

[thedarkstar]

Or you just don't have the links because they don't exist?

[Jellied Eel]

Or you just don't have the links because they don't exist?

Sure they do. It's just they require a lot of unpicking and explaining, and many commentards can't seem to cope with any post >140 characters. But here's one that was prepared earlier-

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b8b58ed915d4147621118/7523.pdf

28 SCHEDULE 1: EXPENDITURE, FINANCING AND BORROWING

1. Costs of the Scheme

(1) The costs of the Scheme (including its overheads, financing, administrative and marketing/ communication costs) estimated at £603 million in nominal terms over the lifetime of the licence fee settlement (from 2007/8 to 2012/13), will be ring-fenced. These funds must only be used to pay for the Scheme; the BBC will not be required to contribute any more than that amount from its public service and other resources if the licence fee is not increased beyond the “base case” settlement (under which the licence fee would be up-rated by 3/3/2/2/2/0% between 2007/8 and 2012/13)

Which some will go 'aha! DSO Help Scheme!' but it's more complicated that that and requires people to understand how the licence fee works, and how the Bbc is funded. So DSO happened around a settlement period and licence fee setting. Part of that was deciding on the 'base case' increase, which included the £603m ring-fenced for DSO help. So if that hadn't happened, or the DSO help was funded by other means like general taxation, DWP etc, then there would have been no need to up-rate the licence fee by 3/3/2/2/2/0%. Especially as this was happening at the same time as the Bbc was pretending to be making 'real cash' savings.

You might also notice the up-rate went to 0% in 2012/13 because by then, DSO would be complete, so the Bbc didn't need the money. But also meant the Bbc interpreted a freeze as a pay cut in what they usually laughably call 'real terms'. But unless their actual costs are increasing, inflation doesn't apply and again, they don't need more money because of the savings they're supposedly making.. Which they never need to do, unless the next settlement uses an RPI or CPI- formula to force the Bbc to make real savings. Especially when the growth in households means their jacuzzi fills up faster based on an unrelated activity.

See also-

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/19/bbc-digital-switchover-funds

The BBC will return nearly half the £600m fund it was given to help the elderly and disabled convert from analogue to digital TV after the switch proved more straightforward than many people had feared.

So the Bbc was incompetent & inflated the original forecast (no suprise there) and when the Grauniad said 'return', the Bbc never gave the £300m it didn't waste back to the licence payer..

[Roland6]

No, the government reduced the proportion of the licence fee the BBC got to create funds for the DSO and BDUK.

I’ve misplaced a document (source ONS ?) which charts the licence fee after adjustment for inflation - the £180pa fee is still significantly lower in real-terms than the licence fee was before DSO…

[BackInFiveMinutes]

I pretty much agree with everyone so far. I think 180 is fairly reasonable for the output. Its the enforced nature of having to have one for live broadcasts which I think is now an anachronism. Maybe the Beeb could do both, have a subscription, which would bring in overseas revenue and or a license for UK if the homeowner thinks that would be a better deal.

[thedarkstar]

BBC Studios already has it covered for international distribution, including running BritBox which is their Netflix-style subscription service (slightly separate to the UK version of BritBox)

[Cmjl]

Britbox?

Sorry - more like S$$tbox

Very little BBC content where I am, mainly ITV detective dramas.

No Goodies, no Dr Who, no Fawlty Towers, no Young Ones...

[AMBxx]

I worked out that all I watched on live TV was the 6 Nations Rugby. As much as I like watching rugby, £180 for a few matches was too much.

If you watch more TV, then it's good value. For me, it wasn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

£180 for a few matches was too much.

How much would you have paid to see those games in the flesh, assuming you could get tickets?

Now repeat those calculations for the other live BBC broadcasts you almost certainly watch(ed); Wimbledon, Glastonbury, the Proms, Live Aid, World Cup final, etc.

[AMBxx]

Re: £180 for a few matches was too much.

Live Aid was 40 years ago! As for the rest, nope don't watch them.

Cost of the live event isn't comparable. Do you think everyone would happily pay the same to watch live as to go to the match?

[Pickle Rick]

A SInking Flagship?

I don't watch telly, it doesn't entertain me - and I've no issues with those that do find it worthwhile.

The Beep are desperate. 15 years ago TV Licensing brought in £5Bn annually, that's now £3.5Bn - not inflation adjusted. 300K fewer licences were issued in 2024 yoy. And now they're looking at trying to enforce licence requirement for watching YouTube... WTF has Betty's upload of her cats chasing a laser pointer got to do with them? That's a blatant money grab, unbecoming of such a (previously?) venerable institution - it's a bad look IMHO.

As for the price hike, it's one of the things I've never really understood. Businesses that see a reduction in income due to falling customer engagement raise prices to try to recoup, which drives punters away. Seen it with so many times with pubs that invariably close shortly afterwards (which really does make me cry!) Lower the prices a bit to encourage "footfall" seems sensible to me, but hey, I'm not an economist.

Additional: There's no such thing as a UK TV License, be that black and white, or color. >:| /pedantry-gripe

Edit: Just did an inflation adjustment check - £5Bn 2010 -> ~£8Bn 2026

[GreggS]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

If only there were a UK TV licence that included all streaming services as part of it!! I'll wake up from this dream some day.

[Phil O'Sophical]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

If only there were a UK TV licence that included all streaming services as part of it!! I'll wake up from this dream some day.

Just taking the basic ad-supported tiers of the main streaming services, that works out around £430 per year for them all, plus the £180 for BBC. Are you sure you want to pay > £600 for that?

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

And now they're looking at trying to enforce licence requirement for watching YouTube...

