[Stuart]

There’s plenty of justification for doing it this way. My bins being emptied isn’t politicised because my council tax pays for it.

I don’t have kids, but I don’t begrudge my taxes going towards education because it’s in our interest that we have a country of educated people. Likewise I don’t watch much BBC, but society benefits from its existence so I accept paying.

The council tax option for BBC funding is the best way of doing it.

You missed my point that the BBC isn't a service provided by the state.

All the others you mention most definitely are, which means that one way or another, they get funded through some form of general taxation.

Trying to justify that the BBC is a 'benefit to society' would be a hard task to convince people who neither use it nor meet the criteria of a TVL. It just wouldn't work. They need a different solution.

[interestednovice]

Yes, the BBC is not a state service, but it is a near-universal service and one which is used by the vast, vast majority of the country. It’s also the case, as others have said, that wider society benefits from the BBC’s existence. Other countries do fund their PSB broadcasters, in some cases, via direct taxation which all citizens have paid into.

Saying that there has got to be a way for a hermit living under a rock to opt-out of the LF, just because there always has been in the past, doesn’t necessarily follow logic. One of the problems at the moment is that it costs a lot to both collect and enforce the LF, despite most people paying it and it being “equivalent” to other taxes in that there is, realistically, no get-out clause (most people would not be willing to never watch any live tv just to avoid the TVL). If that’s the case, then a more automatic system would both save money for the BBC and ensure greater compliance.

You could also provide means-tested relief (such as for anybody on pension credit, etc) easily if Councils collected it, and you would at the very least change to a “default opted-in” state where, if you wanted to not pay the LF, you would have to opt-out in some way and explain that you didn’t need to. Currently, a lot of people may claim they’ve simply “forgotten” to renew their LF if/when they get asked why they have not paid.

That’s assuming that you would still have some criteria rather than it being a flat levy, but honestly I doubt there would be a massive backlash against a flat levy if it replaced the existing TVL overnight. Yes, the minority who don’t pay the TVL now would moan - but they would, in the end, be ignored. The BBC could in some ways sell it as a plus as they would say it would simplify matters not to have to manually arrange your own TVL and also cut down on evasion (and nobody likes the thought that they are paying for a service while others are getting a free ride).

[Stuart]

That’s assuming that you would still have some criteria rather than it being a flat levy, but honestly I doubt there would be a massive backlash against a flat levy if it replaced the existing TVL overnight. Yes, the minority who don’t pay the TVL now would moan - but they would, in the end, be ignored.

That's the most spurious justification I've ever heard:

"You don't use this, you don't want it, you don't meet the requirement to fund it, so I'll charge you anyway, despite it not being a service provided by the state, but I'll just ignore your objection."

The thing is, people increasingly choose options that don't require it. They don't benefit from it. It's like charging someone for a 'residential parking permit' for their street when they don't have a car. They can't.

You can't 'means test' relief on something that someone doesn't require in the first place.

The funding needs looking at, but these are not justifiable solutions. Any suggestion to do it this way would fail.

[interestednovice]

Well obviously if that occurred legislation would be amended to remove any “requirements” and everyone would then pay it; the BBC would become a quasi-state service although still be independent from government.

Most people, since they pay anyway, wouldn’t care so the small number of objectors would, in the end, probably be ignored.

---

It's like charging someone for a 'residential parking permit' for their street when they don't have a car. They can't.

This kind of thing happens all the time. People living in flats or new estates often have to pay a maintenance charge for common areas such as playgrounds which are part of the site; regardless if they use them, they pay.

Also, I was suggesting a system beyond pure means-testing whereby if you 1) couldn’t afford a licence, you wouldn’t pay and also 2) if you didn’t require a licence, this fact could be registered and you wouldn’t pay. A bit like how you can register for single person discount on your council tax and, if eligible, the council record this and calculate what you should pay accordingly.

“Not requiring” could be any criteria, the same as now or, possibly, different.

At the end of the day, this is a discussion about funding the BBC - not maintaining the status quo which, demonstrably, doesn’t work. If it is decided that everyone should pay (except the means-tested qualifying on low income for a reprieve) then people who don’t pay now wouldn’t get some kind of veto. They would just have to pay and that would be it.

[Stuart]

At the end of the day, this is a discussion about funding the BBC - not maintaining the status quo which, demonstrably, doesn’t work. If it is decided that everyone should pay (except the means-tested qualifying on low income for a reprieve) then people who don’t pay now wouldn’t get some kind of veto. They would just have to pay and that would be it.

The BBC has sadly been starved of funding, not just by TVL freezes, but also through people increasingly taking up the alternatives which don't require one.

Yes, the issue needs to be addressed, but a concept of "They would just have to pay and that would be it" is not a policy a government of any flavour would ever adopt.

[Keith]

The BBC has sadly been starved of funding, not just by TVL freezes, but also through people increasingly taking up the alternatives which don't require one.

