While British viewers continue to fork out £174.50 for their annual TV Licence, the BBC has quietly launched something rather different across the pond.
Starting this week, Americans are being asked to open their wallets for a brand new BBC subscription service – and it might just offer a glimpse into the future for UK viewers too.
The BBC has just announced it will begin charging US viewers for unlimited access to its news content.
Starting Thursday, American users will be offered a “premium experience” subscription priced at $49.99 (£37) annually or $8.99 (£6.60) monthly.
The package includes unlimited news articles, live BBC News channel streaming, ad-free documentaries, early podcast access, and exclusive newsletters.
What’s Included in the US Subscription?
The new premium service, which launched this week, offers American subscribers quite a comprehensive package:
- 24/7 livestreaming of the BBC News channel with breaking news and regular programming
- Unlimited access to news articles, analysis and feature stories
- Ad-free documentary videos covering topics like health, travel, nature and history
- Premium benefits coming soon, including ad-free podcasts and content from the BBC Select library
This subscription model targets existing heavy users of BBC content in the US, offering them an enhanced experience without the advertising that currently appears on BBC.com.
With the annual plan, subscribers save 54% compared to paying monthly – a clear push to secure longer-term commitments.
Testing the Waters Abroad
This move comes just weeks after BBC Director-General Tim Davie warned of a looming “crisis” in the corporation’s finances.
The timing certainly raises questions about whether this American experiment might preview what’s eventually coming to UK shores.
Rebecca Glashow, who heads BBC global media and streaming, emphasised the trust factor: “We see the BBC as the world’s most trusted global news brand, and we have heard that time and time again.”
It’s a compelling selling point in the American market, where many news networks have developed politically partisan reputations. The BBC clearly believes its impartiality could be worth paying for.
Building on Existing Strategy
The BBC has been targeting American audiences for some time, recently revamping its overseas website and app. BBC.com now attracts nearly 60 million US visitors (and 139 million globally) – a substantial potential subscriber base.
While this is the BBC’s first direct news subscription service outside the UK, the corporation already monetises other content internationally.
Americans can currently pay for BBC Select documentaries through various streaming platforms, and the BBC still co-owns the international version of BritBox.
Financial Pressures Mount
As we reported earlier this month, the BBC has faced what Davie described as a decade of “grinding cuts,” with income reportedly falling by around £1 billion in real terms since 2010.
The situation at home isn’t helping either. TV Licence evasion sits at its highest level since 1995 (11.30%), and 3.3 million UK households now legally declare they don’t need a licence – up by half a million in just twelve months.
With numbers like these, it’s no wonder the BBC is exploring alternative funding models.
What This Means for UK Viewers
Your £174.50 annual licence fee remains in place until at least December 2027, but this US subscription trial offers interesting hints about what might replace it.
Davie recently admitted, “I do not want the same system exactly to go out again,” suggesting a more progressive approach where wealthier households would pay more than poorer ones – similar to council tax bands.
The US price point is particularly interesting. At £37 annually, it’s significantly cheaper than our licence fee, although it obviously covers only news content rather than the full BBC service.
In the UK, the BBC previously suggested that a subscription service could cost up to £580 per year for the full package, more than triple the current licence fee.
The corporation will be watching American take-up rates closely. If US viewers prove willing to pay for BBC journalism, it strengthens the case for including subscription elements in whatever replaces the licence fee here.
Competing in a Crowded Market
The BBC’s US news subscription will face stiff competition, not least from CNN, which is now headed by former BBC Director-General Mark Thompson and is launching its own streaming subscription service later this year (yes, another one).
Unlike in Britain, BBC.com already carries advertising in the US. The new premium subscription will perhaps offer an ad-free experience, following the model used by many American news outlets.
A Glimpse of the Future?
This US subscription launch represents more than just a new revenue stream – it’s a window into the BBC’s thinking about its entire funding model.
By testing paid access to its journalism in a market where it has no public funding obligation, the corporation can gather valuable data about what consumers are willing to pay for.
For UK viewers concerned about the future of the licence fee, this American experiment provides important clues.
It suggests the BBC remains committed to finding sustainable funding models that preserve its core services, but also confirms that the days of the universal TV licence as we’ve known it are potentially numbered.
For more news about TV and streaming, Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Sell off all the BBC radio stations and let people who are willing to buy them have them. Reduce the current licence fee by half. At the moment presenters and programmes are simply not worth it.
Or, we can see what side your bread is buttered on.
Call it what you will, but its not a TV Licence evasion, its simply a case that nobody wants to buy into the BBC’s demands.
I dont watch ‘live tv’ and never have done and I dont illegally watch anything that the BBC has on its iPlayer, so please dont tarnish everyone with the same brush stroke that everyone is illegally watching BBC content and not paying the licence.