Never happen, they'll go after Netflix et al before that , and ITV / ch4 catchup before that. (which alos wont happen)

You can watch all the shit on itv /ch 4 /5 /dave etc on catcup WITHOUT a licence

You only need a licence if you need them to tell you what time to watch it .

They've really painted themselves into a corner with the "Live TV" rule , although theres not much else they could have done.

I stopped paying licence when i realized I could, and never felt better - for not being a slave to the channel flipping .

and I very rarely feel the need to watch what i gave up legally on the catch up channels - when i do look at them I think "Yep , nothings changed , still all the same shit "

I do feel a bit guily for not contributing anymore for all the reasons outlined ion the first couple replies

(Newsquiz mainly)

[Richard 12]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

Not merely "never happen", it's a complete fabrication that's got less evidence than a teapot on the Moon.

[Pickle Rick]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

> it's a complete fabrication that's got less evidence than a teapot on the Moon.

Not on my part.

Not sure I'd class it as "evidence" to your standard as this is from the Grauniad, first I found with a search.

>> "However, the details of the deal are already raising questions about whether the content made for YouTube will be paid for using the licence fee."

I tend not to post "fabrications" to the best of my ability thank you, regardless of the wooliness surrounding £Org's intentions.

[Richard 12]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

The claim was: "And now they're looking at trying to enforce licence requirement for watching YouTube..."

And that's utter tosh.

The BBC have been instructed to publish some pre-recorded programmes on YouTube, so that people who do not have a TV licence or are outside the UK can legally watch them. iPlayer is UK and licence-payer only, you see.

The rest of the article is various uninformed commentators commentating.

YouTube will presumably run adverts and pay BBC Worldwide some fees, just like all the other companies who license content from BBC Worldwide.

This isn't really new though. They have already published a few things there, as well as tiktok, instagram and other "social media".

[Jellied Eel]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

The claim was: "And now they're looking at trying to enforce licence requirement for watching YouTube..."

And that's utter tosh.

No, that's not yet proven.. Other than previous Charter reviews having the Bbc make a bunch of funding proposals, all of which work in their favor. So there have been proposals to tack the cost of a licence fee onto broadband connectivity.

YouTube will presumably run adverts and pay BBC Worldwide some fees

Why would it pay Worldwide, if it's PSB content? Why would we reward failure? After all, Worldwide is supposed to commerciallly exploit licence payers.. I mean licence funded content, feeding money back into the PSB so the licence fee can be frozen, or better yet, reduced. And yet it keeps bloating.

But one also needs to watch tank manouvers carefully. Currently, you need a licence to watch Bbc content on iPlayer (but not S4C, which the Bbc usually neglects to mention). We don't need a licence to watch YT, give or take very vaguely defined 'live broadcast TV'. So to prevent a potential loophole of people legally being able to watch non-live Bbc slop on YT, that loophole will 'need' to be closed. That could be simply adding ... and YouTube. Or the Bbc could make it's slop members only, which many people (especially the young ones the Bbc's desperately trying to hook) wouldn't pay. Or the Bbc & YT could figure out a mechanism to verify viewers have a licence.

But there's a lot we currently don't know about the details, especially any commercial arrangements. Other legacy broadcasters are exploring the same challenges, eg Paramount releasing the pilot to Starfleet Academy and being beaten in the ratings by a Spock doll perched on a chair.. Which could also prove entertaining, ie the Bbc hides iPlayer figures, but unless YT hides views, people are going to easily be able to see just how many views its garbage gets, and whether the move to YT is successful or cost effective at all. YT probably won't care because content is content, the Bbc is probably going to have to pay for this deal, and YT will pocket most of the ad revenues.

Plus there's scope of other shenanigans, like getting Bbc content demonitized, or the Bbc having to lose editorial independence and comply with YT's content policies..

They have already published a few things there, as well as tiktok, instagram and other "social media"

Its been desperate to be relevant to da yoof audience since before Tim Westwood started 'keeping it real' and inspiring Ali G. I usually block any Bbc 'channels' whenever I see them but there are a lot.. Not sure if they're full programs, but this has always been an issue with the Bbc's archives, ie having the rights to dump that onto streaming services, whether that's iPlayer or YT.. Which will also be one of those subsidy questions, ie are licence payers subsidising this, and are indies like Bad Wolf profiting from those?

[Pickle Rick]

Re: A SInking Flagship?

> The claim was...

So you didn't like the word "enforce" - I get it. Not here to write a white paper buddy.

Make Auntie Great Again - tick; Mission creep - tick

[I should coco]

Expat would like to pay but can't

As a UK expat I would willing pay to have the BBC via iPlayer but this is not possible. I imagine there would be a tonne of revenue available if they opened this up to oversea's viewers.

[lordminty]

Re: Expat would like to pay but can't

I've been saying that for ages.

It seems that the BBC manglement have absolutely no clue.

[Lon24]

Re: Expat would like to pay but can't

BBC Radio services are available for, I believe, a limited time abroad via the app. iPlayer is only a VPN away if you put ethics aside.

It's major overseas problem is the rights issue which is a difficult one. One reason the licence fee could be useful is to connect it directly to the streaming services and attach the 'rights' to it. Then if any non-pats want to pay it too then it's more cash for programmes.

World Service should remain free for all. It's soft power and a lot cheaper than aircraft carriers.

[Charlie Clark]

Re: Expat would like to pay but can't

There is BritBox in some countries, otherwise VPNs are your friends.

[dave 76]

Re: Expat would like to pay but can't

There is BritBox in some countries, otherwise VPNs are your friends.

