The BBC has an important role. Millions of people fall asleep when watching the BBC every night without resorting to addictive sleeping tablets. Gardner's World has helped me fall asleep many times over the years for example. I believe it is important that people are forced to pay the licence fee even if they can't stand the BBC. For their own good.

The BBC license fee is weird. Functionally everyone has a TV of some sort. If you want to tax everyone to pay for BBC content, why not just charge every taxpayer consistently (minus whatever discounts legislators think are appropriate). This “extending to streaming services” thing is bizarre. Netflix licenses BBC content if they stream it (right?) so this is asking for double payment.

Without getting into the territory of if the tax should exist at all, in general I think the way it works in Germany is the optimal way to approach a tax of this kind: tax each household (not individuals), with few exceptions. This gets rid of the whole trouble of people checking if you should pay the tax, because you have to, and so it dramatically simplifies the system.

“It’s not fair that people are essentially able to watch television content but avoid the licence fee.”

How about this: it’s not fair that one propaganda-centered corporation that shelters pedophiles is forcing people to fund its existence. They think they own the airwaves and everyone else is merely riding their coattails. Now they’re trying to go after YouTube, Netflix and Disney? Hopefully they’ve just bit off more than they can chew. RIP BBC.

I am so confused. You need to pay a tax to ... watch content of any kind? Like a book tax?

Or, is this "people watching broadcast content on devices", or "you'll get YouTube TV for free"?

How about the BBC actually give me a reason to pay the license fee rather than trying to force me to pay it when watching someone elses (usually superior) content.

Please UK pass some actual reforms. Fold BBC funding into the general taxes, people would forget about it in a month.

"Currently, anyone who uses a television to watch content must pay the licence fee even if they do not watch the BBC."

This is simply not true. Which puts me in doubt about the rest of this "article". The rules are:

1. Watch or record live TV on any channel or service

2. Use BBC iPlayer

Note the "live" part of this.

I'm not a fan of the BBC, and so I don't pay a license. Being forced to pay for something I wouldn't use would force me to break the law.

I wish I could pay the BBC license fee here in the US and get access to iPlayer.

The only way bbc can go off it should become a subscription service. Just like Netflix.

The government is stealing money from people to support a failing business

They should know this is absolutely unenforceable.

Don't forget - this article is from a ragebait tabloid that my cat won't even shit on if I use it in her litter tray.

Is this official or just an idea they are floating? I will be writing to my MP if this is the case. I do not watch any BBC programs, I use my TV simply for online content and playing console games.

Revenue tax all media services, and put the money into a public pot for whichever broadcasting company wants to use it for 'the public good'.

Maybe split it up between education which will support the local industry in the sector, infrastructure, mitigating any negative externalities, etc.

A "TV license" is the most retarded way of collecting taxes, ever. It's just so utterly dumb.

In fact, split off the department of media and culture, and have it fully self-funded by this tax. Let industries govern themselves to streamline national government.