BBC: TV licence fee decriminalisation consultation launches

[Nearly Sane]

Have to say that (A) I agree with the decriminalisation, and (B) I am no longer sure of what the point of the BBC is - note that doesn't mean that I don't think there is no point to it, rather that in its current form it's looking out of its era.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-51373372

[Aruntraveller]

In a speech on Wednesday, Baroness Morgan said many people thought it wrong that "you can be imprisoned for not paying the TV licence and its enforcement punishes the vulnerable".

I knew my irony meter would come back in to fashion.

The idea that the Tories are worried about punishing the vulnerable, yeah right.

It's all about undermining the BBC.

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone"

[Outrider]

Have to say that (A) I agree with the decriminalisation, and (B) I am no longer sure of what the point of the BBC is - note that doesn't mean that I don't think there is no point to it, rather that in its current form it's looking out of its era.

The point of the BBC, as it has always been, is to ensure there is a well-funded broadcaster that is not beholden to commercial interests and can educate and inform with editorial independence.  Consecutive governments threatening the license fee in various ways have succeeded in compromising that independence to some extent, but not entirely.

If the license fee is to be decriminalised it needs to be done away with, and the BBC's funding needs to come straight from general taxation.  I'd personally like to see the entertainment and sports elements pared back significantly - they are equally well conducted by commercial interests - and the corporation to focus on news and documentaries, which are its core remit.

O.

[Harrowby Hall]

The point of the BBC, as it has always been, is to ensure there is a well-funded broadcaster that is not beholden to commercial interests and can educate and inform with editorial independence.  Consecutive governments threatening the license fee in various ways have succeeded in compromising that independence to some extent, but not entirely.

If the license fee is to be decriminalised it needs to be done away with, and the BBC's funding needs to come straight from general taxation.  I'd personally like to see the entertainment and sports elements pared back significantly - they are equally well conducted by commercial interests - and the corporation to focus on news and documentaries, which are its core remit.

O.

There is something else about the BBC which is worthy of consideration. Together with the monarchy, it is the only British organisation which almost universally admired and respected. It is possibly the best-known broadcaster in the world and its news services are also possibly regarded as the most reliable. The BBC is also a great British cultural ambassador - by linking Davis Attenborough to programmes about planetary environment it is promoting British scientific and academic values, and its annual music festival, The Proms, is unique.

By destroying the BBC as we know it, any government would be causing serious damage to the British brand.

I'm tempted to say also that it an organisation which promotes the English language - and in particular the difference between license (which is a verb) and licence (which is a noun).

[Nearly Sane]

The point of the BBC, as it has always been, is to ensure there is a well-funded broadcaster that is not beholden to commercial interests and can educate and inform with editorial independence.  Consecutive governments threatening the license fee in various ways have succeeded in compromising that independence to some extent, but not entirely.

If the license fee is to be decriminalised it needs to be done away with, and the BBC's funding needs to come straight from general taxation.  I'd personally like to see the entertainment and sports elements pared back significantly - they are equally well conducted by commercial interests - and the corporation to focus on news and documentaries, which are its core remit.

O.

I don't see the decriminalisation means that the licence fee needs to be done away with necessarily - as it just moves it to the same position as council tax. Other than I agree.

[Nearly Sane]

I knew my irony meter would come back in to fashion.

The idea that the Tories are worried about punishing the vulnerable, yeah right.

It's all about undermining the BBC.

"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got till it's gone"

I agree that's not the reason for what they are doing but I don't agree with it needing to be something we send people to jail for.

And in the BBC is already undermined because of streaming and competition. It's way too big in my opinion and is trying to compete in a way that undermines its original idea.

[Nearly Sane]

There is something else about the BBC which is worthy of consideration. Together with the monarchy, it is the only British organisation which almost universally admired and respected. It is possibly the best-known broadcaster in the world and its news services are also possibly regarded as the most reliable. The BBC is also a great British cultural ambassador - by linking Davis Attenborough to programmes about planetary environment it is promoting British scientific and academic values, and its annual music festival, The Proms, is unique.

