Would you pay £400 per year for a BBC subscription that includes TV, radio and news? This provocative notion was at the heart of Dame Elan Closs Stephens’ speech at the Voice of the Listener & Viewer Autumn Conference today.
As the Acting Chair of the BBC, Stephens stirred the ongoing debate over the TV Licence fee, suggesting a future where the traditional model might be replaced by a subscription akin to those of Netflix or Amazon’s Prime Video.
At a time when the concept of a compulsory TV Licence fee is increasingly under scrutiny, Stephens’ words resonate with a public divided over the value of the BBC’s services versus the cost they bear.
Her speech, though rooted in optimism, broached the contentious topic of the BBC’s funding mechanism, particularly the TV Licence fee, and hinted at a possible shift towards a subscription model – and the aspects that must be guarded, if the BBC is to continue delivering on its mission.
The BBC’s Financial Challenges
The financial future of the BBC, deeply tied to the income from the TV Licence fee, was a key focus of Dame Stephens’ address.
For now, the licence fee is guaranteed as a mechanism until at least the end of the current Charter in 2027 – so discussions relate to what happens after that date.
However, Dame Stephens underscored a growing public concern over the licence fee, encapsulated in the question: “Why should I pay for what I don’t use?”.
This sentiment reflects a significant shift in how people view the TV Licence fee.
Traditionally, the fee was seen as a collective contribution for a shared public good, providing a range of broadcasting services for everyone, regardless of individual usage.
However, Stephens’ speech pointed out that more and more people are questioning this approach.
They are moving towards a mindset where they expect to pay only for the media they personally consume, similar to how one chooses and pays for individual streaming services.
This change in attitude is leading to a broader conversation about whether the current model of funding the BBC is still appropriate or if it should be reformed to fit this new individualistic approach.
TV Licence Fee VS A BBC Subscription
Currently, the TV Licence fee, a mandatory annual charge for all UK households, businesses, and organisations, is the primary source of funding for the BBC.
Standing at £159/year (having been frozen for two years, therefore it will be going up to £169.50 next April), the fee is required by anyone watching or recording live TV broadcasts, any BBC content, or BBC iPlayer, regardless of the device or method used.
This includes watching any live TV from any broadcaster, even international ones. If you only watch on-demand content such as Netflix, Disney+ or ITVX (except for iPlayer) – you don’t need a TV Licence (see our full guide on who needs to pay the TV Licence fee).
Evading the TV Licence fee is a criminal offence – and those who don’t pay can end up in court, and – in rare cases, end up in jail.
But with the world moving to standalone streaming subscription services, a notable aspect of Stephens’ speech today was the comparison between the licence fee and a subscription model for the BBC.
She stated, “When the cost of the licence fee is compared with the monthly cost of a subscription streaming service, it would probably be around £400 a year, and that’s a pretty accurate comparison.”
This figure is derived from the comprehensive nature of BBC services – encompassing eight national TV channels, ten UK radio stations, digital apps like BBC News, Sport, and Weather, BBC iPlayer, Sounds, and Bitesize, as well as the orchestras, the Proms, and the World Service.
In comparison, subscription services like Netflix or Amazon’s Prime Video offer a narrower range of content, often focusing on entertainment without the broad educational and informational scope of the BBC.
This comparison also reflects the value proposition of the BBC, offering a wide array of services for a price that is competitive with commercial streaming services.
In 2021, the BBC mentioned a similar estimate for a potential subscription model, placing it at around £453 annually, which further aligns with Stephens’ current assessment.
The UK government has mentioned, more than once, the possibility of replacing the TV Licence fee with other funding models – including the subscription model.
But in her speech, Dame Stephens emphasized that the relationship between the public and the BBC isn’t just about paying for a service. It’s more about what role the BBC plays in our society and how it contributes to the broader public good.
Stephens highlighted five key principles that should guide any discussion on alternative funding models for the BBC.
These principles are crucial in ensuring that the BBC continues to fulfil its role effectively, regardless of how it is funded:
Delivering the Mission: Any new funding model must support the BBC’s mission of providing universal public service.
