Hear me out: an eye license. If a person has eyes, there's a chance that they might be using them to consume some sort of video entertainment. And in that case, they clearly owe the BBC some money.

Its such a fundamentally stupid funding model. They really just need to get serious about how they plan to fund a national broadcaster in the 21st century - in the meantime I don't see how they have any credibity to pressure people into paying it

At what point does the definition of "television content" stop? If independently produced and self-published video on YouTube counts, then what about videos on other social platforms? What about video on other sites? Does any HTML/webdav video stream count as "television content" now?

I'm not trying to invoke the "slippery slope" fallacy, but this stuff needs to be defined well in any applicable law, and if past and recent laws made about the internet in the UK are anything to go by, it absolutely won't be...

So, here's a better idea: how about instead of trying to charge people for watching YouTube, we tax the multi-trillion usd global mega corporation that owns it

This'll go down like a paper bag of vomit in a sauna.

As a vocal supporter of the BBC (yes even with all it's many, many flaws) and am in favour in principal of the license fee, I don't think this is an appropriate way to fill the black hole in their finances.

It should in fact just become part of general taxation as that's the only way to make it fair. Even if you don't consume their content, it provides a national service, it projects soft power abroad, it's a primary news source for more than half a billion people and if that's worth anything (in my view it is) then it should come out of the central budget.

If thats the case then, those streaming platforms should be free for the UK. They can use the TV licence to fund those subscriptions.

I thankfully use none of those services anyway.

Why would the BBC be allowed to collect money on services it does not provide? This is basically saying "everyone must pay this fee, or unplug their internet".

I think that it's because the BBC puts content on YouTube (and I assume either doesn't have ads enabled or wants more money than they generate).

I guess I could understand someone saying "well, with TV, I have to watch British broadcast or cable stations, and with YouTube, I don't, but I'd think that the same would apply to TVs using satellite receivers, and I assume—though I don't know, don't live in the UK—that satellite TV users are also subject to the license fee.

We used to have that in Denmark too, even if you only had a mobile phone you’d have to pay, bEcAuSe InTeRnEt AcCeSs. but now “Danmarks Radio” is funded over the income tax.

But I don't want to watch their content, regardless of whether I'm able to or not.

Remember the scare stories of the TV licence vans

At that point fold it as you've lost the point of it existing. I was lucky enough to grow up in Prime BBC times when they worked with industry to help education thrive. Where is the BBC micro movement for this generation and the shows to match oh no they'd rather try to be Netflix.

You're a public service first and foremost then a world service, then you can start thinking like a traditional corpo.

Im not paying for Zionist propaganda