By destroying the BBC as we know it, any government would be causing serious damage to the British brand.

I'm tempted to say also that it an organisation which promotes the English language - and in particular the difference between license (which is a verb) and licence (which is a noun).

I don't think that is universally admired in the UK - it isn't even on this board - see ippy. And the market has changed so much, as the BBC itself has, that I think a considerable reduction is all that makes sense. Paying Gary Lineker whatever amount doesn't really fit with the ethos a public broadcaster.

[Outrider]

I don't see the decriminalisation means that the licence fee needs to be done away with necessarily - as it just moves it to the same position as council tax. Other than I agree.

Failure to pay council tax is a criminal offence, punishable by up to three months in jail -https://www.gov.uk/council-tax-arrears

If it's not criminal it's not enforceable, at which point in practical terms it becomes optional and then no-one pays it.  In practical terms it's not a license fee, it's a tax which has a very small number of people who are exempt from paying, so why not save the administration and just take it from general taxation?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Failure to pay council tax is a criminal offence, punishable by up to three months in jail -https://www.gov.uk/council-tax-arrears

If it's not criminal it's not enforceable, at which point in practical terms it becomes optional and then no-one pays it.  In practical terms it's not a license fee, it's a tax which has a very small number of people who are exempt from paying, so why not save the administration and just take it from general taxation?

O.

Yes,  it's an odd one this - council tax non payment despite the possible 3 months in the poky is still not a criminal offence, but a civil one. Given that I still don't see how the decriminalisation here makes it 'unforceable'

[Udayana]

Failure to pay council tax is a criminal offence, punishable by up to three months in jail -https://www.gov.uk/council-tax-arrears

...
In practical terms it's not a license fee, it's a tax which has a very small number of people who are exempt from paying, so why not save the administration and just take it from general taxation?

O.

I think it's an hypothecated tax, and as for most taxes it is illegal not to pay it if you re eligible. The trouble with taking it from general taxation is that it allows the government more directly able to control editorial content.

Decriminalizing would greatly increase the costs of collecting it, probably making it impossible - without handing the debts over to collectors/bailiffs who would no doubt be viewed as harassing the vulnerable.
   

[Spud]

Perhaps send someone's TV aerial to jail for non-payment, instead?

[jeremyp]

I agree that's not the reason for what they are doing but I don't agree with it needing to be something we send people to jail for.

It isn't something we send people to jail for now. The maximum penalty is a substantial fine.

And in the BBC is already undermined because of streaming and competition. It's way too big in my opinion and is trying to compete in a way that undermines its original idea.

How is it undermined by streaming and competition. You do realise the BBC does streaming don't you?

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't something we send people to jail for now. The maximum penalty is a substantial fine.
How is it undermined by streaming and competition. You do realise the BBC does streaming don't you?

People are sent to prison for it
 And yes, the BBC does streaming - that doesn't mean thar streaming has not fundamentally changed the market it competes in.

[Gordon]

The licence fee, for me, may have made sense when if you watched TV you were likely to watch the BBC at least some of the time, since it was one of two channels until '64, of three until '82 when C4 started and then at the end of the 80s satellite TV started - and now with cable and streaming BBC is just one of a plethora of options.

Even though in the UK it has tradition on its side I fail to see why, given the options, any of us should pay for something we may decide not to use. 

[Harrowby Hall]

Even though in the UK it has tradition on its side I fail to say when, given the options, any of us should pay for something we may not decide to use.

If you own property in France, it is presumed that you have a television and - unless you make a formal declaration to the contrary - an "audio-visual contribution" is included in your property taxes.

[Outrider]

Even though in the UK it has tradition on its side I fail to see why, given the options, any of us should pay for something we may decide not to use.

The BBC's journalism and factual programming are of objective good for the nation - much as you can opt to go private for healthcare, dentistry and education, but that doesn't exempt you from paying the general taxation that supports the NHS and state schools, so you can stream Netflix and Amazon Prime but the state should still fund the BBC's core role.