This means the BBC should continue to offer a wide range of programming that caters to all segments of the UK population, including news, education, and entertainment.
Safeguarding Impartiality and Independence: The BBC is known for its impartial and independent reporting.
The new funding model must protect these values, ensuring the BBC can continue to deliver unbiased news and content without external influences.
Sustainable Financial Model: The new funding approach should be financially sustainable.
Supporting the Creative Economy: The funding model should enable the BBC to continue investing in the UK’s creative industries.
This involves developing British talent, producing original UK content, and exporting this content to a global audience.
Fair Value for Audiences: Lastly, the model must provide fair value to the audiences.
These principles are essential in shaping any future funding model for the BBC. They ensure that the BBC not only remains financially viable but also continues to play a pivotal role in British society and culture.
Stephens’ speech culminated in a reflection on the BBC’s heritage and its vital role in national and global media.
The challenge ahead is balancing the BBC’s traditional public service mission with the demands of a digital, subscription-driven age.
The decisions made in the coming years will be crucial in determining the future of the BBC, shaping its ability to adapt while preserving its core values and societal role.
Want to get more news and updates about TV and streaming in the UK? Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Absolutely ridiculous! 400 quid per year for a sub-par service. I echo what so many people have said, they (BBC) should either advertise, or go down the subscription route. I cancelled my license a year ago and registered online that I don’t watch live TV; either I’m streaming Amazon Video or watching some other streaming service. I pay a lot less than 400 quid per year for programmes / movies that are (IMO) a lot more entertaining.
I think (again, as others have said) BBC have over-valued theirselves, and the service has become far too bloated. They are far more concerned about their worth, than they are concerned about offering us quality, good value content.
BBC should stop holding people to ransom, and cease threatening people with fines, courts and (possibly) jail
Or they could advertise, like all the other channels, and like they do on their non-UK ventures. If you watch BBC News outside the UK, you get adverts, I believe.
Or the government could change the rules around the licence, so that it is genuinely only paid to watch BBC. The other channels get nothing from the licence fee, so why do we have to pay it to watch them? Utter nonsense. We’ve been licence-free since September 2020.
There’s a database of addresses that have a valid licence. TV service providers can lock all BBC channels out of their boxes by default, as they do with other subscription services, check against that database, and only enable them on boxes registered at a licenced address. That way, nobody gets to see BBC unless they have a licence, and the rest of us don’t have to pay BBC to watch other channels.
Surely you can see that the BBC are trying to corner the market, by their ruling. If you watch ‘live’ tv, you need to pay a licence. If you have access to a mobile device, then you accessing ‘live’ tv (lets face it, they’re not going to know if you’re watching ‘live’ tv on your mobile, but because you own a mobile, you do have that potential to access it). If the BBC went with your idea of paying a simple and straight-forward licence for what BBC channel you want to watch, they would lose revenue. Its easy to screw you over for not having a licence for what the BBC has to offer, than screw you for not having a licence for a BBC channel.
I would agree entirely about the advertising. All other channels do it so there is no need to hold us all to ransom when there is obviously a bigger and more popular model of monetisation available.
It’s just a snobbery which exists from BBC which is doing something almost akin to the poll tax with how they want to continue to fund the organisation.
They have no premium sports which peopke prefer to watch apart from Wimbledon for two weeks of the year.
And to balance the £400 argument:- Who listens to radio broadcasts and watches TV?
Nobody!
She is living in a dream world.
No one in their right mind would pay such a fee of £400 per year.
A majority of radio stations are reliant on advertising in order to keep their station going. Is the radio subscription only for BBC radio channels? Not worth the money. Besides, the norm seems to be in combining tv with radio (like Nicky Campbell on BBC News), so why would I want to pay such a fee, when the two are often combined?
