THE BBC LICENSE TAX

I've been invited onto the panel of a BBC radio programme to discuss the issue of the License fee. This will be recorded next month. As readers will guess, I vehemently oppose this mandatory tax which is both anachronistic and stalinist in nature. But can I ask ATW readers to post their take on the issue? Do YOU think it is right and proper in this 21st century that EVERY household which owns a TV has to have a BBC license by law? (Yeah, I know there are a few exceptions but take the thrust of my argument) Do you have any thoughts on a better system? How do you think the BBC should be funded? I'd welcome your thoughts. I'm a champion of the free market, I oppose the very principle of public service broadcasting, I consider the license fee to be an outrage, but do you think otherwise? Please let me know as I want to reflect lots of perspectives in what I shall say.

Comments

[Beano]

Instinctively I'd agree with you David, however the quality of the programming on BBC is so much higher than the output of other channels that I'm inclined to conclude the licence fee is doing something right.

The comparison is particularly stark when comparing the local output of BBC NI with UTV, which is next to useless.

Added to this is the fact that Sky is dangerously close to having a monopoly on broadcasting in this country and I think the licence fee may be a necessary evil.

[David Vance]

Beano,

Suppose that the license fee was replaced by a subscription charge but that viewers got to CHOOSE if they wanted to pay for it?

[Charles]

David

I agree 100% with your view.

Whether we like it or not, a TV set is as much a part of the modern home (around 99.7% ownership?) as an oven and there would be an outcry if HMG decided to tax ownership of those, irrespective of what you cook in them - or whether you even switch them on at all.

The notion that any business can arbitrarily extract, under pain of prosecution, almost £3bn annually from citizens - many of whom do not wish to, and in some cases cannot, avail of its services - is an insult in 2006 and Stalinist is absolutely the right term for it, as it is for so many of this lot's diktats.

We MUST stop cossetting the BBC and make it stand on its own two feet financially as all broadcasters must do, and indeed, all businesses in the real world generally.

If Tessa Jowell and the rest of the chattering classes think the BBC's so wonderful then let them throw in their subscriptions voluntarily.

I'm fed up subsidising their pleasure by being forced to pay continuously for something that I find so seldom to be of use.

[Colm]

I do support the Licence fee, but am not entirely comfortable in it's current operation. I do approve of the idea of public service broadcasting and the licence fee encourages the production of programming which has genuine importance such as in depth quality documentaries and works of great artistic merit which may not necessarily be commercially viable.

I would however end the BBC's monopoly on recieving that funding and would welcome a system by which any broadcasting organisation could bid to recieve license fee funds to make specific programmes. The BBC would then be permitted to raise more of it's funds commercially and the licence fee overall could be lowered, but in principle i do agree with it.

["Alice"]

Don't you also have to have tv license to operate these video/digital phones (or whatever they are called)? Thought I heard/read where people can get hit with pretty hefty fines if they don't have one.

[Colm]

If you have any instrument capable of broadcasting a television signal you need a TV licence. In general this applies of course to televisions , TV enabled PC's and laptops , but I am not sure about the situation with video enabled telephones either mobile or landline.

[Colm]

PS - The licence applies per household not per each TV or other televisual item.

[Peter]

I think this boils down to whether you want public service broadcasting to survive as a mass medium. In the US, PBS is by private subscription and is a tiny operation as a result.

But in any case, I think that technology is sounding the death-knell for the licence fee and, by extension, the BBC as we have known it. It will soon be possible to get live TV on a mobile phone, never mind a laptop pc.

[NRG]

The licence fee shoild protect a core of distinctive quality broadcasting. Pouring millions to poach Graham Norton does not add any new choice to viewers and does not deliver quality or distinctive.

Make sure you read biased Beeb.

Former BBC Business editor Jeff Randal says that BBC attitude is that business is akin to criminailty. There is a lazy, juvenile liberal / leftist culture riddled right through the BBC which is a cancer eating away at what shoulc be the world's finest broadcasting organisation.

[ernest young]

When you have a service that relies entirely on Government patronage to survive, there must be a degree of compliance and 'forelock tugging' by that service to the government of the day.

In the case of the BBC, while agreeing that they do produce some superb documentary programmes, their news and current affairs output is severely marred by a strong - I would say, socialist flavour. Their use of alternative words and phrases, while being all rather 'clever', have a strong flavour of subliminal manipulation.

Having met many of the BBC editorial staff, over a number of years, my impression of the corporate ethic, is that they really do think they are far superior to the rest of us, and that their mission in life is to get us - as a nation - to change our habits and to acquiesce to 'big state' welfarism, and the acknowledgment that they know best...perhaps that is why Colm is such a fan of theirs!