I agree with some of the other posters, though, that the model of trying to be all things to all people isn't sustainable - I don't see why you need the BBC to be producing, say, Strictly Come Dancing,  Doctor Who or Six Nations Rugby coverage.  Personally, I despair of ITV's attempts to cover sport, generally, in comparison to the BBC, but it's not somehow compromised by being on commercial TV in the way that, say, environmental documentaries on a channel funded in part by palm-oil producers might be.

O.

[Udayana]

...
I agree with some of the other posters, though, that the model of trying to be all things to all people isn't sustainable - I don't see why you need the BBC to be producing, say, Strictly Come Dancing,  Doctor Who or Six Nations Rugby coverage.  Personally, I despair of ITV's attempts to cover sport, generally, in comparison to the BBC, but it's not somehow compromised by being on commercial TV in the way that, say, environmental documentaries on a channel funded in part by palm-oil producers might be.

O.

I don't really see how that could work.

It would end up being the government propaganda channel - with no one watching and constant complaints about its cost. The whole schedule would end up filled with 70's style OU lectures and only two people watching
 

[Udayana]

The licence fee, for me, may have made sense when if you watched TV you were likely to watch the BBC at least some of the time, since it was one of two channels until '64, of three until '82 when C4 started and then at the end of the 80s satellite TV started - and now with cable and streaming BBC is just one of a plethora of options.

Even though in the UK it has tradition on its side I fail to see why, given the options, any of us should pay for something we may decide not to use.

Media in the UK and much of the rest of the world would have been very different without the BBC - it is worth reading about how and why it was first setup.

Now, indeed, the mass media environment is very different and the purpose(s) of the BBC should be re-examined and maybe a better funding scheme put in place.  If everyone insists that they only want to pay for programmes that they watch, then go with that - just let the BBC compete on it's own terms, raise money from shareholders, subscriptions or advertising, or fold or whatever.   

[SteveH]

The licence is a stupid way of paying for the Beeb. it should be paid for out of general taxation, with a rebate available for people with no access to it, in which case inertia would work in favour of payment, not against it. At the moment, all a dodger has to do is nothing, but in that case, they would have to apply for the rebate, and many people would shy away from telling a porky on an official form who might be willing to avoid paying a licence fee.

[Outrider]

I don't really see how that could work.

It would end up being the government propaganda channel - with no one watching and constant complaints about its cost. The whole schedule would end up filled with 70's style OU lectures and only two people watching

It's the most widely watched (and listened to, via radio) news outlet in the country, and it's currently funded through taxation - the BBC Board of Governors insulates the Corporation from the predilections of the government of the day, much like the civil service is influenced by but not controlled by the government.

Now, indeed, the mass media environment is very different and the purpose(s) of the BBC should be re-examined and maybe a better funding scheme put in place.  If everyone insists that they only want to pay for programmes that they watch, then go with that - just let the BBC compete on it's own terms, raise money from shareholders, subscriptions or advertising, or fold or whatever.

The problem with making the BBC compete is that it puts their currently impartiality up against commercial interests - that's already put pay to any sort of even-handedness in the print media, and increasingly in the commercial television networks.  If it's inconsequential whether they are 'impartial' - Eastenders, say, or The Voice - then I'm all for letting them have to compete on an even footing in that instance in principal.

However, if the News and commercial programming are mixed how is the influence going to be kept separate - how are the BBC going to be able to control advertisers threatening to pull funding for light entertainment because they disapprove of the coverage of public events or they dislike editorial stances in certain documentary output?

O.

[Udayana]

It's the most widely watched (and listened to, via radio) news outlet in the country, and it's currently funded through taxation - the BBC Board of Governors insulates the Corporation from the predilections of the government of the day, much like the civil service is influenced by but not controlled by the government.

Yes. The current licence system means that although the BBC is ultimately responsible to parliament, it can manage its programming independently of government and commercial interests. I think that is fine. 

The problem comes when you want to restrict its output to avoid expenditure on entertainment as opposed to information and education - demand drops off and resentment against the tax rises.