Yes, the issue needs to be addressed, but a concept of "They would just have to pay and that would be it" is not a policy a government of any flavour would ever adopt.

I'd beg to differ with the government not adopting that concept, even if they might not be so keen to admit that concept is the case with lot of other taxes and bills.

For reference in 2022 the licence fee revenue was £3.8 billion, whilst the number of households was estimated at 28.2 million. If the BBC was funded via the council tax, then using a rough calculation the annual fee could potentially be reduced to around £135 per year (total revenue / no. of households), which equates to about £11.25 per month. (Obviously the actual amount would be slightly higher by the time it was introduced and inflation factored in.)

I could imagine the government selling it as a lower annual charge for households, compared to the current £159. Yes, the amount would still be more than the cost of not having a TV licence, but since when have politicians not used selective statistics to suit their own narrative.

[Stuart]

I'd beg to differ with the government not adopting that concept, even if they might not be so keen to admit that concept is the case with lot of other taxes and bills.

Unfortunately, it's neither a State nor a Council provided service like those which have a universal charge on every taxpayer.

Either people don't need it, they use free alternatives, or they pay another provider for something similar. It can't be an enforcible charge to everyone. It simply doesn't meet the criteria.

There needs to be a different solution, but I'm as clueless as everyone else as to what that could be.

Only 23 million households pay for a TVL, so you can't just charge 5 million additional households for something they made a conscious decision not to require.

[Larry the Loafer]

I can't remember where I read it but I saw a suggestion a while back that there should be an industry tax for other broadcasters/streamers and production companies. Essentially, if you're providing "competition" for the BBC, you contribute to it in return. I don't hear anyone else ever suggest the idea, unless there's a gaping flaw in the idea that I'm overlooking?

[interestednovice]

I can't remember where I read it but I saw a suggestion a while back that there should be an industry tax for other broadcasters/streamers and production companies. Essentially, if you're providing "competition" for the BBC, you contribute to it in return. I don't hear anyone else ever suggest the idea, unless there's a gaping flaw in the idea that I'm overlooking?

Interesting idea. In practice, little difference to now as you’d pay towards the BBC (indirectly) via other broadcasters just as you have to pay the TVL now even if you only ever watch, say, ITV.

It would remove the “loophole” of only ever using streaming services (except BBC iPlayer) allowing you to not pay the TVL. Netflix et al would presumably put up prices to cover the levy that would be collected off them.

It would also have the appeal of pretty well no enforcement costs and much less admin to actually collect the fee.

[Mort]

I am a massive proponent and supporter of the universal access to all BBC services, but I acknowledge the model is outmoded and increasingly coming under fire for not aligning with modern methods of 'subscription' and access.

The ultimate endgame may seem quite draconian, but I think something is ultimately achievable. Here's one hastily assembled concept for a modernised licensing and access structure for you to pick through the bones of. Perhaps the end result is a little gentler than this fairly rigid structure, but although I prefer one licence for everything for everyone, I also accept that the current model cannot remain forever.


First step: pare the free-to-air, free-to-access services to the bone - BBC One and BBC Two only, perhaps doing less of the same sort of thing for fewer hours in the day, or a rolling multi-hour repeated block of programmes like some international news channels do (e.g. NHK World TV). A new block could start every evening for primetime, with Breakfast and some news simulcast through the morning as currently happens, so you don't have 4x repeats of a block per day. During times of live major sporting coverage, a more limited offering of 'crown jewels' Category A programmes could be offered free-to-air, to continue the tradition of us alll being able to share nationally significant moments. More in-depth coverage of other events could be available only through a paid licence tier.

For radio, only keep one talk station and two music stations - either specific stations, or programme blocks selected from the current national networks. All existing nations & regions stations kept free-to-receive, so all BBC Local Radio and R. Scotland, R. Ulster, R. Cymru Wales etc.

A modernisation in approach to BBC Local Radio stations would also need to happen, to increase their budget relative to as it stands and give them more independence over what sort of programming they would like to run. At the moment even with the latest cuts they still super-serve the older, middle class demographics. However for many they remain a lifeline, local radio's societal importance is not to be understated.

The BBC's radio networks are at the heart of their critical public service offering, and as the national broadcaster the BBC has an obligation to be able to communicate to every citizen, particularly in times of emergency, even today radio is prioritised above TV stations.


Any free-to-receive, free-to-view basic service would form part of a 'basic' offering, giving people unwilling or unable to pay anything with an effectively free-tier TV licence entitlement, and which could still be linked to a BBC or Freely account. This would let them stream the equivalent services, and also access a limited amount of iPlayer content, for no cost. A mechanism to offer entitlement upgrades for monthly, weekly or daily access to more online on-demand content could then be offered (linear or on-demand), or likewise specifically granting access to certain titles 'live' or 'recently broadcast' channels/programmes, for example.

A 'basics' tier could offer far fewer programmes on-demand, and some rolling streams of other programmes, a little like what ITVX and other OTT platforms already do with their themed/single-programme 'channels'.


