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.'"

everyone pays

[wizardforce (1005805)]

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

Re:

[k33l0r (808028)]

As you do for many other things. Hospitals, ambulances, crime investigation, roads, schools, universities, the police, the military etc.

Re:

[LingNoi (1066278)]

I didn't realise that funding your entertainment was my important social responsibility..

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

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:

[rossz (67331)]

The BBC and other public broadcasting services must be sustained

Why? The BBC is not a neutral entity. They are extremely one-sided politically. This is not a problem when it is commercial t.v. When you are forced to pay for it, however, this is completely wrong. I say convert the BBC and other public stations to a commercial status, drop the t.v. tax, and let them compete with each other as they should.

Most American commercial t.v. sucks. So what? Turn it off or switch to a cable station. If your ca

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

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:

[rossz (67331)]

Fox news leans to the right, CNN (and all the other major networks) leans to the left. At least there's a choice. I don't watch either of them.

And you are mistaken to think I live in the U.K. I've traveled extensively in Europe and have been to the UK (London, what a shit-hole!). Here in the states, every now and then I turn on "BBC America". If they only show their best shows on this station, then UK t.v. is worse than I originally remember.

Re:everyone pays

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

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.

I have to agree.

[jd (1658)]

I defected to the US eleven years ago, from the UK, so never saw many of the later channels, but I don't bother watching much TV in the States any more. The quality of BBC programming, in my opinion, is (by and large) superior to any US broadcaster. Not just television, either - I'd take BBC's radio services over Clear Channel's any day.

My one gripe is that broadband is not truly comparable to broadcasting unless the ISPs enable multicasting to the home. Point-to-point streaming is so harsh on bandwidth t

Re:everyone pays

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

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 (11698)]

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.

Ofcom

[RalphSleigh (899929)]

So ISPs have to help fund the regulator that regulates them. Kinda makes sense I guess.

Right...

[Colin Smith (2679)]

TV executives claim they don't have enough money so the government simply tax another section of the economy to give more to them?

 

Re:Right...

[pavon (30274)]

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.

Re:

[radio4fan (304271)]

Fear not. It'll never happen.

One of the largest ISPs in Britain is Sky, owned by Rupert Murdoch.

Murdoch is pretty much the most powerful man in Britain. The government daren't piss off Murdoch.

And Murdoch's News International pays virtually no tax in the UK, and I doubt he's about to start.

Ofcom can say what they like, but HMG aren't going to be setting aside time to pass legislation which will hit Murdoch in the pocket.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

lol. Sky are not one of the largest ISPs.. they're relatively small in fact.

BT are by far the dominant player having (last time I checked) around 60% of the broadband accounts in the country.

Re:

[digitig (1056110)]

they do have large pay checks and bonuses. regardless of the statement being incorrect the links are an interesting read. i have noticed many top stories missed by the bbc including anti war demo's the destruction of our civil rights.

Odd, as I've noticed all of that stuff being reported in depth. Er, you are listening to the serious news coverage on Radio 4, aren't you, not the bubblegum on the 6 O'Clock news?

what the bbc are good at is the scaremongering of paedophiles, terrorists and pirates, just to make sure we will all give up our rights to protect our children.

That seems to be more down to the press -- and the BBC generally points out when they're doing it.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/04/396197.html [indymedia.org.uk]

Hardly the epitome of balanced and fair reporting.

Totally ridiculous

[gilesjuk (604902)]

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.

Re:

[Jimmy_B (129296)]

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.

This isn't obvious at all. Network equipment keeps getting faster and cheaper, and the only thing an ISP needs to provide more bandwidth is more and faster routers. ISPs like to pretend that your using ten times as much bandwidth costs them ten times as much, but it doesn't; it just means they have to upgrade a little sooner.

Re:

[jmpeax (936370)]

Both you and the GP are correct - the point being that once a customer has paid for their bandwidth, there should be no question of extra remuneration for the ISPs unless individuals start exceeding the bandwidth usage they've paid for.

I suppose the case the ISPs (particularly the budget ones) are making is that services like the iPlayer are causing a large proportion of their consumers to exceed their bandwidth limits. Now, it would be impractical, the ISPs argue, to go after the individual customers (man

Taxes

[evanbd (210358)]

Why is this a tax on Internet access, rather than being drawn from the general fund? Net access is something that is good for people to have, so putting a tax on it is a bad thing, especially since it's a regressive tax (people with lower income will spend proportionally more of their income on net access, so proportionally more of their income goes to the tax).

