Government considers £11 monthly UK broadband fee to fund BBC TV UPDATE
The Government is reportedly considering the introduction of an £11 (monthly) “Home Internet Levy” on existing consumer broadband bills to replace the existing BBC TV licence fee. The idea is understood to have been proposed to the Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy, by the cross-party Social Market Foundation (SMF) think-tank.
At present a standard colour TV licence fee costs £180 per year, although many view the charge as being increasingly difficult to justify in an age where traditional TV is rapidly losing ground to modern independent commercial streaming platforms. But this presents a problem because public service broadcasters, such as the BBC, remain largely dependent upon the money it raises.
On top of that the government are currently considering plans to switch-off terrestrial TV signals, in either 2034 or 2044, as part of a wider change to reflect the move to internet-based streaming, provided gigabit broadband coverage and take-up is ready to support the transition. Both of these related issues have long been political hot potatoes, which has made it difficult to reach consensus on the best way forward.
Advertisement
The SMF is one of the organisations that has been examining the TV licence fee issue and, according to the Sun, they’re understood to have proposed that every home with a broadband connection could automatically help to fund the BBC, even if nobody in the house watches live TV, via a new £11 (monthly) “Home Internet Levy” on their existing ISP bill. A special discount would also be introduced for those who take Social Tariffs to protect low-income users.
The SMF’s report indicates that an alternative option also being considered is a smaller “News and Culture Levy“, said to be worth £2.30 a month. But this would instead be added on top of the existing TV Licence Fee rather than replacing it. Both approaches are controversial and likely to produce a backlash.
A DCMS spokesperson said:
“The BBC must be funded by a model that is sustainable and fair to all those that are paying it. Through Charter Review, we are looking at a range of options, including how the BBC can operate more efficiently, generate more commercial revenue, and how the licence fee could be reformed.”
The idea of a levy on broadband bills itself is nothing new and has come up several times before as an alternative to the TV Licence Fee model, most recently in 2022 as part of the initial stages of the current review. But adding c.£11pm to the cost of broadband would be tricky to implement (e.g. forcing those who don’t watch the BBC to pay), although if you currently pay for a standard TV Licence then this works out as £132 per year – a bit cheaper.
The idea also raises plenty of technical questions over what kind of broadband connections would be applicable (i.e. only fixed lines or also mobile, and what about Starlink?) and how ISPs would pay the charge, as well as who is going to cover the costs of implementing all this.
Advertisement
Broadband providers are commercial companies, not government agencies, and there’s a wider risk of discouraging fixed broadband adoption at a time when network operators are desperately trying to grow take-up. Some homes and small business on consumer-grade lines also have multiple broadband connections (putting my hand up there), so would they end up having to pay multiple times?
However, none of this will necessarily solve the underlying funding problem, since the main challenge is that licence-fee payer numbers are falling as viewing habits change. Simply changing the collection mechanism without addressing the more tedious question of what should and should not be publicly funded may not go far enough.
As it stands the government has not made any decisions and continues to consider a range of options, but their time is running out to make a decision. Whatever they do, it’s likely to be unpopular.
UPDATE 1:10pm
Advertisement
The UK Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) has issued the following comment on this.
Andrew Kernahan, Head of Public Affairs, said:
“Adding a tax onto broadband bills that would not be invested into broadband networks or services would not benefit consumers. ISPA members are already under significant pressure to contribute towards easing the cost of living for consumers, including by signing the government’s Telecoms Consumer Charter, whilst also continuing to invest over £40bn in meeting the government’s target for nationwide gigabit-capable broadband to bring faster, more reliable and cheaper networks.
Broadband providers are operating in a challenging investment climate as they finish the infrastructure rollout, including the hardest to connect the most expensive parts of the country. Investors need confidence that the UK sees digital connectivity and infrastructure as a priority, not as a new source of tax.
Such a levy would also raise questions on whether broadband providers would be expected to oversee the collection and enforcement of the license fee, which is not an appropriate role for them to have and would exert further costs on operators.
It is no surprise that a House of Lords Committee report in 2022 already recommended against a broadband levy to fund the license fee on the basis that it would “introduce unfairness” and offer “few advantages”.
The sector remains committed to working constructively with the Government so that everyone benefits as the country moves to an increasingly digital future.”
Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.
