TV Licence article Discussion

JimmyTheWig

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Why should it be?

It's a public service. That's how we fund public services.
It means that, theoretically at least, those that can afford to pay more than others.
It does away with the whole loophole of listening to BBC radio, reading the BBC website and watching lots of TV (other than live broadcasts and iPlayer) without paying vs doing none of the above and watching the odd program on ITV and having to pay.
It does away with TVL and all the problems they cause. Which will have the added benefit of saving money.
It allows the BBC to be democratically accountable (I understand that much of this is theoretical, but it does _allow_ it to be).
Unlike a subscription-only model it keeps the costs small for everyone.

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It does away with the whole loophole of listening to BBC radio, reading the BBC website and watching lots of TV (other than live broadcasts and iPlayer) without paying vs doing none of the above and watching the odd program on ITV and having to pay.

I'm not sure it does resolve that "loophole". Even Ireland with its apparently rapacious appetite for TV enforcement and no tolerance for the idea of TV sets being capable of being used for non-TV purposes has a technology-based exemption (based on small screens on phones not requiring a Licence).

Unfortunately, video screens are now very pervasive and will only become more so, so we will be doing ourselves no favours if we effectively make them all within the scope of a Licence replacement. There's also the question for Council Tax based systems of how to levy the tax on businesses (especially since many of them will not have TV, as such).

If the Licence moves to Council Tax then there's no reason not to maintain the existing technology-based exemption. That's what the French do. The fact that it would now be an actual exemption to a tax (rather than whatever can of worms we have now) could iron out some of the practical and legal objections - maybe.

Other than that, I agree with you, and a Council Tax based-system with consideration of ability to pay, a technology-based exemption and greater democratic accountability for the BBC could be an ideal solution (subject to devilment in the detail).

EachPenny

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It's a public service. That's how we fund public services.

Except that isn't really the case.

Want to use the Council gym or swimming pool? You have to pay.
Want to use the Council car park? You have to pay.
Want to park on the Council maintained street? You have to pay.
Want to use the community centre? You have to pay.
Want a game of football on the council pitches? You have to pay.
Want to use certain library services? You have to pay.
Want permission to extend your home? You have to pay (for permission).
Want to carry out building works? You have to pay (for inspections).
Want to be able to drive onto your property? You have to pay (for an approved crossover).
Want an allotment? You have to pay.

The list goes on....

People believe public services are funded by tax, especially by council tax, but in reality a very significant portion of Council income is through direct fees and charges. Public services may be subsidised by public funding (tax) but the end user often still pays - in some cases (e.g. parking) the Council is likely to make a profit from consumers.

If you want to argue that the taxation system should be used to fund the TV licence then I would make a far more cogent counter-argument that increase taxation should first be used to make Council run sports facilities free to use by the consumer, instead of having 'free' TV. Getting people to use the gym, swim, play football or any sporting activity would help improve fitness, reduce obesity and ultimately reduce the strain on public services caused by lack of exercise. Giving people 'free' TV would do the opposite.

Charging per hour of TV viewing might be one of the best health initiatives the Government could introduce, but I don't see that being very popular

halogen

dekaspace wrote: »

If you want you argument to be better than make it more an actual BRITISH broadcasting corporation instead of now where its more ENGLISH, and Southern at that


I dislike hearing middle/upper class Southern English people presenting shows and next to no Scottish broadcasting, theres all of one Scottish regional variation of the BBC which only keeps afloat by doing contractal work for other channels (many of which are English)

That could be because compared to the rest of the BBC, BBCScotland is 2nd rate and comes across as a 20th century village newsletter??
I dislike hearing regional accents on national TV ( fine for regional TV- which I choose not to watch as I'm in Scotland) and I will actively avoid programmes with them.

I'm with the poster above who said we should all pay for the BBC as part of general taxation. I think its worth it purely for Radio 4 and BBC4 and that's coming from someone who's reception is so bad I can only watch TV on iplayer. Although I do think the new iPlayer set up is rubbish.

JimmyTheWig

EachPenny wrote: »

If you want to argue that the taxation system should be used to fund the TV licence then I would make a far more cogent counter-argument that increase taxation should first be used to make Council run sports facilities free to use by the consumer, instead of having 'free' TV. Getting people to use the gym, swim, play football or any sporting activity would help improve fitness, reduce obesity and ultimately reduce the strain on public services caused by lack of exercise.

I agree. But I don't see it needs to be an either/or situation. [Well argued post, by the way.]

Giving people 'free' TV would do the opposite.

I disagree. In effect, at the moment, TV is free to use as pretty much everyone (outside of this thread!) has a licence and so the amount they watch doesn't affect the price they pay. The way that they pay (via a licence or via taxation) wouldn't affect this.
It's the same as the argument about the cost of driving vs the cost of public transport when people try to include the cost of buying a car - for people who need a car (the majority of people outside of big cities) they'll buy a car anyway.

