It's time to stop criminalising people who don't agree with BBC monopoly on licence fee

Since its inception Nationalworld.com has campaigned for the end of the TV licence. The Government is belatedly signalling that this form of funding for public service content is unsustainable. But it is the public that has led the way with the message that the BBC is no longer needed - basically more and more are refusing, legally, to continue paying.

The BBC clings to three myths to justify its existence and the £4 billion licence fee revenue:

- Only the BBC makes quality public service British programming

- Only the BBC can provide universality of content

- Only the BBC can provide impartiality in news

Self-evidently these claims are farcical. The content is mainly mediocre and similarly offered by multiple free to air services. It is ludicrous to say that it offers something for everyone in a YouTube world of thousands, even millions, of video channels. And in the face of daily examples of bias does anyone believe its claim to be impartial?

So the BBC has been found out despite its armies of apologists, lobbyists and lawyers all paid for by us. These same people will be campaigning for a perpetuation of some sort of taxpayer funding. This must be resisted on the basic principle that citizens should not be forced to pay for media they do not want to consume.

Ministers are expected to formally announce a funding review of the BBC in the autumn, which will examine the future of the licence fee and look at possible alternatives - such as a subscription service, a broadband levy, and even advertising. The early reports of the new arrangements emphasise the need to pay for BBC news provision. This is especially undemocratic, suitable only for a totalitarian regime. 

The only acceptable democratic system is that the BBC, and its news service, is paid for by those who want it - that is, by voluntary subscription. The idea that somehow news journalism will not survive without tax funding is just another BBC myth and often illustrated by referencing television in the United States. The reality is that the major networks in the U.S. and multiple other news sources have an abundance of high grade news provision. Most importantly the American public has the right to choose what it pays for and what it watches. 

Other content, genuine public service provision for the arts that the market - and the BBC - currently neglects, is a legitimate genre for public funding. Perhaps the BBC should turn itself into the British Culture Corporation and administer this form of funding to support numerous national and local providers.

Have no fear, Strictly Come Dancing, Gary Lineker and women’s netball will still be available without taxpayer funds directed exclusively at the BBC. The difference is that those indifferent to such content will no longer have to pay.

The case against voluntary subscription is that the technology will not provide for homes lacking broadband connection which usually means the lack of smart TV. This is a feeble excuse - the cost of one year’s licence fee could buy a smart TV. Or better still the £47 million a year shamefully spent on collecting the licence fee could be diverted to connecting homes.

However the endless BBC arguments as to its god given right to exist are less important than the fundamental principle of the citizen’s right to choose. And any justification of enforcing the current licence fee payment with threat of imprisonment is now obliterated and decriminalisation should be enacted immediately.

The days of state funded media and news belong to the past and should be buried along with all the other tyrannical abuses of the twentieth century.  

BBC licence fee: broadcaster faces funding review - what could replace the current model? https://www.nationalworld.com/culture/television/bbc-licence-fee-funding-review-what-could-replace-4222439