Licence fee, subscription or ads?
How do you think the BBC should be paid for?
Getty
The TV licence system may not be perfect, but if the BBC is to remain impartial and continue to deliver its mission to inform, educate and entertain, it’s vital that it gets an adequate level of funding without being beholden to either the government or to advertisers.
Ad
If the BBC was subscription- or advertising-funded, much of its best work would never have been commissioned, as it wouldn’t be worth risking anything that was expected only to appeal to a minority, such as, say, Monty Python or Fleabag. For me, Radio 4’s I’m Sorry I Haven’t a Clue would justify the licence fee on its own, but there are so many others that I couldn’t possibly list them all.
Direct government funding would open it to accusations of being a state broadcaster. It seems to me that the TV licence is the best available compromise, and we should keep it.
David Monksfield
Stansted, Essex
The BBC is doing the best it can in a media world currently akin to a minefield, and they can’t get it right all the time. As long as those guilty of altering reports to suit their own, or a perceived corporate agenda, are found and dealt with, the present funding via licence fee is the best way forward. We need an independent BBC that can dig into, uncover and report stories. We would be far worse off if all our news sources were commercially funded.
Joss Barnard
Liskeard, Cornwall
I like the fact that there are no adverts interrupting programmes, although I could do without all the BBC “plugs” (most people know what is on, especially if they read RT), which are shown too frequently. I would rather pay a licence fee than a subscription or some other form of tax.
Nicholas Bateman
Bordon, Hampshire
Would an ad-funded broadcaster have taken a chance on Phoebe Waller-Bridge's Fleabag? Getty
I think the licence fee is a waste of time. There is much potential in the BBC’s worldwide reach that could be exploited in the form of a subscription system. I would happily pay a large monthly fee to get first-rate journalism supplied by many more foreign correspondents than are currently employed by the BBC. Plus, excellent drama, documentaries and feature programmes.
Sport is now so expensive and over-commercialised that it should be left entirely to the private sector. State events should be carried as part of the output, but I see no role for soap operas, quiz shows and endless cookery/DIY/gardening/property shows. Again, leave that to commercial stations.
Dr Alexander Hall
East Finchley, north London
It would be tragic for the BBC to turn to advertising. You only have to watch ITV for half an hour to realise that. Ad-free TV and radio is a blessing that should be preserved.
Darren Adams
Via Facebook
I get the frustration with the licence fee model, and there’s a legitimate debate to be had, but saying it’s not fit for purpose doesn’t really stand up when you look at it.
First, the licence isn’t a BBC subscription. It’s a public broadcasting levy that underwrites a universal, independent broadcaster. The reason it applies to live TV broadly is to avoid market distortion and mass evasion. You can argue that the enforcement model is outdated (fair), but that’s an argument for reform, not abolition.
Second, every broadcaster produces content that misses the mark. That doesn’t negate the BBC’s wider output of national and regional news, global journalism (often used by other broadcasters), children’s TV without advertising, radio (including local services) that simply wouldn’t survive in a pure commercial model.
Third, the BBC now costs around £180 per household per year (around 49p a day). In the US, where broadcasting is heavily deregulated, households routinely spend £1,000+ per year on cable and streaming bundles and the TV still ends up being more polarised, with less trusted news.
Finally, the choice isn’t licence fee or shutdown. The real options are: reform the licence fee (income-based, household tax, or hybrid models), tighten governance and commissioning standards, modernise enforcement. But scrapping the BBC altogether won’t lead to cheaper, better media. As the US shows, it leads to higher costs, lower trust, and media owned by a handful of corporations.
Ron Oyston
Via Facebook
In my view it is essential that the BBC retains its current financing model, independent and financed by the licence fee. I would not want the BBC to be commercialised and a subscription service would not bring in enough funds. I would certainly not want the BBC to be taken over by one of the streaming channels. The quality and breadth of the programmes would be reduced and I would expect much more extreme political bias to creep in.
Graham Ward
Wirral
For all its faults, the BBC is still a world-beating broadcaster. People who complain should be forced to watch TV from other nations for a month and then decide what they think. This is not an idle threat. Here in Switzerland we can get any unencrypted TV from numerous European countries via cable. They range from just about OK to awful.
If the BBC needs to increase its revenue and the government doesn’t agree to an increase in the licence fee (or penalise those who refuse to pay), then why not set up a subscription service for those living outside of the UK? Given the level of UK emigration to other countries, this would be an additional revenue stream.
It should not be beyond the wit of the BBC and government to sort out rights issues. This seems to be the recurrent argument as to why they can’t do anything to set up a subscription service.
Dr Janet Dawson
Bennwil, Switzerland
I love the BBC, but I don’t believe the licence fee model fits any more, so probably needs to go. Be warned, though, if the BBC goes, I believe the other UK channels, ITV, Channel 4 and
5 won’t survive and will be swallowed up by US broadcasting giants.
Martin Ansell
Via Facebook
Regarding the question of paying for the BBC, I don’t want adverts. The BBC and ITV are both at a disadvantage compared to other broadcasters. The BBC has the licence fee but no adverts. ITV has adverts but no licence fee. Other broadcasters like Netflix and Sky have subscriptions and adverts.