Problem is you still can't pay for the licence fee if you want to be legit. You cannot use an overseas address and if you use a UK address and it already has a licence you can't add a second licence at the same address (unless there is some hoop you can jump through that I haven't found).

Like the previous poster, as an expat I would be happy to pay, but I cannot.

[RichardBarrell]

Re: Expat would like to pay but can't

I'm obviously not going to do this because it's too silly, but there *are* a bunch of addresses which get demands to buy a TV licence but never will, and you could reuse those. :D

I worked at Capita on phones for TVLA briefly once and one of the trainers related a story about how the automated nastygram system had been sending TV licence demand letters to... a field, with a horse in it, so the farmer who owned that field sent back a reply purporting to be from the horse explaining how horses don't watch television.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why it's unfair...

If the TV licence was a simple BBC subscription fee, it would be totally reasonable - pay it to watch it or don't. The unfair bit is needing a TV licence to watch ANY live TV. Back in the days when the BBC provided a lot of the funding for the broadcast infrastructure, it made sense. But having to pay a fee to the BBC to watch (say) live sport on Prime on your laptop is insane. I choose not to (legally- I don't watch live TV or iPlayer). I get letters from them. I put them in the bin. When they come to the door I close it in their face.

[Woodnag]

Re: Why it's unfair...

The license is a carryover from the original radio licenses, when the equipment was expensive. The expectation for decades has been that everyone watches live TV, hence detector vans back in the day and now letters + home visits. What a waste of resources. Just fund it from the exchequor like most else with a negotiated budget.

[Irongut]

Re: Why it's unfair...

> Just fund it from the exchequor

Screw that. Why should I pay for you to watch the BBC when I have no need or want for it myself?

The BBC do not make a single programme I am interested in. They do not cover the sport I am interested in. They are laughably incompetant when it comes to covering anything IT related.

The people who want to watch shit like Eastenders can pay for it. I do and will not.

[thedarkstar]

Re: Why it's unfair...

You could apply the same logic to almost anything that is funded by general taxation, not long before nothing is left or allowed to be funded.

[R Soul]

Just fund it from the exchequor

No. Just no!

A new funding model is certainly needed. Paying for the BBC can't come directly from the exchequer though. That puts the BBC at even bigger risk from the whims of our here today, gone tomorrow fuckwit politicians. Imagine if the likes of Diane Abbot or Mad Nad controlled the BBC's funding. The latter was notionally responsible for the BBC for a while.

Direct government funding would inevitably turn the BBC into a Pravda-style state broadcaster. Its editorial independence - already in jeopardy - would be lost forever. And so would the influence and soft power of the BBC World Service.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Just fund it from the exchequor

A new funding model is certainly needed. Paying for the BBC can't come directly from the exchequer though.

It might suprise you to know that this is already how it works. The Bbc is authorised to collect the licence fee in the Communications Act. The money collected is then paid into the exchequer's Consolidate Fund. Then some, or all of the money collected is given back to the Bbc via a statutory instrument, which by convention is usually a rubber stamping exercise. The government could though decide to give the Bbc £1 and there's nothing the Bbc could really do, other that scream. But this is also why the government had to restate UK Plc's accounts back to pretty much the inception of the licence fee because it was ruled that it was a tax.

The latter was notionally responsible for the BBC for a while.

There's nothing really notional about it. The Bbc is legally part of the DCMS, so whoever is in charge of that gets to call the shots. Again why it goes on a charm offensive whenever the Charter and Framework agreements are up for renewal. But that's also by convention and there's nothing stopping the DCMS from re-writing the Framework agreement at any time. That's the important bit because that document lays out what the DCMS expects the Bbc to be doing, not the Charter.

The only way to make the Bbc independent would be to flog it off, and then it would just have to worry about any licence conditions imposed by Ofcom, as it does for all licenced UK broadcasters.. Except (mostly) the Bbc.

[Roland6]

Re: Just fund it from the exchequor

>” The only way to make the Bbc independent would be to flog it off,”

Just need to create better arms length separation and operation of taxpayer owned businesses from Westminster and the politicians.

We know from pre-privatisation how the politicians bungled both the strategic and day-to-day management of the nationalised industries and continue to mismanage services still under their control.

[Roland6]

Re: Why it's unfair...

>” Just fund it from the exchequor like most else with a negotiated budget.”

The licence fee is already a negotiated budget, which the Conservatives like to make a big meal of…and given the legal status of the wireless license it could be argued the exchequer is already funding it, just that they have subcontracted the collection to the BBC.

I think the biggest change is to going to be getting the politicians out of the equation.

[KayJ]

Auntie died with David Kelly.

[ScottishYorkshireMan]

The BBC is defunct in the regions

The BBC provides a lot of services for the world, not just the UK. This is where my enthusiasm for the BBC stops.

My issues with the BBC is its impartiality. From a view of Scotland, it simply isn't. I know this won't matter a jot to you folks who don't live in Scotland and fair enough, but if you are thinking "Back in your box, Scotland" then stuff you too.

BBC Scotland provides a persistent "Pro-Union" status. Its coverage of anything good from the SNP, Scottish Government or Scottish Independence interest, is simply non-existent. However, anything that can be spun remotely badly, is given full coverage, even when it ends up being complete garbage, we might see a correction (not apology) sometime in the following 3-6 months. Maybe.

Very little coverage of the antics of Farage's party, but hell, any opportunity to flame Nicola Sturgeon (murder tents), talk about Ferries or the new one of late, the QEUH, is taken with extreme enthusiasm. This is getting into full flow now the local elections are on the horizon.

So, excuse me for not being a fan of the Biased Broadcasting Craperation.

