My problem with this type of license fee collection is that it bring forward a number of costs associated with it that could be removed if it went directly from taxes and that today everyone has TV so it doesn't really "tax the rich" that it probably was intended to do in the early days.
It used to be a separate tax, now it's collected as part of the electric bill. You have to opt out explicitly instead of "opting in" by paying; this makes it much worse for people to evade the payment, since they would be making a false statement when opting out. So many people were evading the fee, that it has since been reduced by a third or so.
In that case why are you and those others not using a monitor.
Buying an 80" monitor isn't really cost efficient.
That would make the BBC dependent on the government for its revenue, which definitely isn't desirable. The current system, where the BBC collects its own revenue under the authority of a royal charter, is intended to help insulate it from political interference.
It works. That is, it works until it doesn't.
The CBC is entirely "free" to every Canadian who wants to use it, and it is fantastic. I wish it were expanded in scope.
But there is an opposition that wants it dismantled and moved from government funding at all costs. Usually, the opposition is purely along political lines which is disappointing.
So, I suppose the argument against it being tax-funded is that it become yet another chip in the political game. An argument for tax-funded is that there are no additional fees awaiting those who cannot afford them.
Seems like something of a tossup or...yet to be determined.
The added separation from political influence is big points, but it's rather moot when one group who've already made their mind up will just shout "conspiracy" and then the facts don't matter anyway. That happens here in Canada, to be sure.
If opposition got in power and wanted to dismantle BBC or CBC, I'm sure that the fact that they gain their funding through a fee rather than tax is not something that would stop them. In the end, the fee was specified and allowed them to use it by some law that was passed in the parliament.
I'm still not sure why entertainment needs public money. I mean just look at Marvel, Netflix, Disney... they are all insanely profitable. Billion dollars profitable.
When you make content that people want to watch, it just works.
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/06/new-bbc-chairman-richard-...
Except the latter is more efficient.
Even right now, the politicians can choose to enact legislation to modify or remove the tv license fee.
It would have the same effect. For the duration of the charter, BBC would be guaranteed funding without interference from the government. Only difference is method of collection and in my view, reduced cost of collection.
If you are an agency which wishes to retain some modicum of control over your own destiny, then you most likely wish to retain some modicum of control over your sources of revenue.
All just so that you get an illusion of independence from political power.
The US funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting directly, and even under Trump, there wasn't much pressure around changing its funding--I guess defunding Sesame Street looks bad. Of course, public broadcast stations turn into panhandlers once every few months, so it's not without its faults.
Some people don't watch broadcast TV, and the BBC and its agents have been infamous for getting heavy-handed and harassing those who choose not to and who perfectly legitimately and legally do not have a TV licence. This is backed by a controversial law that criminalises the failure to have a licence if you do need one, which under any normal circumstances would only be a minor civil matter.
Meanwhile, today the BBC is very much a multimedia institution, but the licence fee remains tied specifically to broadcast television, a historical anomaly that could be fixed.
A different funding model that broke that link and removed the need for a separate licence fee could fix all of the problems with licence evasion and heavy-handed enforcement that have been a black mark on the BBC's history, as well as providing a fairer system where the public service is funded from public funds rather than singling out a particular group.
Government set the licence fee and legislation around it every 5 or 6 years. The last renewal put government appointed editors into the BBC in exchange for a change in Law from 'watch live BBC channels = you have to pay' to 'watch live non-BBC channels = you have to pay'. So now, even if you are just watching BBC competitors,you have to pay the BBC.. what a great business model.
Now it's also the case that you need a license to use BBC's streaming platform, iPlayer, to watch video on demand.
Note that "live" isn't the qualifier -- so long as you're not watching a feed of something that's being broadcast you're OK.
When it was first introduced it made sense to have a fee, not many people had a TV so by collecting the fee, you didn't tax the people without it. But today everyone has it, so this no longer applies.
Independence argument has some merit, but I would expect that there can be different methods that would provide the same level of independence.
The independence argument has largely been destroyed by the government itself - the last few governments have tightened their control of the management of the BBC considerably to a point where budget control matters much less.
It gradually shifted from being an independent well staffed news organization that routinely held the government to account to an understaffed RT-like propaganda outfit and huffpost-like reprinter of press releases.
Everyone seems happy enough with the idea of paying tax for public libraries or parks or other social institutions they may never use because it benefits society, but bring up the tv license and it's like arguing with a brick wall.
1) concern about the neutrality of the BBC, esp. if you don't think they are currently neutral. It also might change the incentives of the BBC if funding is either guaranteed, or controlled by government.
2) the principle of general tax without strong reason. The government isn't trustable, they already privatised much of the railways. consent to general taxation give more power to government.
3) I don't have a television, and more people are choosing not to have one. There are shifts happening both wrt to media is consumed, as well as how laws are changing to adapt (e.g. requiring any device with a screen requiring a licence). Would be better for the situation to stabilise before deciding if a general tax is a good idea.
4) The whole TV-Van issue sours the issue. Public Libraries (AFAIK) don't send people after you for paying fees. The issue of censorship and management of publicly available information are also hot topics in libraries, but there is (arguably) a greater degree of "self serve" in a library, as opposed to planned/programmed broadcast - libraries don't generally create the majority of their content.
https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/bbc_rich_list_2020_37_5m_b...
It's not far higher than other public servants, and the Taxpayers Alliance are liars and fantasists.
It's like how they continually misrepresent the Prime Minster's salary as being in the low £100ks. It isn't. The Prime Minster's complete remuneration package is worth well over a million pounds a year.
Also, the appeal of this funding model makes it independent of Governmental cuts and the politicisation of programming.
Source: I don't have a TV.
More households in the UK pay for the TV license than pay for water.
Note: if the exemption lapses without a new one in place (or a license purchase), they will actually send goons to 'investigate' after a short period.
[0] https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/t...
Their "officers" are private individuals employed by a private company who have no special rights to enter your property. Absent a search warrant, it is almost certainly a mistake to allow them to enter your property.
I've given up telling them -- it's less effort to drop their letters in the bin, and appears no less effective at stopping new ones arriving. That was after being "visited" a few years back and the goon trying the classic "if you've nothing to hide".
I recognize that in the UK at one point this licensing model made sense due to combination of funding broadcast equipment, and the BBC has given a huge amount of value over the years - but I honestly think the quality of their content has decreased significantly since then, especially the documentaries. The licensing model no longer makes sense in a world where they are just one of multiple payed on demand services usually delivered over the internet for which we are already directly funding. It should be opt-in not opt-out.