To provide good programmes the BBC needs adequate funding. I am willing to pay more for quality programmes. I would like the TV licence to stay.
Aidan Murphy
Stanley, County Durham
We are and always have been strong supporters of the BBC. We trust it despite the management issues. We love the quality of programmes across news, sport, drama, music, documentaries and children’s TV and there just needs to be an improvement in the systems and procedures for ensuring good behaviour by the stars and impartiality in its coverage. It is BBC TV, radio and online to which we turn first for our daily news and sport coverage and we regularly watch outstanding dramas such as Happy Valley, Line of Duty and more recently Prisoner 951. Amandaland and Daddy Issues are two brilliant comedies that we are currently enjoying. Empire is our favourite documentary and we absolutely loved the recent Celebrity Traitors!
We really want to keep paying for the BBC through the licence fee and would like to take this opportunity to thank the hard-working staff for entertaining and informing us so well.
Roy and Cath Horsley
Nottingham
Sarah Lancashire as Catherine Cawood in Happy Valley. Credit: BBC/Lookout Point/Matt Squire
Last year, the licence fee cost £174 per annum, which in weekly terms is approximately £3.50 per week. This amounts to the price of a cup of coffee or two first-class stamps. What a bargain! What value for money! All those TV and radio channels including the World Service for the price of a cuppa.
Yes, the BBC has made mistakes like other corporations but on balance it is a valuable and trusted broadcasting company. It’s a box of delights, full of precious gems – long may it be protected by the licence fee.
Diane Reid
Waverton, Chester
The BBC is institutionally biased. Too left wing. There is no need to chase the youth market. Surveys show the under-25s don’t watch television. Scrap BBC Three. The TV licence is not fit for purpose in today’s television environment. You should switch to a subscription-based model.
Do less and do it better.
Trevor Harvey
Hove, East Sussex
As far as I’m concerned the BBC and its TV licence are a utility. They sit happily alongside my water bill, my energy bill etc. You get what you pay for and if you want excellent quality then you have to pay for it. That makes it sound expensive but it’s not.
I grew up watching the BBC and ITV and adore them both. In 1989 the UK “gained” multi-channel television, something which I embraced at first, but after all these years I realise I didn’t ask for it and I certainly don’t want it.
As a 54-year-old man who is tech savvy and has a lot of the latest screen-based gadgets, I can tell you that there is no better way to enjoy watching television than on a traditional television set.
Yes, I watch YouTube and various other apps and platforms, but I will always return to my beloved television set for real, professional and polished entertainment. Sitting around the TV enjoying entertaining programming with family is something that should be cherished.
Robert Shoard
Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent
If the BBC is to be preserved as a universal public service broadcaster, the licence fee must be kept. But it should be updated to be fit for the future. As television becomes increasingly online, a suitable method may be for the licence fee to take the form of a broadband levy. This would be more difficult to evade and a line on a broadband bill may cause less resentment than a separate bill.
Daryl Millar
Mildenhall, Suffolk
One thing I would suggest is not allowing free access to iPlayer – at present you are merely asked if you have a TV licence, easy enough to answer in the affirmative even if you haven’t. Why not ask for the licence number? It should be easy enough to tie this in with your BBC account so that you only have to provide it once and it would prevent those not paying the fee from watching.
Sara Brett
Upper Dean, Bedfordshire
The positive aspects of the BBC are as follows:
- It is an important national institution at a time of enormous social disruption. As a centrist floating voter, I look to the institutions that form our national identity and cohesion
to continue to play a role. In our anti-expert, “fake news” world this is a difficult position to be in. However, we will lose such institutions to our detriment. - Great national events such as the coronation are of major social importance to bind us together as a nation.
- The radio channels continue to provide a brilliant service. I would find life barren without Radio 3 and 4.
- News coverage is an essential part of my life. In recent times the following are among my most valued and trusted reporters – Jeremy Bowen, Frank Gardner, Katya Adler, Chris Mason, Steve Rosenberg, Lucy Williamson and Clive Myrie.
- Since 1980 I have lived in eastern England and Scotland. Regional TV services are relevant, professional and of good quality.
- Unsurpassed classical music coverage, eg the Proms, Edinburgh Festival, and Radio 3 in general.
- Drama and Entertainment are highly subjective and face greater competition. But Blue Lights was the greatest TV drama I watched in 2025.
Having a service without advertising is wonderful but I do not think the current method is politically sustainable. I believe the BBC is so important that we need it funded by general taxation.
Geoff Sage
March, Cambridgeshire
The BBC must not rely on advertising. Anyone who has watched TV in the USA or Canada can see how the flow and rhythm of a programme is ruined!
People happily pay for Netflix and similar platforms, so I don’t see a problem with the BBC licence fee. But second choice after the licence fee would be a subscription service.
I totally believe in the BBC.
Ad
Patricia Hill
Ipswich, Suffolk
Ad
Ad
Subscribe for £1 per week
Too much to watch this autumn? Let Radio Times magazine and app do the choosing, with expert picks across TV, streaming and film.
Ad