Scotland, maybe Wales and Northern Ireland too, need appropriate coverage that isn't decided on what works for London. If it is to be a true national broadcaster it has to cease behaving like its owned by a right-wing billionaire.

Upvote, downvote, don't really care much.

[thedarkstar]

Re: The BBC is defunct in the regions

Italy certainly put you back in your box over the weekend.

[lordminty]

So much scope for savings and new income streams

Its quite clear that the leaders and manglement in the BBC just have no commercial nouns, or any strategy.

They over pay for insignificant 'celebs' salaries like Gary Lineker or worse, Huw Edwards. If they want more, let them walk. And don't continue to pay them if they've brought your organisation into disrepute. Also sending umpteen UK people to report from foreign countries, when simple agreements could use local reporters or reporters from other countries like the US. Similarly the BBC could provide coverage from the UK to others at a cost.

As pointed out above, there are people outside the UK who would pay, but the BBC can't get a simple non-UK viewer subscription model going.

Even in the UK they could eke out additional money through selective subscription services, for example sport. I've zero interest in having football or any Olympics shoved down my throat, and throwing their entire schedules into disarray. Its not even like football gets big viewing figures, theyd cancel a sitcom or drama having circa 7 million viewers, so why show football on BBC1? Offer it as a subscription. They could call it BBC Sport!

Sadly when it comes to saving money its never big salaries or sport that get cut, its the stuff that matters they destroy, like local radio and TV, the very areas where the likes of Netflix or Prime TV don't compete.

[Harestone]

Re: So much scope for savings and new income streams

Definitely the most sensible thing written here today. Once a presenter starts demanding a large pay rise just don't renew their contract and find a new up-and-coming presenter.

[Already?]

Re: So much scope for savings and new income streams

Except that Match Of The Day post-Lineker is a patch on what it used to be. He really was the safe pair of hands who could if required show you his medals and presented it with an amount of aplomb that the current rotating threesome simply cannot match, more's the pity.

That he had to be moved on because some people believe that paying a licence fee gives them the right to censor views they disagree with is lamentable.

[Bebu sa Ware]

TV License - blind are eligible for a 50 percent discount

Had to laugh reading that but I do realize being legally blind doesn't mean completely without sight and I suppose the license does also cover radio.

In AU the poor old TV license was "taken behind the barn" fifty odd years ago and our public broadcasters mostly funded by the Comminwealth.

I stopped viewing TV during the daily nonsense of COVID and I don't intend resuming this side of the grave (or beyond it for that matter.)

[Prst. V.Jeltz]

Re: TV License - blind are eligible for a 50 percent discount

"and I suppose the license does also cover radio."

Well it funds the radio , but you dont need a licence to listen.

[TonyJ]

I don't actually mind the subscription to the BBC...

...but what I do mind is it being a criminal act to watch TV without one.

To me, it should be like all of the other services - you want to watch, you pay. You don't, you don't, but you should never face court action for simply not having a subscription.

See also fare dodging - I have no problem chasing people through civil action but it should not be possible for a company (whether public or private) to prosecute people without it going via the police and CPS.

After all, the Post Office had that power and look how that got abused, even when Second Sight were warning them of how unsound the charges being levelled were.

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC need to massively reduce headcount. And those that are left, halve their salaries. Start with the number of weather presenters please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. They should just stop spending money on the stuff you like.

This is one of the problems of public sector broadcasting: everybody's got different opinions on what should and shouldn't be funded. We all have different likes and dislikes.

Besides, sacking weather presenters (or whatever) isn't going to free up significant amounts of money for programme making or investigative journalism.

[lordminty]

"investigative journalism"?

When did they BBC last do that?

[lordminty]

Microsoft Narrator

I forgot to mention it above, but on BBC radio they could remove all the news and sports news presenters and just use Microsoft Narrator or similar to read the script. Ditto the weather.

[CountCadaver]

TVL Crapita Contractors != Enforcement "Officers"

TV Licencing like to name their outsourced heavies from Crapita as "Enforcement Officers" to imply they are police empowered professional investigators, they are nothing of the sort. They are just whoever Crapita can find this week to go knock on doors and try induce people to incriminate themselves.

They have no powers of entry and can (and many would say should) be told to go away.

[Pickle Rick]

Re: TVL Crapita Contractors != Enforcement "Officers"

I'm not contending the gist of what you're saying, but I'll give a few clarifying points.

> imply they are police empowered

Essentially, The Goons are doorstep salespersons, on commission. They _are_ empowered by Acts, but not by the fuzz. The constabulary only attend, on occasion, in order to prevent a breach of peace by either party. Under Common Law, access to premises is implied (ie. for knocking on a door, not entry). This implied access can be withdrawn at any time (cf trespass) _unless_ a court signed warrant of access is in-hand, then they have right to access.

[illuminatus]

Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

Every conversation I hear about this usually slips into "but it doesn't offer men anything, so why should I pay?" or "it should stand up in an international marketplace and be like everyone else"

Except those arguments are a bit facile. We don't all have kids, but we pay for schools. We don't all drive, but we pay for roads. Without them, society is less good. The country is just that little bit worse

The BBC is well-thought of internationally, mostly because it's not hamstrung by commercial imperatives and can try to [push the envelope some times, even if the economic conditions to do so are becoming harder. We've seen how that's going in the US with CBS, Paramount and the manoeuvrings with Trump-aligned hangers on. That is not the environment we want find ourselves in here, and it's not inevitable. Subscriptions seem quite seductive, but the economies of nation scale the BBC get do allow cross media things to happen, and very soon, many of those things would disappear. 15 quid a month is a better deal than paying for Netflix, or Apple TV, simply because you get a lot more - and even if you don't allways use it all, the choice is there if you ever do want/need it. you won't get it back when it's gone

Many of the arguments seem to be, inevitably and sadly, economic. But few are asking the bigger question: what if we just talked about the value of the BBC as a public good. Even the arch captilsist Adam Smith said that some things should exist purely for the public benefit. The BBC is one of those, and that's why it should be funded that way.

