UK ISPs Could Face Government Broadband TV Tax

An anonymous reader writes "Industry regulator Ofcom, which yesterday launched the first phase of its review into public service broadcasting, is threatening to impose a tax on UK broadband ISPs to help resolve funding problems. The review covers all public service broadcasters, both publicly owned and commercial. Ofcom Chief Executive Ed Richards said: 'Public service broadcasting is at a crossroads. Viewers still want a mix of high quality UK-made content, but the traditional television model is not enough to meet all their needs. Today's proposals outline options for a securely-funded PSB future. Now is the time for a wide-ranging debate looking carefully and dispassionately at all the options.'"

Comments

everyone pays

[wizardforce]

yeah, it doesn't matter whether you're actually making use of any of that content, you pay anyway.

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K]

I have two responses to that:

1. Nearly everyone I know who doesn't pay for cable TV downloads all their favorite TV shows, so they are making use of the content, just not through conventional channels.

2. The BBC and other public broadcasting services must be sustained. I've lived in the US for over four years now and I cannot even begin to express how terrible TV here is in comparison to programs by the BBC. There are a few exceptions, of course, but I would gladly give up my entire cable package consisting of nearly one hundred channels, just to get the handful of BBC channels available in the UK. Having lived in the UK most of my life I too used to criticize the TV tax but this was certainly a case of not knowing what you've got 'till it's gone.

Even if you from part of a minority who truly does not "make use of any of that content" you do indirectly benefit from living in a society where for-profit networks can't completely dumb-down television programming to the point that turning on the box literally causes your brain to rot, and where watching an hour of television also implies watching twenty minutes of commercials.

Public broadcasting benefits society, and taxes are designed to benefit society even though specific taxes may not benefit every individual. So long as the taxes are reasonable and produce real results I would be in favor of them.

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K]

The BBC may have political bias, but until you have lived in the US and witness the likes of Fox news you really have no idea how good you have it. Their individual party biases aside, the media here, across half-a-dozen "news" networks, appears to be fully coerced in their coverage (or lack there-of) of major political and world events.

You get to choose with your remote and your wallet That may be true, but it is the wrong way to understand the effect of public broadcast. Where there is competent and broadly targeted public broadcasting a bar is set for the quality of programming of for-profit networks. Without the BBC, for example, I think you would see a very different and quickly degrading television landscape. In fact I know you would, because that's exactly what I see here where there is public broadcast, but unless you're into jazz music, movies from the seventies, or watching senators debating on CSPAN, you would never watch it anyway, and so it doesn't really have much influence on the other networks.

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K]

I challenge you to compare the BBC as a news network to any of the popular American TV news channels for level of political bias and fear or coercion that causes them to collectively avoid reporting significant news stories unfavorable to the Bush administration, or world events that may sit as unpopular with the American viewers and thus impact their advertisers.

Whether "popular" programs are imported or not is irrelevant. It makes sense for the BBC to supplement its own productions with the best productions from other bodies. It is the quality of the programming overall that is significant in the case of the BBC, and I have seen very little to rival it. Just as the shows you mentioned may be the most popular in the UK, they are also some of the most popular in the US. But take that list of shows, divide it among well over 100 channels broadcasting 24 hours a day, and perhaps you can start to see a picture of how sparse high quality programming is here.

I can't speak to the salaries of the BBC, nor do I claim that I'm familiar with their internal operations or that they are appropriate. I will say, however, that you might want to compare the typical interview with Jeremy Paxman to any number of interviews from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and see how that turns out. I believe you'll find plenty of samples on YouTube.

Yes, America also has loads of reality shows, but the point is that they are funded by advertisement and if you don't want to watch it you don't have to still pay for it. Where I live basic cable costs me $50/month, and it's 100 channels which are mostly garbage, or nothing. I can pick up exactly two channels over the air with a lot of fuzz.

What a joke. It's because of deluded fools like DigitalAI that the rest of us have to suffer this extortion. Maybe they should simply create a PBS tax instead of charging for a TV license. I think this is a better representation. I actually agree with you that you should not have to pay a fee just because you own a television, but I also believe that the BBC should remain publicly funded for the good of British society.

Re:everyone pays

[Tony Hoyle]

The most popular TV programmes in the UK by a long, long way are *not* things like the simpsons.

Most popular programmes on british TV are a bunfight between Eastenders and Coronation street, between them taking up most of the top 10 viewing slots at around 10 million per showing. Add in Emmerdale and Casualty and that pretty much takes up the top 20, with the BBC News slipping in there at the bottom (yes, paxman earns his keep).

Sky are nowhere. The colour of magic was by far their most popular programme at only 1.2 million viewers (that's a british programme BTW), pulling in double the second place programme Stargate ark of truth which managed only half a million. Even the rerun of 'Ben Hur' on five got more than that.

Scan through the BARB figures and you'll find the vast majority of popular TV in britain is british. The rest is made up of Australian and US stuff... but none of the things you mention are in the list.

Re:everyone pays

[Chuck Chunder]

They are extremely one-sided politically.

I think that is grossly oversimplified.

If anything I think the BBC (and the Australian ABC) are generally over-critical of whatever government currently in power.

However I do not see that as a bad thing. In a sense this is a way of them demonstrating their independence. It is far more dangerous for a national broadcaster to be too soft on those in power than too hard.

Totally ridiculous

[gilesjuk]

Broadband is too cheap, it's obvious that when you reduce ADSL to a low price comparable to dialup that the price becomes unsustainable if people are using lots of bandwidth.

BBC iPlayer uses bandwidth that customers pay for, they have a set limit which they are allowed and if they exceed it then they have to pay for more bandwidth.

So why should a tax be imposed on all customers? Ofcom is stupid and a waste of time, they're ruining the UK TV market by allowing more frequent adverts and now this.

Now is the time...

[rizole]

...for...looking carefully and dispassionately at all the options. I'm not sure /. is quite the forum for achieving that particular aim.

Re:Right...

[pavon]

Yeah, this is stupid. At least with the TV License, people only had to pay if they owned a tuner, whose main purpose was to watch the broadcast content, the vast majority of which was BBC produced. There were exceptions like folks that had a TV with tuner but only used it as a DVD monitor, but it at least attempted to be targeted at people using the service. This is just ridiculous - there are so many applications of broadband that BBC content is a tiny minority. If they are concerned about their revenue stream drying up as media moves online, they should just limit their online content to folks that paid the TV license rather than allowing all UK IP addresses like they do now.

Wrong

[RotateLeftByte]

"The UK taxes people per TV,"

This is totally wrong.

The TV Receiving License is per {House,Flat,Shop,School,etc}

You can have as many TV's as you like in your house and only pay 1 License fee.
HMO's are treated as separate residences. ( HMO = House for Multiple Occupancy )

I have 3 TV's in my House and pay 1 TV License.

Re:Getting the wrong Idea

[digitig]

There are very few people who are legally without a TV licence. receiving any form of TV signal (satelite, cable etc.) means you have to pay it Correct.

as does viewing BBC Video clips (either through iPlayer, bbc.co.uk or youtube). Wrong. As has been discussed in another thread, a TV card needs a license, but iPlayer, bbc.co.uk and youtube (at the moment) don't because the program is not viewed as it is broadcast.