this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2025
103 points (97.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55765 readers
499 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Netflix users face being forced to pay the TV licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC, under plans being explored by officials.

One option for the future funding of the corporation is to make households who only use streaming services pay the annual charge, it was reported on Tuesday.

Bloomberg said the plan has been discussed by the Prime Minister’s office, as well as the Treasury and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Other options include allowing the BBC to advertise, imposing a specific tax on streaming services, and asking those who listen to BBC Radio to pay a fee.

On Tuesday, the DCMS said the Netflix proposal was not under “active consideration” but did not rule out that the option was on the table.

The BBC’s charter ends at the end of 2027, and Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, is looking at ways to keep the corporation well funded at a time when more people are gravitating toward on-demand services such as Disney+.

Critics say the licence fee dates from a time when consumers had no choice but to watch programmes at the time of broadcast.

It currently costs households who watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer £169.50 a year, an amount that usually rises annually with inflation.

Even if they don’t watch BBC programmes, households are required to hold a TV licence to view or stream programmes live on sites including YouTube and Amazon Prime Video.

It is not, however, needed if people only watch on-demand, non-BBC content.

If the licence fee is expanded to those who only watch video-on-demand, it could risk a backlash from consumers who may argue they already pay subscriptions for the same services.

Another option under consideration includes making users of the BBC’s on-demand app pay a subscription fee rather than the licence, mirroring the business model of services like Netflix, Disney, Amazon Prime and Apple TV.

Ministers are also looking at tiering the licence fee so that lower-income households don’t pay the same rate as more affluent users.

Another option was to leave the licence fee largely as it is, with a few tweaks, but with better enforcement, a person familiar with the internal deliberations said.

A spokesman for the DCMS said that they wouldn’t comment on “speculation”, adding: “We will provide more details about charter review plans in due course.”

A government source said the process was at an early, information-gathering stage and was not being actively considered by Ms Nandy.

all 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ladfrombrad@lemdro.id 1 points 5 hours ago

Ministers are also looking at tiering the licence fee so that lower-income households don’t pay the same rate as more affluent users.

Another option was to leave the licence fee largely as it is, with a few tweaks, but with better enforcement, a person familiar with the internal deliberations said.

These greedy people, honest to god.

How about a tweak of letting home owners re-transmitting the DVB signal locally since they have such a good home internet connections these days, saving on the required transmitting POWAR of the BBC funded ones such as Emley Moor etc? I'd love to see the power usage of that thing.

Too radical, oh well....

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago

Just fund it with taxes, you dolts. Should've done it in the first place. It's a function of the state, like anything else that some people use and some people don't.

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 27 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Sweden did something similar for a long time, making every owner of a TV pay a license fee. Then the enforcing body tried to reclassify all computers as TVs, including smartphones, since these could technically access the online streaming version of the state-owned media. A ridiculous interpretation that was ultimately struck down in court.

All this did was cause unnecessary friction, and kept a bunch of really useless people on payroll to collect this fee.

We resolved it in the end by just making it a tax instead, and it's never been better. Rest in piss, Radiotjänst, nobody ever liked you

[–] Kallioapina@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 21 hours ago

Was same in Finland, we also nowdays just apply a income dependant tax here.

[–] LiamTheBox@lemmy.ml 55 points 1 day ago

"No! We cannot demand higher taxes to wealthy families to pay the BBC! That would create a big black hole and destroy us all!"

[–] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Say I lived there. BBC needs fundings I get it, but what the BBC contributes to when I watch VoD? Not even watching live programmes as zero of the content have BBC ever contributed. When the content is licensed via BBC, I already paid part with my subscription. Thst's a disgusting double dipping. If no one watches your programmes that's your problem, and citizens have no responsibility to keep a corporate from collapsing. This shit reminds me of how NHK works in Japan.

[–] Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 19 hours ago

Oi oi matey, u got a loicence for that ~~telly~~ streamin' service?

[–] swizzlestick@lemmy.zip 21 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Sounds like a good way for Mr Pirate Fire Stick Man to sell more of his £50/year IPTV packages.

It's already easy enough for the average joe to do this. Having the BBC double-dip their Netflix sub may well be the push that has them cancel subs & go 'elsewhere'.

If we want a public broadcaster, it should be recognised as a national service and funded directly through tax. Unfortunately, that would put a lot of Crapita licence fee collector dogs out of a job and we simply can't have that(!).

Just look at the crap you get shoved through your door if you decide not to play their game: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Before anyone mentions that you can submit a 'no licence needed' declaration - they've got no business even knowing my name, let alone my media choices.

[–] Navarian@lemm.ee 3 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

They also actively ignore those 'No licence needed' declarations, I've submitted three, two online and one by mail and they still routinely threaten to show up on my doorstep 'any day now'

Why ask me to declare it if you're going to ignore that? There's probably cause for a complaint there but I'd rather not waste the oxygen.

[–] swizzlestick@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 hours ago

I just treat their letters as scrap paper or kindling. They are very carefully worded to give the illusion of power where there is practically none. Capita are masters in mismanagement, so I'm not surprised your declarations have been ignored in the past. Just don't bother.

If you're truly not doing anything required to have a licence, then they can't prove you do. Licence dodgers are usually clever enough to not give it away too.

Don't answer the door to them on the rare off chance they come prospectively calling. If you do, just close it on the scum without a word, and go about your day. No warrant = no entry.

[–] albert180@discuss.tchncs.de 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Why not make everyone pay? That's how it's done in Austria or Germany

It's much less bureaucracy.

Edit: And most people who claim that they never saw something from BBC on YouTube or heard it somewhere are lying. Let's be real

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 32 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is also known as "taxes"

[–] albert180@discuss.tchncs.de 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Call it like you want, in the German Sphere they are explicitly not taxes. The politicians don't decide over the sum, and also the state doesn't charge it directly, it's the broadcasters.

But it's important that public broadcasting is well funded to provide a good alternative to the private shit media owned by billionaires and not having your interests in mind

[–] Chewy7324@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Taxes aren't collected for a specific purpose. Any tax can be used for any purpose a state sees fit (e.g. income tax may be used for infrastructure, schools or defense).

The "Rundfunkbeitrag" is a purpose-bound fee which can only be used for the public service broadcasting.

Edit: It's a mandatory fee like you're forced to pay for waste disposal. Not a tax.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

TV licence costs don't go to the BBC. Parliament gets a number and decides how much to send the BBC.

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The BBC isn't a government body and isn't funded by taxes, it's primarily funded by the license fee (and selling broadcasting rights overseas).

The internet has royally fucked the funding model - as everyone and their mum has equipment capable of receiving live broadcast tv, but unless it becomes an official government mouthpiece it's unlikely to become something we pay for out of taxes.

[–] rah@feddit.uk -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

becomes an official government mouthpiece

Uh.. "becomes"?

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 2 points 1 day ago

It's not a government body, so it can't be official. The closest it gets is unofficial mouthpiece for the British Establishment™.

[–] Outtatime@sh.itjust.works 4 points 21 hours ago
[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 4 points 1 day ago

Lol, fuck the BBC, bunch of transphobic asses who every many think are 'unbiased' but have showed that they're not or that 'unbiased' is not the way to be if they are as it causes harm.

I hope they die off.

[–] BETYU@moist.catsweat.com 0 points 17 hours ago

there are just a few countries that work this way japan is another one