There are relatively few people in this country whose lives are not touched by it in some fashion - whether watching one of the TV channels, listening to radio, or looking at online content. Now is exactly the right time time for us to be protecting it as a strategic national asset, every bit as important as roads, or rail, or the NHS, because it's good for the cultural health of the nation. I'm becoming increasingly less keen on us being overrun by the offerings of the biggest companies in the world trying to control everything we watch, read, or hear, especially when those same companies are apparently very keen to appease that orange creature squatting over US society right now.

The licence fee is not perfect. But it's the least worst option, and that is why we should be persisting with it

[Sandtitz]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

"The licence fee is not perfect. But it's the least worst option, and that is why we should be persisting with it"

The Nordic countries have moved to taxation instead of TV license in the last several years.

I would say there have been more positive than negative outcomes.

[Derezed]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

Just as we can’t trust politicians with the NHS and Bank of England, we definitely can’t trust them with the BBC. We are not a Nordic country and it’s all very well until they start electing nutters from both ends of the spectrum (Girt Wilders was only next door!)

[Sandtitz]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

"We are not a Nordic country and it’s all very well until they start electing nutters from both ends of the spectrum"

While this is a valid concern, if the nutters manage to take the whole country, they can ram whatever new charter..

The status quo just slowly erodes BBC from the corners with the inspectors and extra bureaucracy and such. The taxation in Nordics is progressive with very low income families paying nothing or very little. Worth considering.

If the BBC is well respected within UK, there will be a higher barrier to dissolve it or turning it into something unwanted.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?age

>” If the BBC is well respected within UK, there will be a higher barrier to dissolve it or turning it into something unwanted.”

The destruction of respect for state owned organisations is part of the Tory game plan as having well run and respected state owned businesses goes against their belief system. It’s why the country is in the mess it’s in after decades of Conservative rule…

Change is going to need a revolution; but not of the sort that ardent supporters of the left or right dream of…

[rg287]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

The Nordic countries have moved to taxation instead of TV license in the last several years.

I don't disagree with yourself or Derezed below. In particular, getting rid of the overhead of licensing would be a huge boon.

My concern in all cases is that the Nordics are mature democracies who have not been as heavily influenced by the US. No, they're not perfect, but they all offer robust social care including health, childcare, education, public transport, etc. These things are not political playthings and have not been wound down over the last 30 years as they have in Britain. Public broadcasting is something the government can be "trusted" not to muck about with.

By contrast in the UK, any sort of annual or even multi-year funding settlement for the BBC would be inevitably politicised to hell and back. Renewing a 10-year charter puts the renewal into a new parliament and probably a different government and party in charge. It is true that a future Government could pass an Act of Parliament to change it mid-term, but this is a very involved process open to all the scrutiny of legislation and would be deeply criticised from the outset.

If it were just from general taxation, then it's open to review every year. Sure, the Chancellor could hypothetically announce a ten-year funding package in a budget, but subsequent budgets absolutely could and would muck about with it. A new government would be absolutely at liberty to say "Oh, circumstances have changed, sorry, can't do that any more" and just hose the expected funding a mere three years in.

That bit of legislative distance is really valuable given the wayward fuckwittery of our prevailing political classes.

[Fara82Light]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

Yes, when the nation is living on tick.

[R Soul]

Re: Does everything have to be "monetisable"?

This just in: just about every country in the world is living on tick. Film at on tonight's news at 11!

[Catch-the-Pigeon]

could go PPV

pay per view , this could/would be their best revenue model and might even exceed the license fee. People choose to see what they want and what they don't , occasionally the beeb still comes out with excellent sitcoms and drama's like line of duty. They could also get revenue stream from the old sit coms and comedies which I still watch like the two ronnies, porridge etc. The bbc isn't about money but about free speech but in an ever increasing competitive world sometimes there is no choice and the need to survive

[Jellied Eel]

Re: could go PPV

pay per view , this could/would be their best revenue model and might even exceed the license fee.

Unlikely, and also probably unmanageable. But it would be very simple for the Bbc to go subscription and test how many people think its really worth £15 a month. If it truly is so well loved, it would do just fine and save £1bn+ on trying to collect the licence fee. Don't pay? No Eastenders or medicated soaps, and non-subscribers can just Eat Static-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiEIJfKl2mc

The bbc isn't about money but about free speech

It's very much against 'free speech' and anyone that tries to exercise this via their comments section will last even less time than they would in the Grauniad's comments section. Don't forget the Bbc is the model for George Orwell's 1984, he being a former Bbc employee.

[Pete Sdev]

Re: could go PPV

I do wonder why you Jellied Eel spend time around here.

I doubt you work in IT (except maybe as a PHB).

If you'd a modicum of social intelligence, you'd realise from the consistent downvotes (not just this thread) that you're probably in the wrong place and go hang out somewhere else (Dailymail maybe?) where your presence would be more welcome.

[Jellied Eel]

Re: could go PPV

I do wonder why you Jellied Eel spend time around here.

I doubt you work in IT (except maybe as a PHB).

Who made you boss? This is an IT subject, and one I'm quite familiar with. But true, I've mostly retired from being a PHB other than picking and choosing the occasional consultancy gig, when it amuses me.