« Virgin Media UK co-parent Liberty Global adopt new AI chatbot for support
Advertisement
Leave a Reply
Privacy Notice: Please note that news comments are anonymous, which means that we do NOT require you to enter any real personal details to post a message and display names can be almost anything you like (provided they do not contain offensive language or impersonate a real person's legal name). By clicking to submit a post you agree to storing your entries for comment content, display name, IP and email in our database, for as long as the post remains live.
Only the submitted name and comment will be displayed in public, while the rest will be kept private (we will never share this outside of ISPreview, regardless of whether the data is real or fake). This comment system uses submitted IP, email and website address data to spot abuse and spammers. All data is transferred via an encrypted (https secure) session.
Abolish it altogether is what needs to happen! Let us hope we can opt out.
The government literally couldn’t give 2 shots about us, how about they let those who want to watch it, pay for it. Or simply scrap it and run ads like the others.
Completely agree with you. All taxes should be abolished and you should only have to pay for services you directly want. Don’t have kids? F them – they can pay for their own education.
As an ISP, Olilo would not support or participate in a “Home Internet Levy” of this kind.
Broadband is an essential communications service, not a convenient mechanism for collecting funding for unrelated public services. Adding another £11 a month to broadband bills would ultimately make connectivity more expensive for households at a time when we should be doing the opposite and encouraging greater broadband adoption.
We also don’t believe the TV Licence is a model that makes sense in 2026. People consume media very differently now, and we think the debate should be about finding a sustainable and genuinely fair way to fund public service broadcasting – rather than simply moving the charge onto another bill.
If a levy like this is introduced, Olilo will be pushing back hard against it. We don’t believe ISPs should be turned into tax collectors for services that customers may not use.
Themes fighting words.
But don’t be disingenuous. If they introduced it you would have to particpate, it would be law.
You aren’t big enough to take on the government Olilo, they make the laws you adheree to them 🙂
This is solely the governement thinking of this option, the BBC did not agree with it originally and said so.
News and Public Service events do not make money – so the BBC would have to ditch this and local services if it went subscription (which it knows how to do as they already have successful commerical channels via UKTV and abroad). World Service is currently shoved ont the BBC to fund and it shouldn’t be taking money from UK license fee payers, similarly with BBC Monitoring.
The issue is that advertising via advert breaks or sponsorship to BBC would kill ITV/C4/C5 off as advertisers would spend with BBC. Subscriptions means less programmes made but usually bigger budgets because of more well known actors that cost more, and only what brings in money – so over time the same kind of programming.Every programme has to generate revenue. The streamers are starting to struggle as reality of susbscriptions being too cheap dawns on them after initially throwing money around, hence price increases starting tio bite regularly, and at some point, minimum term contracts will be here because so many people are getting a subscription for a month and literally binge watching then cancelling. You can’t run a successful business long term off that model.
This is total piss taking. Everything is expensive these days and for pensioners it’s a disgrace that they should pay for the likes of the BBC even if they do not use it. That corporation should be abolished, it has out lived its purpose in this day and age. I personally don’t watch live TV so why must pay for something that I do not use..The exorbitant salaries for people that make little contribution to anything..We voters will rebel in the most peaceful way ever at the ballot boxes..
Interesting. Do you also refuse to collect VAT? Plenty of that is spent on services I neither use nor want.
Romeo Lima – Then talk to your governement who is responsible for making pensioners pay………………
Again, with the blanket pensioners rubbish. Most pensioners are not poor – they can get pension credit, housing paid and Council Tax paid if on a low income, get bigger tax allowances, free travel, free winter fuel and pay No NI.
They’re the ones who actually watch the trash shows and propaganda on the English version of Russia Today called the BBC. There is reason why iPlayer is also called Boomer Netflix.
If the Government tells you to do it, you will have to, and whilst they will consult with industry, i doubt someone with a couple of thousand customers will have much sway. Maybe when you ran Yayzi you should have paid your creditors instead of trading insolvently
We need to move away from the argument that because you don’t watch BBC you’re excused from paying.
There’s plenty of government funded services I don’t use, yet pay for. The BBC should be funded from the general taxation pot like any other public service.
No, there is not. There is no moral justification for funding the BBC or any other media business from general taxation. What’s more, it is also a principle that the BBC itself has defended from its earliest days to maintain and demonstrate that it is independent of the government. I would also point out that subscribers to the Telegraph would not accept the funding of the Guardian from their subscriptions.