Taxes on specific things, rather than broad taxes that go to the general fund, should be for one of two reasons. Either the tax should be intended to discourage something (whether that's an ethical reason I'll leave to others, but if society making such judgements is reasonable then the tax is reasonable), or the tax should be intended to internalize an internal cost. So taxes on carbon emissions and other polluting activities make sense (though imho tradable permits are better), because there is a normally external cost paid by society that should be shifted to the ones creating the problem. Internet access is neither of those things -- and public content is most certainly not an external cost.

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

They want to put a tax, because with iPlayer, you could not have a TV, and not pay the TV tax, and still watch almost everything on the BBC. Which is what the TV tax goes towards. I think a much better solution would be, either, pay the TV tax, or if you don't already pay the TV tax, and you want to use iPlayer, then you should have to pay the TV tax. No need to charge everyone with an internet connection. Just charge everyone who wants to use iPlayer.

Re:

[evanbd (210358)]

The TV tax is also a silly silly idea, if you assume TV ownership is a good thing (whether that's the case is a different question). And since nearly everyone pays it anyway, it ends up being equivalent to a regressive general tax -- which means it would be better all around to simply take the money from the general fund and increase the general tax rate accordingly.

Re:

[damburger (981828)]

Agreed. The Beeb, whilst not always repeating government propaganda, is nevertheless a mouthpiece of the status quo, and should be paid for more by those who benefit from that situation. All of these issues of enforcement vanish if you simply add it on to the income tax.

Re:

[jmpeax (936370)]

That doesn't apply to PCs used to watch iPlayer. You have to be using the PC to watch television in real time ("to watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV"), for example using a TV card in your PC, to qualify for the tax.

In fact I think the whole iPlayer is just an excuse to make sure the BBC is on the net so there is no getting around paying for a licence.

This is obviously not the case, hence why this issue of broadband tax is coming up. I'm a bit confused as to how you could think this anyway - don't you think having the BBC's content online is a good thing?

Re:

[jmpeax (936370)]

No. From the article you linked to:

The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device to receive TV signals, must buy a licence.

The iPlayer does not count as a TV signal any way you spin it.
And again, from the article you linked to:

You only need a licence if you use your computer to watch programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV.

I don't see how you can be so confused over this, it's quite clear.

Re:

[digitig (1056110)]

The article points out that if you watch something that appears on the TV, whether or not it's through a TV card then you need a licence.

iPlayer != TV card.

Now is the time...

[rizole (666389)]

...for...looking carefully and dispassionately at all the options.

I'm not sure /. is quite the forum for achieving that particular aim.

Pre-emptive strike

[by Anonymous Coward]

Given that UK ISPs have been claiming that the BBC should pay for the ISPs' users accessing BBC media online, does anyone else think this is just a ploy to get the ISPs on the back foot? Maybe the BBC hopes that the ISPs would be willing to settle for some kind of arrangement along the lines of "ISPs don't get taxed to fund the BBC so long as they don't throttle BBC services for their users".

I really don't know where I stand on this. On one hand, the ISPs have been massively overselling their capacity, and

I think you mean

[gogodidi (885953)]

UK ISP customers could face government broadband TV tax

Re:

[mikael (484)]

And ISP customers may just react by cancelling their premmium rate services. A good 44,000 people cancelled their cable TV service after Virgin Media (Richard Branson) got into spat with Sky (Rupert Murdoch) over the distribution rights of Sky One and Sky News. Virgin Media are now in the situation where they are now increasing telephone and service charges on a monthly basis.

Are we taxing the right group?

[kandresen (712861)]

I believe the question should first be what defines a broadcast. Regular internet activity is not what I believe is broadcast as shows seen through such as Youtube are not synchronized and downloaded independently on a user basis. The next question is when, lets say, BBC actually offers a Internet broadcast where you indeed simply join the stream at any point, not seeing what was delivered prior to that point. It is broadcast, but who is the Broadcaster? Is it correct to tax the ISP for this? In this case,

Getting the wrong Idea

[abigsmurf (919188)]

This is going to be a replacement for the TV licence. This isn't going to be an additional tax and won't penalise people for having broadband. A Broadband fee (for the general public) rather than TV licence has been considered for a while now.