If you'd a modicum of social intelligence, you'd realise from the consistent downvotes (not just this thread)

If you'd a modicum of intelligence, you'd realise angry thumbs don't matter. Especially when being an IT-focused site, there's at least 1 skiddie who decided to automate downvoting simply because I didn't agree with him. I also know that some subjects tend to be a tad controversial, like daring to criticise the Bbc. But this is also where the Bbc is a problem because on those subjects, the Bbc tends to push a narrative, not anything resembling the truth.

Oh, and you might also someday learn that debates generally involve differences of opinion, and often dissenting opinions. If you just want an echo chamber, I'm sure you can find your way to Reddit.

[Blackjack]

So, people living in the UK have to pay if they watch anything live on their phone, even if is not stuff from the BBC?

[Pickle Rick]

In short: yup. But we're talking "aired 'television' broadcasts" not a live streamer on their own web site for example. It's what you're watching, not what you're watching it on.

[steelpillow]

A national service

The BBC was set up to provide a national service and to promote quality broadcasting. Over the decades, it has progressively chased viewing figures at the expense of quality. These days it has whole channels dedicated to shitshow back catalogues, just like everybody else's, just the ads are confined to more shitshows rather than commercial.

The BBC should go back to its roots. Focus on public service and quality. Two channels max on each mainstream broadcast media: radio, TV, Internet. Back catalogue available for free download. Legislate for the right to major sports event coverage, dump the endless drivel. Cut back the license fee accordingly. </grumpy old git>

[Paratiritis]

Then and now

The license fee was introduced at a time when few homes had a radio or a television and it would have been unfair to charge the whole population for the services. Today, there are few homes without a television, therefore BBC costs ought to be covered by taxes, where they might also be calculated more fairly, based on household income.

[Derezed]

To be fair I have both a TV license and a Netflix subscription. I never watch anything on Netflix and constantly consume BBC radio, web and TV content.

As soon as you introduce market forces into the BBC it will turn into the same dog shit as everything else.

Can we just have this one nice thing? A broadcaster owned by us for us. Not by some white supremacist cum rag or some shrivelled billionaire and his odious family…us…British people.

[J.G.Harston]

If it's owned by us, where my share certificate that I can sell?

[rg287]

If it's owned by us, where my share certificate that I can sell?

Obvious troll is obvious. It's owned by us in the same way our local council offices are owned by us - but you can't just wander and pull up a desk.

As for selling your share? It's more a matter of trading in your passport for a Russian one. Off you fuck.

[rg287]

To be fair I have both a TV license and a Netflix subscription. I never watch anything on Netflix and constantly consume BBC radio, web and TV content.

We had Prime for a long time, and then Netflix in 2020 during COVID because they got the streaming rights for the Ghibli catalogue.

We stopped watching them because... there was nothing we wanted to watch. For sure, we'd pick up Bridgerton and suchlike, but between seasons, the back-catalogue of films and stuff you might want to actually watch had deteriorated badly. So those subscriptions got knocked off towards the end of 2025.

So now we just have a TV licence. Our recent viewing habits include BBC's Quizzy Mondays, Night Manager and now the Winter Olympics. Of which only the Night Manager was iPlayer - the others are watched OTA/broadcast. At some point we'll pick up Lord of the Flies. Mackenzie Crook has a new sitcom out we'll probably pick up on iPlayer. Other than that, we have started Campaign 4 of Critical Role - just the stuff on YouTube. We don't pay for Beacon or the extra content. And that's kind of it.

[Jellied Eel]

We had Prime for a long time, and then Netflix in 2020 during COVID because they got the streaming rights for the Ghibli catalogue.

I cancelled Prime when they tried extorting more money for an ad-free version. I still have Netflix, mainly for S.Korean, Thai and Indonesian shows. I may cancel that one though because of the lack of new content.

Otherwise I'm probably not a typical TV viewer. So recently I watched Scott Manley explaining an orbital dynamics simulator and how Spac-X's orbital datacentres might work. Or the curator of the battleship New Jersey's latest in a series about what America's new battleships might look like, this time talking about ships with frikkin lazor beams. Or in a vaguely related tangent, watching an Australian machine shop installing and setting up there massive new Megabore lathe. Which got me thinking about the challenges involved in building a proper battleship given despite the size, this lathe would be too small to machine 16"+ guns and the US doesn't have that capability any more. Someone mentioned Bethlehem Steel earlier, which did, but now you can see a 16" gun on display under the floor of the shopping centre that replaced the heavy metal factory. And I must see if Jonathan Ferguson, Keeper of Firearms and Artillery at the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds has dropped anything new.

But basically I watch the kinds of things the Bbc doesn't make or show, and there's plenty of stuff to keep me informed, educated and entertained without wasting £180 a year on a daycare service for sex offenders.

[zebm]

I cancelled my TV licence during Covid. Why pay to listen to the propaganda arm of the British Establishment pushing pseudoscience? e.g. Darwin, in his seminal work, debunked the Malthusian idea that populations grow exponentially. Then there is the general sneering at their audience.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Spot the difference

From Our Own Correspondent

For the home audience, on Radio 4, presented by Kate Adie

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/b006qjlq

And over on the World Service...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p002vsng

Most of the time the same features and presenter's script, written by a producer.

I can only speculate that the cost of putting together the Radio 4 version is higher than the World Service version as the former is fronted by the high profile Adie.

Why not save money and just use the WS version?

[J.G.Harston]

Re: Spot the difference

There used to be a time when the World Service did provide Radio 4 content. I used to listen to Just A Minute and The Goons on the World Service, then all the sister-channel stuff vanished.