We need to move away from the idea that the BBC is a public service. It is not. It’s a parasitical media business which is failing to attract audiences despite its still vast £6bn budget. The BBC is outclassed in every respect by commercial services and it provides nothing commercial services do not.
No.
Far2329Light – yes there is. My council tax and other taxes fund Schools, Youth Clubs and a variety of other stuff I never use. I don’t have kids yet I pay for others. It’s callled being part of society……
I don’t feel that Strictly Come Dancing and Eastenders are in the same category as say healthcare, education, road maintenance or defence and warrant compulsory funding.
Let me boil this down for you so you can see how illogical your comment is:
“We should move away from the idea that because you don’t want or use a service, you should be exempt from paying it.”
In your logic, I should be subscribing to and paying for Netflix because others use it – even though I have no use for it. And yes, that is a correct analogy because the BBC is a corporation, a service, and not a government sector like local administration or police or NHS.
S2K, think about your own statement. You obviously do not read other posts, so I’ll paste this here again for you:
“My council tax and other taxes fund Schools, Youth Clubs and a variety of other stuff I never use. I don’t have kids yet I pay for others. It’s callled being part of society……”
Are you saying by your comment, I would be excluded from that cost on my council tax bill as well then?
This is a governement think tank recommendation that the government is thinking about. It didn;t come from the BBC and theyve already said they dont support this method.
“Are you saying by your comment, I would be excluded from that cost on my council tax bill as well then?”
I’ve seen where my taxes are going, so the answer is a resounding “Yes”.
@FANNY ADAMS:
No, there is not. The BBC is a non-essential outlet. There is no justification for imposing a tax or levy. It is a point of view that the BBC also takes because it wants to preserve the argument that it is independent of government funding.
@FANNY ADAMS:
Indeed, yes, the local electorate must have the right to hold referendums to cancel the pet spending projects of progressive councillors which are not core to the remit of local councils.
Unusual for the SMF to propose something so regressive. Though ISPs are already acting as tax collectors in terms of VAT so probably not that much more red tape for them to collect the levy. I suspect the Government is eyeing up that £2.30 levy on top of the licence fee. Not only much easier for them to get away with but it’s two taxes they can increase year in year out! Lovely jubbly.
Just a shame they still refuse to look at the root cause: the BBC’s terrible content.
Yeah, Line Of Duty, Peaky Blinders, David Attenborough, the archive of Comedy and Drama, it’s all so terrible despite winning so many awards over the year and having the most popular watched programmes running into millions of viewers. There are literally hundreds of shows I could mention. Is the organisation perfect with previous management, no. That’s a managament issue, hopefully it might get resolved with new manageemnt under Matt Brittin, the new DG. The governement also intend a John Lewis style membership where the public sit on a board to hold the DG/BBC board to account.
We get it, you don’t like paying for anything, and don’t realise you pay in your branded goods for advertising for commerical operators. I don’t tell me more tosh that you’ve never bought any branded products ever. Just admit you are a skin flint than run down any organisation that has and still produces good work, or that you politically are ultra right wing and can’t bear the thought of anyone else not aligning with your beliefs.
If these shows are so excellent, they should be able to be a commercial success and stand on their own two feet, and not need taxpayer subsidy.
At the very least, if the production of them is taxpayer funded, the taxpayer should own them – I am sure the BBC will direct all money from international sales of these programs to the exchequer?
All the programmes you listed are years old. Coincidentally Line of Duty is the last BBC programme I watched but that ended in 2021 over 5 years ago now! Before that Night Manager (10 years ago) and Top Gear (11 yeas ago) until they were finally given a reason to sack the trio that made it good (something they had been itching to do for years). “Archive of comedy and drama” — yeah ARCHIVE the BBC have loads of good content from the 80s and 90s but since 2000 they have been increasingly few and far between. Some of my favourite programmes were made by the BBC like Red Dwarf or classic Doctor Who but the BBC of old is not the BBC of today.
Today they don’t want to make new content for me and that is fine but in turn don’t ask me to pay for it. Millions of people are turning off for the same reason. If the BBC make content for you that’s fine. Pay for it. Stop forcing others to subsidise it for you. Bit of a cheek for you to accuse me of not wanting to pay for anything while trying to freeload off others yourself!
