6 ms·

Imagine needing a government licence to look at a screen.

beardyw 7mo ago
It's a historical accident. At first there was no TV, so when the BBC started broadcasting I suppose it made sense. Moving away from that seems to be difficult without them introducing advertising for live TV, which would be a quick fix, but that seems to be a diminishing market. For streaming it's easy to manage.
- tokai 7mo ago
  It's not an accident. Funding state media with a licence fee instead of from the taxes/state budget, makes it harder to exert political control over said state media.
  - beardyw 7mo ago
    Yes, good point.
- nephihaha 7mo ago
  No accident at all, in fact Lord Reith wanted the BBC to create the correct British values, i.e. to speak with a particular accent, to be loyal to the royal family and not to get involved in anything that was a threat to the system. The service was very much centred on London, with some paltry "regional" services. The creation of ITV was supposed to provide an alternative, but was all too cosy and even today ITV pushes much the same programming as the BBC in outlook and news etc. The first real threat was pirate radio, which proved more popular than the BBC, and forced them to introduce Radio 1 for pop music. Channel 4 was supposed to provide further competition, but in fact it was VCRs and video hire that really undermined the BBC's monopoly in the 80s. By the 90s, they were outclassed by satellite broadcasting (particularly sports and films). By the late 1990s, internet was breaking the state stranglehold on news and information... Leading to a crackdown in the 2010s with whatever scarestories they could come up with like cyberbullying, terrorism, pro-ana, porn etc. Now the BBC are saying they want a fee for mobile phone and internet usage, although they haven't succeeded in that yet. Both of which are pretty much mandatory now.
graemep 7mo ago
Its a hypothocated tax. Its not required to "look at a screen". its required to watch broadcast TV and use the BBc's online TV services. You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it. it was very good value for money when half of all TV output (and the better half) was from the BBC and ad free.
- mytailorisrich 7mo ago
  > You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it. Careful here because there is live TV on Youtube and a valid licence is required to watch that. There are also live shows on Netflix, which may count as "live TV programmes" so requiring a licence.
  - IAmBroom 7mo ago
    You're moving the goalposts. Watching non-live BBC programmes in the UK legally requires a license fee. The same is not true of Netflix.
    - nailer 7mo ago
      The way it’s worded it is that any thing that could be deemed “live TV” is liable for the tax regardless of who produced the content.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
        Are you suggesting that there's significant ambiguity about what "live TV" means?
        nailer 7mo ago
        Yes. TNT shows live TV for example, last I checked they were produced by the UFC rather than BBC.
nephihaha 7mo ago
You mean like digital ID? Don't worry, we'll all need it to watch screens soon. In Turkey and Israel you need a licence for radios as well.

It's a historical accident. At first there was no TV, so when the BBC started broadcasting I suppose it made sense. Moving away from that seems to be difficult without them introducing advertising for live TV, which would be a quick fix, but that seems to be a diminishing market. For streaming it's easy to manage.

tokai 7mo ago
It's not an accident. Funding state media with a licence fee instead of from the taxes/state budget, makes it harder to exert political control over said state media.
- beardyw 7mo ago
  Yes, good point.
nephihaha 7mo ago
No accident at all, in fact Lord Reith wanted the BBC to create the correct British values, i.e. to speak with a particular accent, to be loyal to the royal family and not to get involved in anything that was a threat to the system. The service was very much centred on London, with some paltry "regional" services. The creation of ITV was supposed to provide an alternative, but was all too cosy and even today ITV pushes much the same programming as the BBC in outlook and news etc. The first real threat was pirate radio, which proved more popular than the BBC, and forced them to introduce Radio 1 for pop music. Channel 4 was supposed to provide further competition, but in fact it was VCRs and video hire that really undermined the BBC's monopoly in the 80s. By the 90s, they were outclassed by satellite broadcasting (particularly sports and films). By the late 1990s, internet was breaking the state stranglehold on news and information... Leading to a crackdown in the 2010s with whatever scarestories they could come up with like cyberbullying, terrorism, pro-ana, porn etc. Now the BBC are saying they want a fee for mobile phone and internet usage, although they haven't succeeded in that yet. Both of which are pretty much mandatory now.

graemep 7mo ago

Its a hypothocated tax. Its not required to "look at a screen". its required to watch broadcast TV and use the BBc's online TV services. You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it. it was very good value for money when half of all TV output (and the better half) was from the BBC and ad free.

mytailorisrich 7mo ago
> You can watch as much as you like on Youtube or Netflix or whatever without paying it. Careful here because there is live TV on Youtube and a valid licence is required to watch that. There are also live shows on Netflix, which may count as "live TV programmes" so requiring a licence.
- IAmBroom 7mo ago
  You're moving the goalposts. Watching non-live BBC programmes in the UK legally requires a license fee. The same is not true of Netflix.
  - nailer 7mo ago
    The way it’s worded it is that any thing that could be deemed “live TV” is liable for the tax regardless of who produced the content.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
      Are you suggesting that there's significant ambiguity about what "live TV" means?
      - nailer 7mo ago
        Yes. TNT shows live TV for example, last I checked they were produced by the UFC rather than BBC.

nephihaha 7mo ago

You mean like digital ID? Don't worry, we'll all need it to watch screens soon. In Turkey and Israel you need a licence for radios as well.