There’s an approach that they’re all ignoring. Separate all these features. This means that if someone just wants BBC channels – they only pay for BBC channels, which could be the default basic subscription, then all the other features can be add ones. A bit like what Sky does, with Sky Sports and Sky Movie channels. That way the subscribers is in control of what they pay for. This would mean subscriptions with just the BBC channels would be a lot cheaper than expecting ppl to pay £400 a year. There would be very few households who would want EVERYTHING (channels, radio, proms, sports, etc). Most will only want the basic subscriptions and maybe a couple of extras. I swear the department that deals with the TV license has tunnel vision and very narrow way of thinking 🙄
BBC needs to economise. 5 TV channels ? All those radio channels ? It’s turned into a huge behemoth. Strip it down to one or two TV channels and only strictly necessary radio stations. Provide some free programming to cover the “universal public service” and charge a modest subscription fee for the rest.
the BBC must stop trying to compete with the pay sports channels and reduce its sports section, every week the schedules are changed for a football match or snooker, rugby and athletics. we pay to cover the huge salaries of morons like lineker to blubber on about nothing.
the whole of the bbc now seems to run for the benefit of the people working there and their interests.
cut back and provide more quality drama and general entertainment and get rid of some these, so called, comedians who have yet to make me laugh.
Opened a can of worms ther Ore 😂😂
BBC tv license needs to be scrapped permanently and if an when they decide to do a subscription based I won’t use it nor will I bother with it, bbc is rubbish channel 4 is publicly funded by advertisement’s and they don’t struggle, and also Netherlands scrapped there tv licence years ago and there not struggling at all, I dislike bbc it’s completely rubbish I spend more time watching Disney+ an Netflix, paramount, Amazon prime I pay for virgin media services those are more entertaining and enjoyable to watch
I’m watching less and less BBC
I would be quite prepared to have all BBC channels cut off and not have to pay licence
We did have a free licence until the rules changed
And before anyone starts off about pensioners doing their bit we’re doing that and more
My husband still paying tax at 84 and we’re not rich
I’d rather have it x and u tube
Let’s vote all over great Britain maybe a lot of older people like the dancing programme and one or two other programmes but give us the choice the freedom to choose and I hope it’s a subscription because I will not be buying a subscription to BBC even if it was a £1 a month I can’t stand Graham Norton for starts l only watch the odd not going out and I will not miss it please let’s vote subscription and save millions of people £159 for now
It is highway robbery that we should be forced to contribute to Linekars huge salary when I never watch football and if we dont cough up its off to jail. I stopped watching Wimbledon when the change channel halfway through a match policy came in.The BBC must go commercial to survive.
PBS TV and National Public Radio (NPR) in the US spend around $1bn a year combined.
A similar PBS/NPR approach in the UK could provide the essential public broadcasting required for a fraction of the current licence fee.
An annual household levy of £30 would provide the same amount of money as in the US.
The BBC was essential when it provided services that weren’t available elsewhere. Its current funding model is very hard to justify now.
The UK is a lot smaller than the US
£400 is more realistic price people won’t be able to pay this and UK tV will be destroyed. Refused to foreign entertainment streaming 😪
The BBC should be made to advertise like the commercial tv channels to get their money not rob the public
That’s my point Robert. The UK is a lot smaller than the US, yet the US can provide perfectly acceptable and highly regarded public service TV and radio for a lot less than the BBC gets through the license fee. Commercial channels provide the rest.
To raise the equivalent of $1bn – how much the US spends – would be £30 per household. Maybe it could be less.
We have commercial free to air channels such as ITV, C4 and C5 to provide entertainment and the protected sports rights such as the FA Cup final and Wimbledon. The BBC doesn’t need to do this and therefore doesn’t need to tax every household that wants to watch live TV £159.
I personally only watch the BBC a couple of times a year, David Attenborough programmes, maybe the odd documentary once in a blue moon, therefore I can’t justify paying the licence fee, All I want is the IPlayer and for it to cost no more than £4.99 to £5.99 per month, then I could dip into it as needed, most of their programmes are absolute rubbish, woke leftie rubbish at that, to see how popular they (the BBC) are, why not decriminalise non payment of it, they’d soon see how wrong they are, in this day and age there’s nothing stopping them from going subscription, it’s just for now at least they’re guaranteed the money so they don’t have to try and compete with other terrestrial channels and subscription services, and to have to pay to watch ITV, CHannel 4,and Channel 5 is making a complete mockery of it all, they don’t get any funding from the licence fee, at the moment I’m paying it begrudgingly because my mrs is worried about the consequences of not paying it, but next year when the price rise comes, I’m done with it, I’ve told her next year I’m cancelling so she’s got until then to get her head around it, Rant over.