As for politics not remotely “right-wing”. I checked out of BBC political programming in 2016 when it became clear it was institutionally pro-Brexit. Used to listen to Wake up to Money on 5 Live every day until one of the presenters started regularly spouting pro-Brexit nonsense unchallenged. As for today I do scan the BBC news website headlines most days (which is probably how they get to their deceptive 94% reach figure) but if it disappeared or carried ads nothing would materially change. There’s nothing on there that isn’t also on other news sites like Sky News. The articles I do read e.g. coverage of the Online Safety Act just follow the government line and never mention the serious privacy implications or highly effective alternatives to current government policy. To be fair neither does most of the media but if the BBC were anything special it would. Their claims to impartiality and objectivity are a ridiculous conceit. At least commercial news entities like The Guardian or The Telegraph are honest about their editorial partiality.
They do, its called tax that BBC Sudios pay. Check it out sometime.
And they already have commercial channels feeding money back into Public Service.
Line Of Duty is back soon, so is Peaky Blinders, there are many other productions too that keep winning BAFTAS. I dont want American dross as my TV programmes, thank you.
You don’t want to pay for it, we get that. You don’t need to make stuff up to support your agenda.
It’s highly amusing that if the BBC were to go, the people on here would be crying about another British thing gone under their patriotic views. Separate news and political beliefs from entertainment and drama side. Similar with ITV, news is Public Service and makes no money and is separate from the other production division.
Some of the posters on here are probably Russian bots trying to spread disinformation and divide opinion too like on all internet forums.
The only part of the BBC worth preserving is the BBC Archive.
The rest of it can go.
It’s inconceivable to you that millions find no value in the BBC and anybody who says so must be Russian bots. Everything in my post is the truth. Now, neither you nor the BBC believe that, you are convinced the BBC is all things to all people and all the people not paying the licence fee are secretly just freeloaders. It doesn’t really matter what you believe, you can blindly follow the faith if you like, but the BBC’s refusal to acknowledge it’s growing irrelevance is self-inflicted is why it is in the mess it is in and it’s only going to get worse unless it actually starts producing content the people who are turning off want to watch. Simple as that. Ever more aggressive coercion to subscribe might get them more money in the short-term but it won’t secure their long-term future and may well bring about their end.
john_r, There you go again “It’s inconceivable to you that millions find no value in the BBC”
Evidence of “millions” in this country please. Or just another word salad spewing from your mouth to support your own agenda. Millions pay, and millions consume BBC content every day of the week. That’s a fact, but don’t let that spoil your day.
What more evidence do you need? 3.7 million households don’t need and don’t pay for a licence increasing by hundreds of thousands annually! That is why the BBC is so keen on new ways to extort money from people. And btw I am not among the 3.7 million because I’m forced to pay the BBC in order to watch Sky Sports without being branded a criminal! Ridiculous situation. I’m sure without commercial sports channels the BBC would be even more desperate. Anyway I’ll leave you to your sycophancy.
More people are consuming BBC services than pay, that IS a fact. The BBC has over 94% reach per week but only 80% pay for it. That means freeloaders are lying about use. The BBC doesn’t brand people “criminals” as you incorrectly put it. It is the legal system based on evidence presented that does against laws made by government, not the BBC. These are basic facts, nothing to do with you attempted use of labelling as “sycophant”. Under previous DGs Tony Hall and Tim Davie, there were many things I did not like that inflicted damage, but I don’t want my TV full of American garbage with American agendas. The BBC (and ITV/C4) make British content, and the BBC being there uppholds others doing it.
The government itself has indicated it wants to replace the licence fee with a more efficient and effective payment model. Thisgovernment’s inclination appears to be for an extra levy on council taxes because this means the levy can also be varied according to property value. Existing council tax enforcement processes are also more effective than the BBC trying to police the use of TV sets.
@FANNY ADAMS:
“The BBC has over 94% reach per week but only 80% pay for it.”
We only have the BBC’s word for those figures and the claims about the number of listeners of BBC Radio.
> We only have the BBC’s word for those figures and the claims about the number of listeners of BBC Radio.
True and also that 94% includes their web site. Tellingly that number falls to 64% for 16 to 34 year olds showing the BBC’s growing irrelevance. If you look at TV and iPlayer numbers in isolation, which is what you actually need a licence for, it’s more like 60% are watching the BBC on a monthly basis.
You can’t directly compare with number of licensed households as number of people and number of households are not the same thing. However, it’s quite clearly highly deceptive to say that 94% of people use the BBC in so form but only 80% of households pay the licence fee and therefore people are not paying the BBC when they should. But what do you expect from the BBC.