Then, establish a middle-ground 'essentials' TV Licence which is considerably cheaper (perhaps 40-50%?), from which the aforementioned core radio and TV services are funded. Provide either a sliding cost reduction, or an increase in services available, based on means-tested acceptance, to those who request it. Offer unfettered access for a lower price to all content for anyone involved in the education sector, public healthcare sector or the emergency services.

For the middle-ground 'essentials' entitlement, iPlayer availability windows could be restricted to all the programmes but with a delay of a week or two - then only available for a shorter period of time. Some of the biggest programmes could either be included or excluded from the 'freemium' availability window, with all of the deep catalogue, boxsets and films requiring a TVL requirement.


For other households not entitled to a discount, they could still choose between the free 'basic', 'essentials' or the unlimited 'Freely' tier - at the same price as the current TVL, more likely a little higher to match inevitable future inflation. This tier would cost the most, but entitle the household to access everything currently offered across all services on linear, on-demand and all platforms, in the highest quality possible. More and expanded content would also be offered around major live events, sports coverage, all current linear channels, on-demand and series/film archives, plus an increased amount of live and on-demand UHD and HDR content which is much costlier to make and deliver.



To enforce this tiered model, the BBC would have to move almost everything except the 'basics' offering either behind encryption (DSAT viewing cards/DTT CAMs) or online only, both linear and on-demand - with entitlement automatically granted through the link to the BBC Account which stores the household's TV Licence information. Set and forget, with easy onboarding processes for new customers or licence holders. This data might even be accessible automatically, so someone with a TV licence registered to their address wouldn't have to do anything to receive the content if they had Sky/Virgin Media/Freeview+/Freely/some other DTH service installed at their property, the association could be done using registered address.

You'd then also be able to make it possible to pay/downgrade/upgrade between tiers through any of the main TV distribution operators, similar to how you can "press red to get Sky Sports today".


This sort of functionality, and multi-mode access, could be facilitated by a BBC/Freely account, or both accounts could be linked for additional seamless access. Given the JV between all the PSBs is still going to happen, as far as I'm aware, this could be a good 'carrot' to encourage adoption.



There would be a need to work with existing DTT, cable and DSAT providers to integrate Freely/BBC account information into a customer's account, and make this access as seamless as possible (not having to jump between apps, just tune in and watch programmes exactly as they can at the moment). On a point of principle, I would push for any recordings made to PVRs to be free of encryption, despite an entitlement being required on the viewing card to watch or record. Regardless of 'tier', I would also push to guarantee no broadcast commercials or product placement across any programme on any platform, this would be one of my 'red lines'.



I think the BBC will have to end up with this type of more nuanced TV Licence concept, abstracted away to a 'basic/essentials/Freely' type structure, and a sliding scale system for means-testing viewers and those on benefits. This could hopefully be facilitated in partnership with local councils, as they should already hopefully have some sort of system and information related to assessment in place, or could be co-funded by the BBC and government to establish them. Otherwise, some third-party could assume an assessment function for those proactively requesting a discounted service. Hopefully not Capita, given their track record with this sort of thing.


I personally think the law needs to be amended so that family members are covered by a family's licence for no extra cost, even if they have their own logins or are in a different location (students away from home). If the new account-based entitlement model was implemented, a student could even theoretically pay the difference between the "essentials" and "Freely" tiers to access everything, if they wanted to. This could even become a way of getting secondary income from viewers through spontaneous tier upgrades, or upgrades for specific bundles of programming or broadcast windows.


It would be fairly easy to monitor the number of linked accounts on a TVL entitlement for signs of misuse/account sharing against terms of use, taking a slightly lenient approach as Netflix did for years.

BBC/Freely account functionality could also be expanded to track purchases and entitlements for commercial offerings from either BBC Studios, Britbox, Freely and the like. There are loads of BBC Worldwide/Studios channels around the world showing a mixture of content we can't currently receive in the UK, some due to commercial rights arrangements. Personally I would love to be able to also watch these, even if it meant a premium on top of the main licence fee.



So, there's one potential solution.

It would be painful to implement, result in disquiet from some people (me included) and probably howls of complaint and protest from others. You could also contend this sort of massive change needs to happen for the BBC to remain a mainstream operator, while preserving the essence of its public service obligation.

I think two absolutely fundamental requirements are to never introduce commercial advertising or product placement, and maintain the BBC as a corporation independent of government funding. Offer as much as financially possible for truly zero cost to the consumer, then hope you can convert some in future - who may currently be paying nothing, either in protest or through lack of interest.

One less-discussed potential benefit to implementing conditional access might be that the BBC (either PSB or Studios/worldwide) could then offer some further subscription bundles for overseas viewers or ex-pats, disrupting the grey market for unofficial reception or third-party sale of UK satellite systems. This would be an epic headache of rights and contractual obligations to sort out, but the same process was undertaken for the advent of iPlayer and online streaming. Nothing is impossible when the prospect of more money for rights-holders is on the table.