[lordminty]

Re: Spot the difference

As I said above, for lots or radio stuff, why not just use Microsoft Narrator or similar?

They could alternatively sample a presenter's voice and use AI...

In some ways it would be nice to see some of these smug ultra expensive presenters faces when they find out they are replaceable, and no longer required.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Re: Spot the difference

The only reasons I can come up with for Adie to present the version on Radio 4 are either for recognition, or, it's some contractual/retirement obligation or agreement.

She's been out of front-line news reports for a long time, and it's a dwindling demographic who remember her TV reporting.

[rg287]

Re: Spot the difference

She's been out of front-line news reports for a long time, and it's a dwindling demographic who remember her TV reporting.

Completely off topic, her autobiography "The Kindness of Strangers" is a very interesting view into the early days of local radio and local journalists figuring it all out as they went along (with occasional help from the Army to drag an OB van out the mud with an engineering recovery vehicle!). Worth a read if you find it in a charity shop (the publication date is shown as 2019, but I must have read it 10 years before that, so I don't know if the version currently on sale is an updated edition, or merely a reprint that got a new ISBN, maybe a new introduction or something).

[an.other_tech]

Maybe the beeb can cut back on the number of channels and radio stations.

In some parts there is only the BBC option, which stifles competition and choice.

Still, at least there are no adverts, except their own !

[Derezed]

Or the BBC is serving a community that isn’t worth a private sector operator bothering with. There is competition…it’s welcome …but where the “choice” is BBC or nothing…

[rg287]

Maybe the beeb can cut back on the number of channels and radio stations.

Which ones, specifically? The ones you don't enjoy personally?

They tried to axe BBC 4 a while back, and then realised that whilst it didn't have the viewing figures of BBC1/2, it had actually become much-loved and served a demographic that had previously gone largely unserved, even by Channel 4 (who have always had a mandate to be a bit more avant garde than Auntie Beeb). Which is somewhat the point of a public service broadcaster - to ensure a diversity of content, including that which isn't going to get picked up on a commercial basis.

So which communities do you intend to cut adrift (or feel are adequately served elsewhere?).

[mrcreosote]

Administration costs

How much does it cost in administration, collection, and enforcement of the license fee? how much more efficient would it be to just fund it out of general revenue, a la the Australian ABC and SBS services?

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Blobbyvision

Bring back Mr Blobby!

It's only an actor in a costume, so you can have many of them at a fraction of the cost

Strictly Come Dancing

Traitors

Mrs Blobby's Boys

Antiques Roadshow, presented by Mr Blobby - produced in association with Locktite.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Blobbyvision

There's one teeny problem with your cunning plan. The BBC would have to pay zillions to the odious Noel Edmonds for the rights to his useless fat fuck alter ego.

[Zebo-the-Fat]

No thanks!

Not watched TV for years, it used to be good but seems to have moved downmarket in a big way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: No thanks!

How do you know if you haven’t watched it in years?

[John Robson]

I watch very little live TV

We're in the midst of the one sporting competition a year I do tend to watch (the six nations).

We spent years without a TV license, but I'd fully support it being funded from general taxation, even though that would cost *me* significantly more than the current license fee.

There would be no need for licence fee dodging, or the continuous stream of firelighters they post if you don't have a TV license - no need for court cases etc etc...

And I'm not suggesting that the payment should be conditional on the approval of the government - heck the license fee is already "on the approval of the government" - with any ideas of political control that that entails, but that the payment would be there, predictable, and maintaining the current broad remit of the BBC, though maybe with a little less focus on finding an "expert" to counter any discussion, even if that discussion is whether or not the sun will rise in the morning.

[Mickey Porkpies]

The last stand on media without interuptions

BBC keep me sain in a world bombarded with adverts and sponsored crap it is the only way to watch stuff and is the true personal media service. Whilst news has sunk to the depth of Daily Mail so much good TV is available on the big screen without the need to pay for high speed broadband and even with the streaming service offers a massive selection to the widest audience. It is a truly inclusive service that is an island in a world of haves and have nots and should be protected as such

It isn't a commercial streaming service it is public service and selfish interests will destroy it. If we have anything left of the British Identity in a stupefying globalised homogenised world it is this.

[Daelos]

In principle, I'm conflicted on this.

I definitely believe the country needs a UK owned, billionaire free, independent, news service that also has ad free programming that doesn't exclude anyone.

However, I have zero interest in soaps, light entertainment and sport which is where all the money is spent.

I stopped watching broadcast TV over 10 years ago and once I realised I was only watching iPlayer for about an hour a week for something not that important, I decided to pull the plug on that too and decided to not renew my licence.

TV just isn't a thing for me anymore. I'd rather spend my time playing games or watch YouTube. It's just dramas and movies for me and the BBC doesn't have enough of those to make it worth the effort.

There's nothing that would make me go back to it now but it's important that there's a service out there that isn't controlled by billionaires from abroad. I'm not saying their news service is perfect, it's far from it but it's the best of a terrible bunch.

I might consider a small licence to keep the news fully independent but I'm not prepared to pay for anything else. The rest should go to subscription based.

[Derezed]

I give you “BREXIT means BREXIT”.

Once murdoch and the other billionaires get their wish they’ll be nothing left for you to consider buying.

[Ilgaz]

I would pay if I could

I noticed the only stuff I watch from the platforms and unfortunately P2P are from BBC. If there was a way for international audience to pay their license, a lot would subscribe to iPlayer. I see there are some legitimate ways to watch BBC in the USA but not in a lot of countries.