I actually don’t hate the idea. I pay for my TV license because I value the BBC but I don’t really watch any Live TV (Streamed or otherwise), it’s getting harder for me to justify it.
Paying less overall seems like a winner to me. They just need to open up iplayer a bit, the entire BBC back catalogue should be available.
I, like many other people, do not watch any TV at all. I am indifferent to the chosen payment mechanism so long as provision is made so that I can opt out of making the payment.
The “Broadband Tax” mechanism has its merits, given that the ISP will no doubt be required to track your internet usage as part of the legislation. This mechanism will, however, likely be less effective and will not generate the level of revenues the BBC is seeking. The levy would not stay at GBP 11.00 for long.
Nandy and the Labour Government appear, however, to favour a Council Tax levy because the payment and enforcement mechanisms are already in place. This mechanism would also allow for the variance of the levy based on factors such as the valuation of the property and the level of household income – mechanisms that are already in place for Council Tax payments.
Well, this made me angry enough to actually write to my MP about it, just so they get a prod about which way the wind might be blowing on the topic.
It’s outrageous, if BBC cannot stand should close. Why we need to pay for it.
This is outrageous. People who don’t watch live TV and don’t currently have a TV licence will be forced to pay an extra £132 a year for a service they don’t watch or use, and can’t get out of because it’s a mandatory tax on their internet, which is now an essential utility.
This is not acceptable.
Is the government considering it or is this just from another one of the useless Think tanks that seems to be in this country?
The government said they don’t want to put extra costs onto people at the moment as things are ands this would certainly put extra costs on people
If they did do it, the I would drop my house broadband as soon as I could and go mobile.
while I would not put anything past our government, no matter who is in power, I would be surprised if it happens.
Even if they went for the idea, it would have to go though parliament and then no doubt the house of useless unelected lords, then back to parliament and by that time it will be election time.
Labour also need to be careful because if they did decide to do that, it could cost them votes, in fact it would cost them votes.
This is a Think Tank report; it is not a government proposal. It does, however, reflect the views of some who are involved in looking at the options within the current review and it will be used by them to support the arguments they are presenting.
Simplest solution would be to encryption. Then nobody can watch without paying up.
This would also make the BBC actually have to spend a decent chunk of what’s collected on making programs worth watching instead of loads of repeats being rolled out and most of the current licence fee money going to a few fat cat bosses at the top that do nothing other than keeping royal mail in business sending out threatening letters to elderly pensioners that struggle financially with the government imposed cost of living crises.
So premises with 2 lines have to pay a licence fee they don’t use twice? Businesses don’t (which any sane landlord is)?
How many ISP ‘s would implement this nonsense?
So glad I’ve left the country.
We’re all glad you’ve left too.
This fricking lunacy people already paying significant amount for TV licenses Why does BBC need more money if anything just privatise The BBC make It option don’t force Your citizens into something they already hate by adding most costs to useless product No one but old generation watches TV nowadays anyhow why are yoi forcing awful product on your citizens So much our politicians
“No one but old generation watches TV nowadays anyhow why are yoi forcing awful product on your citizens”
What a load of tosh. Another spouted claim with no evidence. The young may be lured into YouTube and TikTok with mindless garbage instead of TV intially. They then get into their 20’s/30’s and watch TV. If they didn’t, there would be no market to make and sell TVs! Who do you define as “old”? There are probably millions of people who watch satellite for overseas TV or international IPTV rather than British TV though and these skew the figures because they are likely to never watch any native channel, because it doesn’t match culturally what the family is or the language matches older people in that family who’s native tongue isn’t English.
Is there petition against this if not someone create one this needs to be heard
Andy BurnTheCountryDownHam
Comment thread on this is going to be fun
I’ll start the class off. Imagine paying £29 a month today and it goes to £40. Lovely 38% increase on a service we’re told is now essential for everyday life
I do not imagine it is a serious option on the table, simply a thought
We are told it’s an essential service yet it still attracts the full 20% VAT. Adding additional taxes to pay for the BBC is absolutely ludicrous.
Most people forget, but still listen to BBC radio, also funded by the TV licence…
Only because it is there and then it is only for a couple of things, Just a minute and I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue, that is it, certainly not worth £11 a month to listen to.
I would not mind paying maybe £3 a month, but that is it. There are more interesting things on Radio 4 than on BBC TV, but I just don’t get around to listening to them.
