4 ms·

Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of own

Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it.

M2Ys4U 6y ago
> Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. >If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. It's similar here. the Office of National Statistics has considered the licence fee a tax rather than a service charge for ~15 years. But I don't think that changes the nature of how the BBC is funded. >In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. There has been a live discussion around the continuation of the licence fee here, too. Although that seems to have - mostly - gone away since the BBC proved its value during the pandemic. I think it helps that the requirement is still fairly narrow here. The indirection is a feature - having the BBC's funding taken out of the regular budgetary process adds to its independence. Politically it's a distinct action to change the value of the licence fee. >Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it. To be fair that applies to more than funding. As an example, if trade unions piss the government off too much they can get a majority in the legislature to rewrite industrial relations law.
- grkvlt 6y ago
  > the unique nature of how the BBC is funded. of course, other funding sources are available...
iso1631 6y ago
> a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use That's not the case in the UK. You only need a TV license if you use equipment to receive a live TV programme (which is something that falls under the remit of OFCOM[1] - not a livestream of Everyday Astronaut), or if you use BBC's iplayer. [1] Specifically from 2003 communications act “television programme service” means any of the following— * a television broadcasting service; * a television licensable content service; * a digital television programme service; * a restricted television service [consists in the broadcasting of television programmes for a particular establishment or other defined location, or a particular event, in the United Kingdom, which is licensable by OFCOM]
- arghwhat 6y ago
  > You only need a TV license if you use equipment to receive a live TV programme Better than Denmark, but the quoted legal snippet is not restricted to BBC content, but instead applies to reception or any kind of television broadcast irrespective of provider or source (foreign satellite TV being an obvious alternative). It's a different TV tax than that in Denmark, but absolutely a government mandated tax. (I am unsure how to interpret the digital television broadcast service aspect. I wonder if they mean something wider than DVB, as the previous points do not use "analogue" as classifier. It's need more of the text to figure that out.)

M2Ys4U 6y ago

> Same in Denmark, but the collective opinion is that the structure makes the license a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use) that goes to the media company, thus making it state funded by that tax, regardless of what the company and government claim. >If it was independent it would have to sell its services on its own, with citizens purchasing the service only if they wished to use it. It's similar here. the Office of National Statistics has considered the licence fee a tax rather than a service charge for ~15 years. But I don't think that changes the nature of how the BBC is funded. >In Denmark we're also soon abolishing the license and just making it a normal tax. The structure was pointless and the attempted indirection only angered people, especially as it was expanded to also apply to anyone having internet access over a certain bandwidth. There has been a live discussion around the continuation of the licence fee here, too. Although that seems to have - mostly - gone away since the BBC proved its value during the pandemic. I think it helps that the requirement is still fairly narrow here. The indirection is a feature - having the BBC's funding taken out of the regular budgetary process adds to its independence. Politically it's a distinct action to change the value of the licence fee. >Furthermore, anything funded by law cannot be truly independent in content either, as it will wish to appease the hand that feeds it. To be fair that applies to more than funding. As an example, if trade unions piss the government off too much they can get a majority in the legislature to rewrite industrial relations law.

grkvlt 6y ago
> the unique nature of how the BBC is funded. of course, other funding sources are available...

iso1631 6y ago

> a TV tax (a yearly fee you must pay by government mandate as a result of owning a type of device irrespective of use That's not the case in the UK. You only need a TV license if you use equipment to receive a live TV programme (which is something that falls under the remit of OFCOM[1] - not a livestream of Everyday Astronaut), or if you use BBC's iplayer. [1] Specifically from 2003 communications act “television programme service” means any of the following— * a television broadcasting service; * a television licensable content service; * a digital television programme service; * a restricted television service [consists in the broadcasting of television programmes for a particular establishment or other defined location, or a particular event, in the United Kingdom, which is licensable by OFCOM]

arghwhat 6y ago
> You only need a TV license if you use equipment to receive a live TV programme Better than Denmark, but the quoted legal snippet is not restricted to BBC content, but instead applies to reception or any kind of television broadcast irrespective of provider or source (foreign satellite TV being an obvious alternative). It's a different TV tax than that in Denmark, but absolutely a government mandated tax. (I am unsure how to interpret the digital television broadcast service aspect. I wonder if they mean something wider than DVB, as the previous points do not use "analogue" as classifier. It's need more of the text to figure that out.)