I got bored with the whole BBC programming and its content, which is why I switch off.
But dont regard me as someone who is rebelling against the BBC, just because I have an opinion and dont see the sense in owning a BBC TV licence.
Lets face it. The BBC News focuses on US, than its own country anyway.
As to whether Americans will buy into this, it remains to be seen.
I suspect that they will buy into it for a time and get bored of it and want to switch off, only to discover that they have bought into a subscription model that they cant simply cancel.
In Canada the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio Canada in French do not require a license fee though they are a public service. It is simply funded through advertising with which noone is unhappy. Here the BBC ignores such a choice that would solve all their funding issues.
I would be against adverts on BBC, I would rather they dump – or sell off all what I think of rubbish, starting with East Enders and all so-called celbrity shows… and others I could list, it’s more like ITV anyway.
Other methods of funding are possible.
BBC should inroduce subscription service to American with BRITISH version of BBC News, not vice versa.
Please stop using “evaders” to include those who do not legally need a TV licence. That’s jargon the BBC use to inflate the number of people not paying to make it seem like there are many more people acting illegally.
And use used “legally declare”. There is no legal requirement to notify anyone that you do not need a licence. In the same way we don’t have to notify anyone every year that we didn’t kill anyone. Anyway, the declaration doesn’t stop you being hounded and doesn’t stop them prosecuting you even though you are not doing anything to require a licence (see recent case highlighted in Guardian).
I support your comment aimed at Cord Busters, for it NOT to be among those platforms which routinely label non-licence payers as “evaders” (which I’m getting a bit sick of TBH and it smacks of biased propaganda), and then almost as an afternote mention that some are legally not required to have a licence, as if these are somehow bound to be the small minority. To quantify the number of actual true evaders could only be a wild estimate at best, and it’s not improbable that THEY could be the small minority.
here here. Because the BBC is an ‘old’ school establishment and they ‘pretty much’ have automatic rights to persecute and prosecute (like the post office saga) those ‘few’ people that don’t have a licence are made to feel just quite simply liars and traitors. It’s simply not on in today’s society. The BBC must wake up and look at the success of their ‘rivals’ like ITV. Don’t get me wrong – the world services and wonderful BBC information services / journalists etc are quite simply the best – but for goodness sake, those that run BBC need to be brave and just get this whole licence detail sorted.
Charge it to the council tax bill and be done with
Not a chance I would stop paying my council tax and so would many others, I don’t watch the crap the bbc airs so why should I pay? I rarely watch tv and when I do I stream stuff so not a chance would I pay it in my council tax bill which is high enough as it is!!!!
WHAT……………..Don’t you think the Council Tax Con is enough already !!
Wow! You obviously have more money than sense.
Please, please do that here BBC, but of course you won’t, will you?
The B.B.C. should never become a subscription service, it’s a public service and should stay that way, available to everyone.
But that doesn’t mean that everything is okay! The “licence fee” is a regressive tax, and must change to include ability to pay. I favour funding the B.B.C. out of general taxation.
Also the B.B.C. has always been used as a weapon: to brainwash the people into being good, little, robot citizens; and “crush” commercial broadcasters. This must stop, and the B.B.C. should become a genuine public service (its budget needs to be cut).
If you want it, you pay for it, I don’t want any part of it, and I’m not too keen on subsidising it to make it cheaper for you.
Not surprisingly, you’re missing my points. I don’t particularly like the B.B.C. either.
As I said, its budget should be cut. Perhaps I should have added the word “significantly”! Along with cuts to what it produces. Until it’s just genuine public service broadcasting.
I was mostly thinking about access to content that people have already paid for, and is in the archives. Which should remain available to all.
that is why licence fee must exist.
I agree I’m not being forced by anyone to take on any type of payment to the bbc which in my eyes is one of the most corrupt corporations going
But does it need to be as big as it is? Beyond news and certain current affairs programs is it really useful as a public service? The ad-supported terrestrial channels are more than capable of covering sport, light entertainment, drama, comedy etc. If the BBC ditched this type of programming presumably they could get the license fee down to a level that many more people would consider acceptable.
Agreed.
But it should still take “ability to pay” into account.
IMHO much of what the BBC outputs has little to do with its role as a “public service”, a term which should mean, among other things, that it needs to be of overall benefit to its viewership, and doesn’t warrant paying huge salaries to some employees. I’ve become increasingly disillusioned and alienated by its attempts to ram ever more “diverse” content and other dross down my throat, so much so that now I only consume news content – which, for me, makes the current licence fee very poor value for money. I would welcome a much lower cost subscription model for UK-based ad-free news and related content, similar to that offered in the US.