BBC news site, again it is there, if they blocked non-license payers, it would not bother me. If they are that bothered they could do that and BBC sounds.
Most of my radio listening these days is Boom radio.
If this did happen, my guess would be those who do not pay a fee will likely leave (if possible) their fixed line connections and shift to 5G home BB where possible.
Obviously this is not possible all the time but it would hasten the trend of leaving fixed line BB for a cost saving.
I doubt checks would be put in place to ensure if also have a paid up fixed line connection if your SIM only contract has an unlimited data plan. That’s a lot of inter-organisational data-sharing.
The fact is the younger generations do not value the BBC, media has moved away from the 1920’s licence model the BBC is so desperate to retain so they can line their pockets.
The BBC has demonstrated time and time again it cannot be responsible with public money, it’s had its fair share of less than desirable presenters.
A commercial model is the way it should go.
i know a few younger people and they don’t bother with the TV licence and even some older people.
I never thought I would be one of them, but when F1 went over to Sky, I started to look at what I watched on TV and how much I used it and decided the amount I paid for the licence was not worth it, so gave it up, I did have a licence again for 12 months when I was having medication and could not do much. Then I got rid of it again and never bothered since.
There is so much available now to watch, even without subscription I could find something. I subscribe to ITVX and prime and even with Prime I am thinking of scrapping it. I don’t order as much as i used to from Amazon and I don’t watch video as much.
I would use the Kindle books, but I have a kobo, not a kindle.
It’s not all about the BBC, it’s a licence that is not currently policed to either watch live TV or the dreaded iPlayer for some, that the government are trying to clamp down on.
If people are hating this idea and they don’t like BBC content just do a post code check instead to see if you have a licence before your enter it.
If they don’t like BBC content and hate it so much they won’t miss it.
As a licence payer a charge onto my broadband would just mean I switch broadband to a cheaper alternative.
I agree with the BBC being a public service, albeit less and less important. It used to be important source of news, but since everyone has some sort of internet connection, there are many other ways to get the news and entertainment, so their importance decreased significantly.
I think BBC needs to be funded via general taxation. If they want to make it mandatory for every household, then add it to council tax.
Or even better, make BBC a subscription service like HBO used to be. We would immediately see how many people actually cares about it. If their output is as important as they claim it to be, they should have no problem sustaining their funding via this model.
I strongly oppose the idea of forcing private companies to work as HMRC. (I also don’t think implementing social tariffs is a job for ISPs.)
Wait until you hear how VAT is administered.
It would be simpler just to raise the rate of VAT on broadband/phone, mobile incl. PAYG, Streaming subscriptions, and maybe physical media sales. Maybe even hyperscaler subscriptions/AI subscriptions (VAT registered businesses would recover these as Input VAT, so it would effectively charge end consumer.) The main loophole would be mobile phones roaming from abroad but I suspect that’s not a cost effective loophole to exploit.
With the existence of low cost mobile contracts and social tariffs, this has the benefit of being naturally somewhat means tested.
If this wouldn’t quite cover the license fee, then BBC can reduce scope of services (fewer TV channels, exit local radio, making sure that 2 main TV channels are kept, national radio is kept, News Channel is kept, Parliament/LDRS/Together channel/World Service funded from separate budget)
I don’t think this would translate well – I pay for 2 broadband services at home and starlink at my caravan, not to mention 4 mobile sim’s. if they increase the vat to say 25% this would work out an extra £18/month for me as a household – and we don’t even watch live TV. but the average person with a single broadband and 2 mobile services who does watch TV the increase would only be £10. This wouldnt be fair. just because I need broadband in two locations doesn’t mean I should pay extra to fund the shady bbc for other people.
I did say means tested, and I think you have neatly demonstrated this. Yes you would pay more than most.
That is assuming one accepts the concept that at least some of what BBC does is a public service in aid of democratic scrutiny and social cohesion, and therefore should be paid for by a wide base of the public.
There is no widespread charging mechanism that is perfectly equitable in terms of funding public services in a broad based way, ideally also cheap to collect and difficult to avoid.
Logically, people who don’t pay the license fee should not be allowed to access BBC website or listen to BBC Radio, to be completely equitable (and yes I know it is a TV license fee but it does fund website and radio and streaming). So some people get a “free ride” (legally) in terms of access to some BBC services.
Any change to how the service is charged for will charge some people more than previously and maybe some people will be charged less.