[elaar]

People that compare the entire BBC to streaming services purely for entertainment, really don't understand what the BBC is, and what purpose it is there to serve.

There seems to be a growing population in this country that want to spend half of their lives binge watching tv series and being spoon fed news from DMGT, Murdoch and their Facebook feeds.

[lordminty]

"really don't understand what the BBC is, and what purpose it is there to serve."

The problem is, the BBC don't know what its purpose to serve is either.

My BBC local radio has plunged to the depths where it spoon feeds news from Socialist Worker.

[J.G.Harston]

If you want to make the BBC a subscription or pay-per-view service, then you've got to make it physically impossible to receive signals that you have not paid for, *AND* force people who haven't got equipment that can't turn off reception of non-paid-for stuff to get equipment that can turn off reception of non-paid-off-stuff in order to continue to receive the stuff they choose to pay for. At the moment you can just stick a bit of wire in the air as coherent electromagnetic waves sleet past and get stuff whether you've paid for it or not.

[quiet_reader]

Licence Fee not License

I know El Reg has more of a 'Merican readership these days, but given the article discusses the UK TV Licence, could it please use the correct spelling? License is a verb, Licence is the noun.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheap at twice the price.

Most Russians, Iranians or Americans would prefer the BBC to what they are allowed. I wish the Beeb was perfect, but like democracy it's still better than the alternatives.

[SuperPurpleron]

If you don't like it, don't be in scope and stop paying it

I gave up live TV completely to no longer fund an organisation who has lost it's way.

The TV licence has had it's day, it's no longer a defendable arrangement.

Personally, I think it's criminal that they prevent you from watching live TV from other suppliers if you choose not to 'subscribe' to the BBC. How many other suppliers have rights to block competitor content in such a way. If the TV licence had never existed and this arrangement was proposed today, people would laugh at such an entitled, overreaching, and indefensible suggestion.

[b1k3rdude]

214 comments, most of which are negative clearly show what most people think of the government controlled service and all the criminals they have employed and that continue to be found to this day. I haven't watched regular TV, live or otherwise, since the analogue transmitter was turned off in my area. Most of terrestrial UK tv is the worst kind of garbage, with ITV being the worst. The only thing the BBC does that is of any qaulity or calibre are the documentaries, but you can buy these for cheap on dvd/bluray after a year or so. Doctor Who used to be good, but has been slowly getting worse. The final nail in the coffin was facilitated by Davis and his virtue signalling echo chamber b$, pathetic story telling. And why even Disney walked away from it. There are rumor's that the bbc are going to "try" to say anyone watching YT or any programmes from outside the UK has to pay the fee, but that is delusional, and to which frankly I say, they fck right off and do one.

[rg287]

214 comments, most of which are negative clearly show what most people think of the government controlled service and all the criminals they have employed and that continue to be found to this day.

You know that writing this down doesn't make it true?

And if everyone is clearly so against the BBC, then why are the up/downvote ratios so hard in the other direction?

[Blue Screen of Bleurgh]

I've read reports that the BBC and this government is keen on dumping the licence in its current form and simply adding it to existing taxes such as income tax or council tax, or a new tax altogether.

I suppose if they went with adding it to Council Tax it would mean all those who are eligible to pay CT will also have to pay the new TV licence whether you watch terrestrial TV or not. No doubt the BBC will love this because all those millions who have cancelled their TV licence over the years will now have to cough up if they pay CT, which means more revenue for the BBC

[Roland6]

The BBC has been working for years on ways to replace the current licence, problems or challenges have been the wide remit of the BBC - it isn’t just a TV network, it has a radio network and overseas operations, it also has universal access and other obligations imposed on it by Westminster.

>or a new tax

That will require government to act, both to create a new act and terms of reference, and to also repeal the current licensing legislation.

>adding it to Council Tax

Would be a Tory trick, to make funding even more poisonous: £180pa to the BBC or £180pa to repairing pot holes/socisl services/care homes etc.

The real question is: Do we want a UK media industry or not? Remember because of their size and level of coproduction, hobbling the BBC will weaken ITV, Channel4 and ripple out across the UK’s media and entertainment industry.

From the comments here (and elsewhere) it is obvious too many can’t see the wood for the tree’s. Which probably also helps to explain why the UK is in the mess it is with respect to its addicts level of dependence on the US for IT and Defense…

[Anonymous Coward]

So many BBC sock puppets in such a small space!

I have managed over three decades with the BBC, and will continue to do so. I encourage everyone to give it up. Your pocket will benefit and so will your brain.

[Fara82Light]

Universal

It is hardly a universal service anymore when many choose not to consume the product. Let it stand on its own two feet by moving to a subscription-based model, and allow the BBC to offer more services beyond the UK. With the right leadership, the BBC could probably do very well from having the restrictions removed.

[Fara82Light]

Re: Universal

Ah, the DownVote Bot is still present.

[Fara82Light]

Re: Universal

... and again.

[G7mzh]

The BBC might cost more ...

... but what is there on the likes of Netflix and Disney that I'll actually want to watch?

[PRR]

> TV license fee will climb to £180 a year....

A YEAR??? I pay $191 (about £141) a MONTH for TV programming.

Spectrum TV Silver 127.00

Broadcast TV Surcharge 28.00

Spectrum Receiver 15.00

Digi Tier 2 12.00

Taxes (not fully itemized) 9.55

========================

191.55 (141.26 Pound)

That is with just one 'premium' channel. The $127 nominally gets 99++ channels (but as Bruce said in 1992, 57 Channels And Nothing On). The extra $12 is for RFDTV 30 minutes a week, but we gotta pay for a whole 'Tier'.