The problem with making the BBC compete is that it puts their currently impartiality up against commercial interests - that's already put pay to any sort of even-handedness in the print media, and increasingly in the commercial television networks.  If it's inconsequential whether they are 'impartial' - Eastenders, say, or The Voice - then I'm all for letting them have to compete on an even footing in that instance in principal.

However, if the News and commercial programming are mixed how is the influence going to be kept separate - how are the BBC going to be able to control advertisers threatening to pull funding for light entertainment because they disapprove of the coverage of public events or they dislike editorial stances in certain documentary output?

O.

I don't think it would compete - everyone at the BBC could easily find work in the commercial sector. It would just shut down, but along with it would go all the radio channels, documentaries and so on .. and also the recruitment and training of the best people into the media business.     

[Outrider]

Yes. The current licence system means that although the BBC is ultimately responsible to parliament, it can manage its programming independently of government and commercial interests. I think that is fine.

That structure, to my mind at least, seems independent of the funding method.  If the money was given from general taxation rather than this particular addition 'license fee' tax I don't see how the independence would change?

The problem comes when you want to restrict its output to avoid expenditure on entertainment as opposed to information and education - demand drops off and resentment against the tax rises.

Except that without the need to fund the commercially viable elements, the expenditure would be vastly reduced.

I don't think it would compete - everyone at the BBC could easily find work in the commercial sector. It would just shut down, but along with it would go all the radio channels, documentaries and so on .. and also the recruitment and training of the best people into the media business.

Which is one of the reasons I don't think a mix-and-match approach to funding will work well.

O.   
[/quote]

[Gordon]

I wonder if technology is also a factor: as I understand it, and I may be wrong, one difference between the BBC and the likes of Netflix or Virginmedia is that the latter two require satellite dish/cable/internet and/or a 'box' to access the service, without which (or if you forget to pay) there is no access, whereas the BBC is transmitted so that it can still be accessed using the older aerial technology.

Therefore, it is probably more comparable with ITV/C4 - which raises the issue of the BBC accepting advertising, and if that was an option there would then be an impact on the income of these other commercial channels. Then there are the issues of taste and content, along with the extent to which the BBC would thrive in a competitive commercial environment.

I'd have to say the best things about it for me are BBC4, its website and the 'Sounds' app: there isn't that much on its flagship BBC1 channel that interests me.

[Udayana]

That structure, to my mind at least, seems independent of the funding method.  If the money was given from general taxation rather than this particular addition 'license fee' tax I don't see how the independence would change?

Simply because each year the chancellor could cut the budget if he felt they hadn't licked enough arse the year before?
 

Except that without the need to fund the commercially viable elements, the expenditure would be vastly reduced.

hmm ... so basically taxing the populace to provide documentaries and talking heads for the elites?

Sounds like a recipe for ever decreasing audiences and funding along with it - why would you bother trying to keep it going?

[Udayana]

I wonder if technology is also a factor: as I understand it, and I may be wrong, one difference between the BBC and the likes of Netflix or Virginmedia is that the latter two require satellite dish/cable/internet and/or a 'box' to access the service, without which (or if you forget to pay) there is no access, whereas the BBC is transmitted so that it can still be accessed using the older aerial technology.

Certainly technology is a key factor. The system we have was designed for, and to help build, terrestrial broadcasting, allowing communication through the UK and, at the time, empire. We are in a different world now due to tech. BBC has made various efforts to keep ahead of it (BBC micro, digital, DAB, iPlayer and so on, even forums!) - but the funding system has not kept pace. It's mainly because of the tech changes that I think the basic tenets need review.

It could be argued that the platforms, eg. Sky, Virgin, internet providers carrying BBC channels should also be contributing to the funding?

     
Therefore, it is probably more comparable with ITV/C4 - which raises the issue of the BBC accepting advertising, and if that was an option there would then be an impact on the income of these other commercial channels. Then there are the issues of taste and content, along with the extent to which the BBC would thrive in a competitive commercial environment.

I'd have to say the best things about it for me are BBC4, its website and the 'Sounds' app: there isn't that much on its flagship BBC1 channel that interests me.

Sorry, I can't see how anyone's personal viewing/listening preferences are of interest!