And absolutely reasonable to discuss how much people will be charged
Absolutely disgusting
In a time when the cost of living is at the highest it’s ever been these nonsense nothink nothanks decide to pile on additional 130 quid on households and pretend it’s a good idea
In an industry which has been plagued by mass layoffs, the vast majority have undergone mass layoffs and redundancies over the past 2 years. I’ve seen many great people getting the boot because of high interest rates and higher payroll taxes and other costs. Tacking additional 11 quid on top of the bill which averages 30 quid per month means even fewer people will take services which means many companies will have to cut back on maintenance and customer support
Not to mention an insane shot in the foot as many of these companies built huge portions of network using government funding which will now tend towards going unused because people will just move to Starlink and mobile alternatives (5g routers now work fine)
It is because of the cost of living that I think the government will not go for this. When it was put about adding it to streaming services, the government said no because of the cost of living issues. Adding it to broadband will be the same thing and also since the government want people to have broadband and be online, they will not want to do anything to make it more expensive for people. I would think not, but you never know with the government.
The BBc need to stand on it’s own feet and not rely on charity, which in my opinion is what the licence is.
The worst part about the TV licence is the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ model it provides. We (as a business) have just obtained an address for a field we own. Shortly after, we had a letter from TV Licencing at this address saying we were under investigation for not having a TV licence. Crack on – there’s not even electricity at the site, let alone a TV. It’s insane how much they must spend on this model.
Ah but you’re be watching internet TV on a laptop tethered to your phone.
I hate BBC lies so much I don’t even read an article from the BBC website. Stopped listening any BBC radio stations and didn’t watch BBC TV for more than 15 years.
I would rather cancel my broadband than pay BBC a single penny.
While I would rather a subscription model was introduced, this proposal has some merit. For most honest households it’s a potential saving of £48 or £21.60 per year (depending on if the government add VAT to the envisaged £11 per month or not). Welcome during cost of living crisis.
I do hope the government resist the temptation to add VAT to the £132. The current TV license is not subject to VAT. But ALL governments struggle to resist such temptations…
Abolish the BBC, bring in adverts… the content they offer is awful…
i spend 90% on Netflix and the rest of viewing time on various catch up services, cant remember last time i watch a BBC
When are people going yo open thier eyes the bbc are no longer needed anything you need to find out including the news can be accesed via the internet. You would be surprised by how meany older generation use the internet and yes i do realise that there are a small percentage who do not have access to the internet and would need help in archiveing the internet surely this would be cheaper than funding the bbc. Come on open your eyes and stop all this messing about with funding for the bbc
The BBC’s issue is that fewer and fewer people are watching it’s content, they need to cut back and bill for their channels like others , instead of trying to force everyone to pay or force their content on YouTube etc…
I don’t mind a levy of some sort, providing it is at a decent level (I think £11/month is too high for example), but I would only happily pay it if my broadband was a decent speed.
Currently, where I live, which is not too distant from a major town in England, we can only get up to 67Mb/s speed a d generally get a lot slower. We have no fibre broadband (yet) a d I would be unhappy paying the same level of levy as those who enjoy, almost lavish in the broadband choices they have.
For the record, I live about 3 miles away from a large town in Surrey where power is fed from overhead lines and we have no street lamps! And slow broadband!
Let the BBC die. Even boomers like me no longer bother with it.
They’re desperate for us to pay for propaganda. All I’m hearing is levi “Attenborough” the famous eugenecist that wants to save the planet but not humanity, the famous Esther “Was dying and now is not” that pushes depopulation and eastenders that scripted a deadly jab. They want me to pay for this? I’ll go pay as you go mobile and turn everything else off!!! Or use a library…..
As well as administration involved in collecting/reconciling/paying over the levy, there will also be a burden on reporting non-payers, or would this be paid over regardless and this falls into the ISP bad debt processes and they have to carry the can? While this is put forward as an idea, it seems there are operational aspects to this that are not thought through or considered at this stage.
Just do commercials and cut the licence fee out … win win
If they are unable to fund themselfs through there curent means, then they should cease to exist, not force costs on to people who genuinely dont use or need to pay for a licence. Just scummy most ways you look at it.
I for one would be cancelling my Internet. I don’t believe the isp providers would allow this due to possibly many people giving Internet a miss. Next thing will be a levy on mobile Internet to help BBC.the BBC is an absolute disgrace to this country.its full of perverts and child molester. Kill the BBC once and for all.
