My take on the BBC licence fee in the future digital age
My latest column at Netimperative tackles the question of the BBC, and its licence fee, and whether you should tax computers, TVs, or what ten years from now.
Which is a tricky question. Is the BBC a poll tax on watching TV? Or is it a ‘common good’? Or both?
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- The future of listening and radio (11 March 2006; score: 44.9%)
- What's the future of photography? (18 November 2005; score: 38.01%)
- That's funny, I thought the answer was 'an iPod' or 'Robosapien' (7 December 2004; score: 33.83%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
March 5th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
The BBC produces a hell of a lot of radio as well as TV, I’ve often
wondered why we don’t pay licences for having a wireless. Perhaps
the rationale was initially that people who owned TVs had to be
wealthy, later that those who had colour sets could afford to pay
more?
Neither of these assumptions could hold today. As TV ownership
has spread, the regressive impact of the TV Tax has increased
immeasurably.
The question in a just society is not “should we extend this
regressive taxation to more types of good” but “should we abolish
what should never have become a regressive tax and replace it with
something fairer”.
As to whether that system should be a voluntary pay TV model or an
income-based system, or indeed something else altogether, depends
largely on the difficult question as to whether the BBC is just about
providing watchable TV, or whether it provides a wider social
benefit.
March 5th, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Didn’t you used to have to have a radio licence? I’m pretty sure you did, but the advent of the transistor radio made that rather harder to enforce.
Licencing that pays for the BBC and ensures its survival is a good thing. I am very glad to pay it. Of course, I also think that taxes are too low, particularly for the rich, so you are likely to disagree with me I suspect.
March 5th, 2005 at 10:28 pm
True, the licence fee is a regressive tax, though it’s not exactly a poll tax - one fee covers a whole household with as many TVs as you care to have there.
The amount though is minimal if one is honest. Less than three pounds per week. I can believe that there are families who miss their budget by more or less than three pounds per week, but I think you could easily identify many other things in their spending that would save at least that.
Also, we’re slightly arguing in the dark here - we don’t know whether there used to be a radio licence and what the rationale was for the TV licence fee, as opposed to radio, licensing. (It used to be different between colour and black&white TV sets, too.)
March 6th, 2005 at 12:28 am
http://www.markjones.org.uk/ - the history of the UK radio licence.
March 14th, 2005 at 10:04 am
Interesting history of the radio licence there - my first foray into the blogosphere and I learn something new!
I agree with Charles that the TV licence is a small price to pay - but the point remains that if TV is a public good, it should be provided out of general taxation in a non-regressive manner. This is both fairer and more efficient.
If we just fund the BBC to provide watchable TV, however, we need a very good case for treating it differently to the other commercial providers out there.
(conversely, I wonder if commercial broadcasters shouldn’t be allowed to submit competing bids to fill the BBC’s shoes…)
March 14th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Lots of taxes are regressive. Cigarette taxes and petrol taxes are regressive.
The reason why the BBC *should not* be funded out of general taxation is very simple: it means that it can be, as far as possible, independent.
Imagine, for example, a Government-funded BBC trying to query the Iraq war. Things were bad enough with Hutton (except the government got to choose the turf it fought on, and the referee, so of course won). But they would be a disaster with a general-tax-funded BBC.
Other countries admire the licence fee. It works. And it costs not much more than a few packs of cigarettes a month.
March 16th, 2005 at 5:07 pm
I agree that independence of the BBC is important, but I think the distinction between the existing arrangements and using the Inland Revenue as a progressive collector is specious. The right to the funding in both cases is guaranteed by the state, which also sets the level and periodically reviews the continuation of charter.
The independence of the BBC comes from a set level of funding, free of political interference for a set period of time. This can be achieved with either technical funding mechanism.