Funding from the license fee pays for Freeview once the licence gos all TV including ITV goes online behind a paywall.
Then they will go to the wall as well. Plenty of subscription based TV out there, if you choose to watch it and therefore pay for it, that’s what it’s all about, having the choice of paying or not, you can do away with all of them BBC, ITV, Channels 4 and 5, barely a decent program between them.
👍👏👏👏👏
That’s the way to go, then you can dip in and out as you please, as long as the subscription prices are not too high, but the trouble with the BBC is that they think they’re so good, when in reality they’re mediocre, bland boring programmes nobody watches, biased leftie news coverage, jumping on the woke Diversity bandwagon, no thanks I get all I want from my streaming services and terrestrial catch up apps.
The BBC “tries” to offer a service to cover all differing tastes, this means that no single sector gets true value for money, from the present Licence Fee.
If they split channels into bundles (like Sky does), people could then pay for what they like to watch as opposed to paying for everything.
At my age I don’t need children’s channels, and I hate all ball games (which is what the BBC thinks is sport). I’m not Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual or Transgender, I hate soaps and never listen to the radio.
I might subscribe to BBC 1 if it was £5.00 a month, but that’s about it
Exactly as others have said. Go ahead and charge a £450 subscription fee and let the public decide if they feel it represents good value and subscribe, or, whether they feel it’s too much and not relevant to them.
If it becomes a subscription,that means that you have to subscribe.If I chose not to subscribe,will BBC be removed from my TV?If it is removed that would mean I need not Buy a licence,that suits me fine.I do not watch the BBC.
It will be ‘removed’ in the same way that Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc is ‘removed’. If you don’t pay the subs, you won’t have access. Simples!
Well this is an interesting point, because the tv license is FOR the BBC, its for all live TV broadcasts (all the freeview channels), yet the TV license board keep on about the BBC and what would happen if they got rid of the mandatory TV license. So, are they admitting that the TV license is just FOR the BBC and not for ALL the freeview channels as we’ve been told.
It doesn’t help that so many people don’t pay. This means the rest of us have to pay more. I personally enjoy BBC programmes. There sports app is brilliant. The news app is always upto date.
So what you are saying is everyone else subsidises your choice of viewing
Interesting how these BBC people just pluck these figures from the sky or is she admitting most people won’t choose to subscribe to the biased broadcasting cooperation
Hahahahahaha yeah I’d pay double
BBC can just do as they do on the world service,Advertise,it’s not as if they don’t know how.
Then we won’t need a licence.
No poor mums fined,and in fear of prison.
In the 70s we could have had the BBC funded with advertising , not now thanks to $ky and streaming services there is to much advertising now and not a nuff to fund the BBC
Keep the licence fee roughly as it is. It’s worth every penny for the masses of things the BBC does but most people couldn’t find £400 a year – that’s £33 a month.
I think £400 a year is far more than most people would be prepared to pay. Lord only knows why licence payers are having to fund foreign office instruments such as the World Service! The answer must be a reduced licence fee payable by all which covers the cost of public service programming including radio, education, childrens’, news and a reduced subset of the nice-to-haves such as sport, drama, entertainment etc. Additional content could be made available either via subscription for people prepared to pay it or advertising for those who aren’t.
The government really need to get some balls though and tax the foreign media streamers proportionately and have them contribute significantly to the funding of public service programming.
As a disabled octogenarian I would be hard put to pay £400 pa. for a license fee for a service that is becoming less relevant to me!!
As an octogenarian you may be entitled to a free licence. Again, government policy was to provide them fee of charge to all people of pensionable age. Until the Tories got in and decided the BBC (and therefore all us non-pensionable licence fee payers) should fund this instead.
£400 a year, I personally wouldn’t pay £50 a year, but obviously there is a solution, subscription, then all those who want the BBC can pay their £400, those that don’t, don’t, simple.