After some sixty, or so years of socialist leaning government in the UK, it to be expected that the BBC would reflect that flawed philosophy too...

[Colm]

ernest

Nowhere in my comment did I express any specific admiration for the BBC - but hey why let the facts get in the way of an inaccurate dig.

[ernest young]

Colm,

I do support the Licence fee,

And by implication, the BBC...:-)

You put your interpretations on my humble words, why shouldn't I do the same for yours?..:-)

[Colm]

OK ernest, I will clarify.

I also wrote that I do not think the BBC should monopolise the fee nor should it be the major source of their funding. I agree with you about the complacent arrogant statist and politically correct culture at the BBC and I accept that it is the guaranteed income nature of how the BBC works that promotes such a culture. However I maintain a view that not all good worthwhile and creative programming can be commercially viable and I think on balance a licence fee (smaller than at present) and available for use by any broadcaster is a good thing but no Televison company should be in a position of having 100% funding guaranteed regardless of output.

You may disagree still with my opinion on the principle of the licence fee but I do not support the complacent status quo.

[Malcolm Wood]

Although I disagree with you David on the point of a total free market. I do agree with canceling the license fee. Firstly I have cable and pay a subscription and included in my cable package is the terrestrial channels. So why cannot funds be extracted this way. Also if they scramble the signal for the BBC then those people who want to pay for it through their digibox/cable/satalite etc could do so. Since we are now all aiming for the mothballing of analogue anyhow this idea is even more achievable.

[Richard]

I need a licence to watch the BBC on television, which I do rarely, but don't need one to listen to BBC radio which I do regularly. Plus, the BBC are talking about extending their 'listen again' function (where you can listen to radio programmes online for up to one week after their initial broadcast) to TV programmes. Why would I continue to pay for a licence to watch shows on TV when I could watch them again on my computer, at a more convenient time, for free? And even save them to my hard drive for easy recording.

Also, it is ridiculous that non-payment of your licence is a criminal offence. It should be de-criminalised.

[ernest young]

Colm,

Now untwist your knickers, you know I cannot resist a dig at you, it was meant to be in good humour - apoplogies if I gave offence....did you miss the smileys at the end?

[Diggerr]

The MSM and BBC is biased to the left and becoming increasingly so. Why don't the Tories commit to privatising the BBC? They can then vigorously attack any bias as well as giving every household in the land an immediate tax cut - and possibly even shares.

[Colm]

ernest

I have now untwisted my knickers. No need to apologise, I wasn't offended just deeply deeply wounded ! :) - No, it's only a discussion about TV funding, it's not as if you called me a kiddyfiddler!

Must admit I often miss when people have typed smilies even though I have just added my own above.

Now let's get back to slagging each other off ;)

[smcgiff]

The BBC is great value for money. Okay, I don’t *Ahem* actually have to pay the BBC licence fee.

That aside (and I do have to pay RTE), contrast the vacuous TV viewing of free to air to the BBC and you’ll realise you get what you pay for (unless you’re in the Republic, but then there’s RTE to fund).

[smcgiff]

'Now let's get back to slagging each other off ;)'

Can't see the word 'slagging' without thinking of the new Beeb NI show.

[daytripper]

UTV is a big scam. to retain a licience for broadcast you have to transmit a certian amount of hours of original programming. the community advice (U Care) slots are considered part of that programming. they are one of europes most profitable stations because they do nothing. and as for their new radio station. Zoiks!

[Maggie]

We have Sky and I object to having to pay for BBC...wouldn't mind if the programmes are any good..but they are not. I also object vehemently to paying for them to snoop into an organisation to find out just how opposed they are 'racial' they are ...it's like saying ok guys whose career can we ruin today!!!!!

[Allan@Aberdeen]

A TV can be bought for say £200, yet it costs £120 just to switch it on for the first time.
The BBC should be privatised and every registered licence fee-payer should have an allocation of the shares. It's similar to what happens when a Building Society de-mutualises.

[daytripper]

yeah. hand over our best national institution to the private sector, who will then devour it sell of all "useless" assets make a mint. then completely destroy what good programming is left. personally i think if u get 2-4 well produced documentry series and 1-3 good comedy series in a year, its worth the money. and their webite and radio on top of that.

in saying all that, i think british citizens should be able to purchase all BBC programmes for the price of the medium. ie packaging and DVD(s). after all we paid for it to be produced in the first place.

[Madradin Ruad]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. BBC is better than most, if not all.