I am not a
supporter of the "TV licence". For starters, and the reason I've placed
it in quotes, is that it isn't a TV licence at all. It is a legally
enforced BBC subscription fee. 100% of the revenue from the "Licence
fee" goes to the BBC. Why do I have a problem with this?
Many people call the fee a tax. It is not a tax. Taxes go to governments. Not a single penny of this fee goes to the government. As such, what is actually happening is the government are forcing the citizens of the UK to pay an independent company a subscription fee. How can this be legal? How can this be right and fair?
If they told you that you MUST also pay the ITV a subscription fee as of tomorrow, would you be happy with this?
Ahh but the BBC doesn't have adverts and therefore I'm more than happy to pay the fee, it's worth it for that alone...is what a lot of people I speak to say in response to my not being supportive of the licence fee. I actually agree that not having adverts is nice. Although I don't agree that the cost of the licence is actually worth it (we're talking £12 per month here. You can get freeview for nothing and various other offerings such as Netflix and NowTV for less, as well as basic cable for near this amount. Still think this is good value?). I digress, as my issue isn't with whether it's good value or not, it's with whether we should be legally forced to pay it. I strongly believe the answer to this is no.
The way I see it people pay it because they have always paid it. They don't consider who the payments go to or whether they think it's good value for money. How many people would honestly pay it if it didn't currently exist and the BBC came to you and said 'for £12 per month we'll remove all our advertising'? I don't think many people would see that as enough benefit for the cost, especially with the multitude of devices out there that record your favourite shows and allow you to fast forward through adverts.
Think of it this way - you go into a mobile phone shop and you buy a new phone. The sales assistant says "Here you go, now which service provider would you like?" You say, "Vodafone". "No problem", says the assistant. "Oh, you'll also have to subscribe to EE, as the government says you must by law". You're a logical person, right? You're thinking, but Vodafone gives me all I need, I don't want to be forced to subscribe to EE just because I own a phone...and yet, you do this without question with the BBC subscription fee.
Another way to think of this is in relation to car ownership. There are many car manufacturers, just as there are many TV manufacturers. There are several fuel suppliers (Texaco, Shell, Supermarkets etc), just as there are several TV carriers (Sky, BT, ITV, Virgin etc). You buy a new car (a Ford maybe) and the garage says you can buy your petrol from any garage (just like you can get your TV provided by any carrier). Next they tell you that you must pay Shell £12 per month, as the government have made it law. You must do this whether or not you use Shell fuel. The fact is you have a vehicle that is capable of using Shell fuel and therefore you must pay.
Happy with this idea? An independent company receiving £12 per month whether or not they offer the best fuel? Or indeed if you ever even use it. Your right to choose has been taken from you.
If the government tried to introduce either of the above suggestions tomorrow there would be outcry, and yet for the BBC the majority of UK citizens are willing to accept it without challenge.
The fact is, if this was actually a TV licence the revenue would be a tax, it would go to the government and it would be spent on things all carriers and TV owners would benefit from, such as new infrastructure and technologies to allow for better services and programmes. As it is the revenue just lines the pockets of the BBC fat cats and, dare I say it, someone in government that blindly continues to renew the BBC charter.
The BBC will tell the public they're getting a great deal, that you don't get this quality from anyone else in the world. Well, BBC, put your money where your mouth is. If you're so confident that the British public think the fee is great value for money and would pay it regardless of whether the law is behind you then make it a choice. I, for one, would love to see the result of that move...
I welcome comments below from any readers that have found this viewpoint interesting, either because you agree, or maybe because I've opened your eyes to a new way of viewing the fee, or because you outright disagree with me. The only thing I ask is that you keep any comments clean.