End the BBC. It is collapsing because they hate their own viewers and their own country
It is not fair for any independent outlet to compete with government forcing poor people to funding the BBC. Especially when they literally have private chats on what else can be taxed more. It is pure evil
Even out the playing field and let awful business models fail
Gary, what would you like? Foreign state (American) Broadcasters peddling agendas then?
Its collapsig? Viewing figures aren’t compared to anyone else. The only thing collapsing is revenue which then gives a hit to what you can mae as programmes when streamers are currently throwing money around (but now realising binge watching isn’t bringing in the money). Revenue is collapsing because too many freeloaders in this country want something for nothing.
Why must the only option be state broadcasters?
There is this beautiful thing called the free market. Turns out many things are actually free to watch and some ads is all it takes to make them viable. Many have subscriptions
There is zero reason why people must be compelled to fund sexual predators at the bbc
And here come the uneducated with their bizarre claims. So everyone at the BBC is “sexual predators” – according to you? Care to put your name and address to it for legal purposes seeing as you just labelled 20,000 staff?. That’s ridiculous statement to make of any company and their employees.Sexual predators can exist anywhere in any job, regardless of rank, or unemployed. Fact.
I watch content from multiple media sources and pay absolutely nothing for it. It’s all just floating in the ether. All you have to do is catch it with the correct bait…
The freaks who pay for it need lobotomizing.
Yes, lets all take stuff and not pay for it. Such a great idea. Why buy in a shop when you can just thieve waht you want using your analogy? I bet if you were offering skils or a product and didn’t get paid for it, you would be the first to spout off and cry.
At least you admit you are a freeloader. Just bizarre that you think others who pay are “freaks” – yet those people support jobs and taxes for society.
@FANNY ADAMS:
These business models do not charge the end user. fee, however they obtain their funding via alternative means. The consumers are certainly not “thieves” or”freeloaders”.
For less than £11/mo I can get a very usable amount of data through 5G, and potentially hot-spot my phone to laptop or whatever. Would this be subject to the same £11/mo levy?
I am emailing my MP to say BIG NO to this plan by Culture Secretary, Lisa Nandy (BIG NO NO NO!!!)
I urgent all of you to email your own MP to voted it down!
she have not agreed to it, there is no plan at the moment, this is something put forward by a Think tank, what you are seeing is click bait, including the title on this article.
The think Tank have put the idea to the government, nothing have been decided yet, but they need to get a move on if they want it done by the next election.
so basically, a tax through the back door.. l dont watch tv or the bbc and yet they come in through the back door to still tax me on something l dont even watch?
That’s ok. I’ll turn off the broadband, streaming subscriptions and work from the office. So I gain reduced water, electricity and gas bills. Then in the evening find my old DVD player watch an uninterrupted film or go to the cinema. Bring it on…
Regardless of the issue of whether public broadcasting is funded by some method, it seems to me that the extra monies that might be extracted from ALL BB/Mob/Satellite providers might be seen in the same light as fuel duty, drink and fag duty. We may moan about that but we grin and bear it anyway. The duty could also be collected in the same manner as fuel/drink/fags from commercial companies too.
Damn, my popcorn bag is empty!
Tax the rich 1% more and that will pay for it.
After taking a quick look through the report, there are a number of progressive recommendations being made in it, but the general direction around a funding model would appear to come out in favour of an additional levy being placed on Council Tax bills. This is the direction which Nandy has been indicating she is least resistant to in the regular updates on the discussions about future funding of the BBC.
Correction: The report authors express a preference for the “Broadband Tax” mechanism. However, the report seems to be constructed to favour this outcome. The report suggests that the “Council Tax Levy” is less coherent than the “Broadband Tax”, but in reality, they both rate about the same in this area.
The problem with this approach is that folk in good 5G areas will move to 5G internet products.
To make this internet levy (tax) work would need mobile phone data to be taxed somehow as well.
Of course those who don’t watch ITV/STV will still be stumping up for those channels via higher prices in the shops to pay for the advertisements.
A council tax levy has all the disadvantages/unfairness of the council tax including collection issues.
Many people are switching to cheaper unlimited SIM plans with no price increases, like those from ID Mobile and SMARTY that offer unlimited data. Soon, the government might start taxing mobile internet services, and who would want to pay for broadband like Virgin at £30 plus an £11 internet add-on, totaling £41? plus price increase in April each year £4 no thanks