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]

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

Ofcom

[RalphSleigh]

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

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pray tell, could you enlighten me how much the corporate BBC paid out in dividends to its shareholders last year?

I think you mean

[gogodidi]

UK ISP customers could face government broadband TV tax

Re:Yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure of your contribution to a better convention.

'If the BBC has funding issues they should cut costs'
- maybe this applies to everything else as well? If the NHS has funding issues they should cut costs, if the department for transport has funding issues in road building they should cut costs - isn't it rather a discussion of what the _job_ should be, and then whether the cost that is quoted is about as expected for that job, i.e. whether it's run efficiently enough?

'The other broadcasters can put away their begging bows and start making programs for the public instead of advertisers'
- so they should STOP asking the public for funding, but START making programs that advertisers will not pay for? I take it they will get an extra hour of lunch break per day, so they can first beg on the street for their daily wage to spend the next hour eating?

UK TV Tax is Unsupportable

[Doc Ruby]

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. It's as (and more) universal and impactful as, say, newspaper publishing.

The UK should stop charging TV taxes as a service fee, and just integrate the taxation into it's broadbased general taxation. That would drop the now arbitrary basis for the tax, and eliminate bottlenecks that call for even more arbitrary taxes to "fix" the problem of using the wrong basis for the tax in the first place.

Yeah right...

[radio4fan]

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:Taxes

[jmpeax]

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?

Problems

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Linux stuff available for ALL programs funded by the BBC in part? If not, then no, not paying.
2) Dialup? P2PThrottled? AUP? Congested network? Well you're not getting this stuff then, are you.

Re:Taxes

[jmpeax]

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:Totally ridiculous

[jmpeax]

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 (many of whom have no idea that they're doing anything wrong) so they want the content providers to pay instead.

What the GP is saying is that these budget ISPs are feeling the brunt of this high demand for large-bandwidth content because they are operating on profit margins that are simply too small (hence the GP claiming "broadband is too cheap").

"Tax": technically correct, practically misleading

[itsdapead]

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 British political system "state" is not synonymous with "the currently incumbent political party" - some effort is made to separate governance of the BBC from government and any party interference is Definitely Not Cricket. If you're skeptical, go look at news.bbc.co.uk and see if it looks like the Voice of El Presidente to you.

However, I suspect the issue raised in TFA is eventually going to be the end of the BBC. The arrival of media convergence makes a nonsense of only licensing "television receiving equipment", and the idea of charging ISPs is going to be highly contentious. I wouldn't mind a reasonable levy on my broadband connection if it is collected and spent in the same way as the TV license - but not if it morphs into just another tax to fund the new Crucades and bail out incompetent bankers.

PS: Is the BBC immune to political bias? No. Is the BBC 100% efficient in spending its money? Nope! Do I completely trust it? Hell, no. Do I trust it more than a big commercial broadcaster with ties to big industry and the Republican party? Er, yes.

Re:everyone pays

[k33l0r]

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

Re:Right...

[digitig]

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.

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.

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]

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:Getting the wrong Idea

[Tony Hoyle]

... 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.

Re:Yeah right...

[Tony Hoyle]

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 structure to support TV distribution has some precedent - some of it goes to the commercial TV channels already (not that they use any of it to make decent programmes, but I digress...). I believe this is what Ofcom are proposing, despite the way Slashdot have decided it's the other way around.

Basically it's a consultation document.. one of many, that will all be gathered up somewhere towards 2012, given to the politician in charge then who then has to decide what to do. Absolutely nothing is going to come of it in the short term.

Re:everyone pays

[isorox]

Why? The BBC is not a neutral entity. They are extremely one-sided politically.

I have noticed their coverage of the Olympica Torch is more Pro-China.

This is not a problem when it is commercial t.v. When you are forced to pay for it,

Who pays for ITV? Tesco, Morissons, Asda, Sainsburys, etc. etc. It's pretty hard to avoid paying for ITV. Or Sky.

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.

You can choose not to have a TV.

most shows on the BBC suck, too. Just as with commercial t.v., there's the occasional gem (Dr. Who).

But while you, I, and most of Slashdot love Dr Who, there's 50 million people the UK that don't. The BBC has to cater for all of them.

Re:everyone pays

[LingNoi]

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