JimmyTheWig

Cornucopia wrote: »

Unfortunately, video screens are now very pervasive and will only become more so, so we will be doing ourselves no favours if we effectively make them all within the scope of a Licence replacement.

On my plan of including it within general taxation there would be no exemptions. Just like you don't get a tax reduction if you never get sick, or you never go to the local park.

[Out of interest, I was LLF for a while.]

EachPenny

halogen wrote: »

I'm with the poster above who said we should all pay for the BBC as part of general taxation. I think its worth it purely for Radio 4 and BBC4 and that's coming from someone who's reception is so bad I can only watch TV on iplayer. Although I do think the new iPlayer set up is rubbish.

I never listen to Radio 4 or watch BBC4.... can I have a tax rebate please?

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

On my plan of including it within general taxation there would be no exemptions. Just like you don't get a tax reduction if you never get sick, or you never go to the local park.

Yes, I assumed that was what you meant.

For me there are both practical objections and dangers to that approach.

The practical objection is that TV will always be ephemeral in its nature, and therefore it will always be stretching the bounds somewhat of the principles of public funding (especially compulsory public funding) to operate it in that way. I don't have a philosophical objection to broadcasting being publicly-operated, however I see it in much the same vein as Leisure Centres or the National Trust - something owned and operated by a public institution but paid for by its users (or at least on a shared cost basis with its users).

The issue has been that it was technically challenging to do that (though only because the BBC under Greg Dyke rigged the Freeview spec against it). But now we can see routes to implementation, that really needs to be the way to go, and I can't really see any cogent arguments against it.

The dangers are around the culture and scale of the BBC, and its proven capability to throw its weight around. I appreciate that one aim of moving to funding through taxation would be to disband the hated TV Licensing regime, and that can only be a good thing. However, I think at the same time, the BBC must be made properly democratically accountable. The dangers presented by a non-accountable BBC that has newly secured funding are significant for me. Woe betide any local council that messes up the admin of the fees, locally, for example.

The bottom line for me is that for something to be a Public Service, there has to be obvious merit in it being so. Things like: whether it is essential, whether it is unique, whether it presents the most practical way to approach something and whether there is a public consensus in its favour. In the case of the BBC, it probably scrapes one-and-a-half out of four, which doesn't make it a great candidate, IMHO.

EachPenny

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I agree. But I don't see it needs to be an either/or situation. [Well argued post, by the way.]

Thanks. You are right that it doesn't have to be either/or, but since there is a finite amount of tax that can be raised from the population it is always necessary to make choices about which services are funded, and which aren't. In the scheme of things, the 'value' of TV compared to other public services is quite low.

For example, it could be argued that electricity, gas and water are essential services and these should be funded through taxation rather than direct charges - this would particularly aid those on low incomes or elderly people who worry about their bills. In fact, I believe in Northern Ireland water is still paid for by taxation (a 'rate') rather than direct charges paid by the consumer.

So the question is, if you placed all the potential public services on a ballot paper and asked people to vote for which ones should be 'free' I suspect you'd find that public service broadcasting would come well down the list of priorities. (although complicated by the fact many people already get it for 'free' anyway).

For something to qualify as a 'public service' there usually needs to be some form of benefit to the public that the private sector cannot deliver. In the case of the BBC the argument usually goes that it provides a higher quality of educational and informative broadcasting, and also caters for niche sectors. Without wanting to start a war, I feel that argument is nowhere near as strong as it once was. In terms of quality, some of the output from commercial channels far exceeds that of the BBC. Equally, some of the niche sectors are perhaps better served through online channels, rather than by a national PS broadcaster.

The quaint notion that the BBC's role is to inform and educate the masses is very outdated, and many people believe the BBC is biased (in which way depends on individual perspective) which also weakens the case. As an example, "The Archers" original role was to help educate (illiterate?) farmers and smallholders about new agricultural techniques in order to improve post-war food production. The farmer's wife would hear something on the radio and then 'nag' the husband into trying something new on the farm. Today it is just another soap opera designed to tittilate the middle classes whose only connection to agriculture is they once took the kids (or grandkids) to an open farm.

Today most peeople would equate "public service" with not having to sit through ads.

In that respect the whole concept of public service broadcasting needs a re-think. In that respect, Channel 4 offers a much better model than the 1950's BBC.

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I disagree. In effect, at the moment, TV is free to use as pretty much everyone (outside of this thread!) has a licence and so the amount they watch doesn't affect the price they pay. The way that they pay (via a licence or via taxation) wouldn't affect this.

Agreed, but I was basing my point on the possibility that a small (possibly very small) number of people might not have TV licences because they cannot afford one - in the same way the cost of ownership of a car is a factor (for some people) in using public transport rather than driving.

[Deleted User]

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Unlike a subscription-only model it keeps the costs small for everyone.

It doesn't keep the cost small, for those people who don't use the services.