It also doesn't specifically say anywhere that ISPs are being singled out, it's pure speculation and fear mongering there. ISPs could even benefit, getting licence fee to ensure that they deliver online TV. It wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to financially pena

Re:

[IndustrialComplex (975015)]

What about people who didn't have a TV license? This will be a new tax for them.

When I decided that I didn't want to pay extra for cable, I canceled the service. That doesn't mean that the cable companies get to apply a fee on my Netflix subscription.

Re:

[abigsmurf (919188)]

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 as does viewing BBC Video clips (either through iPlayer, bbc.co.uk or youtube).

Re:Getting the wrong Idea

[digitig (1056110)]

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.

Re:

[mikael (484)]

They are doing away with analog broadcasts. That leaves digital TV by terrestial broadcast, satellite dish, or cable. If anything, the BBC should be able to switch to a subscription based service.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

... and lose 90% of its revenue thereby having to charge as much or more as Sky (which works out at something like £1000 a year - 10* the BBC cost) and depriving those without that much money of the BBC entirely. Worse, it could start taking advertising and become something like the scumheap that is ITV.

UK TV Tax is Unsupportable

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

The UK taxes people per TV, supposedly to direct those taxes into the government production (BBC) and oversight (regulation) of TV broadcasts. The idea was supposedly that people who didn't have a TV wouldn't have to pay to support the government's work producing and overseeing TV.

But the benefit of that government work doesn't come only through the TV. TV is now, generations after introducing the tax, as integrated a societal activity, whether government produced or not, as any other largescale activity. I

Wrong

[RotateLeftByte (797477)]

"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.

Distinction Without Difference

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

OK, the tax is per premises. Does that make one iota of difference to the point I made?

"Tax": technically correct, practically misleading

[itsdapead (734413)]

The UK taxes people per TV, supposedly to direct those taxes into the government production (BBC) and oversight (regulation) of TV broadcasts

There is no "supposedly" about it. Yes, the license fee is a charge imposed by the state, so its technically justifiable to call it a "tax". However, it is completely distinct from "general taxation" - like the "road tax" or tax on cigarettes which go into the general coffers with no obligation for the government to use the money for transport or healthcare. The license fee is collected independently and is actually used to fund the BBC [bbc.co.uk].

Likewise - yes, the BBC is a state institution. However, in the B

Re:"Tax": technically correct, practically mislead

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

I don't see how you disagree with anything that I said. I didn't say it's not funding the BBC.

Yeah right...

[radio4fan (304271)]

Ofcom has no power to set taxes.

They are unelected, so have no need to please voters.

Their aims and views are at odds with government: empire-building vs not-getting-voted-out.

If HM Gubmint puts a levy on internet access on the say-so of Ofcom, I'm a banana.

Re:

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

They *are* tasked with examining the options regarding funding from time to time though.

The BBC Charter was only settled last year. The next charter review is 2012 - at which time the landscape regarding ISPs, broadband, etc. will be totally different (we should be mostly if not totally digital by then for example). The incumbent government of the time will then make the final decision, present it to the queen (it being a royal charter) and carry on as usual.

Part of the license fee going towards broadband

Maddness!

[SplatMan_DK (1035528)]

Sadly, this madness is already in effect in Denmark. I launched a website with a petition [stopcomputerlicens.dk] to stop this ludicrous practice in Denmark about 1½ year ago (note: site is in Danish!)

We have collected more than 41.000 "signatures" in opposition of applying TV license fees to the internet and/or devices which have absolutely nothing to do with television.

I have written a quick background summary in English [stopcomputerlicens.dk] on my website. The rest of the site is in Danish ... sorry :-)

So unfortunately, the British are not the first to go down this sad path.

- Jesper

Hands up all who think TV over IP is a good idea..

[Joce640k (829181)]

Does anybody really think TV-on-demand over IP can ever work?

It's concentrated stupidity in its very purest form. One tiny drop of this is enough to lower the collective IQ of an entire nation.

Re:

[turgid (580780)]

They're too busy watching TV to care.

Re:

[Don_dumb (927108)]

I really want to mod this +1 funny but I know I shouldn't

The comedy of the situation

[DigitAl56K (805623)]

* Most nations look up to the quality of the BBC, even though it's hotly debated inside the UK
* People are complaining that they are more busy these days than ever
* We complaining that our education system is failing us and our children are growing up to be louts
* We keep hearing stories of kids being parented to greater and greater extents by TV
* We want to see the top public broadcasters cutting costs and funding to put a few more pennies back into our pockets

Good move everybody, good move.