Public want BBC licence fee scrapped

[Teddy Bear]

While this poll shows a majority are in favour of privatising the BBC, unsurprisingly the BBC comes out with their figures that have it the other way round.
I just hope the government will go with the majority as shown by this poll and end the funding for this insidious behemoth.

Public want BBC licence fee scrapped
The BBC should pay for itself through advertising rather than through taxes, poll finds

By Tim Ross
More than half the public think the television licence fee should be scrapped and the BBC forced to find new ways to fund itself, according to a poll published today.

The broadcaster should generate income from advertising rather than relying on taxes or higher licence fee funds, the findings suggest.
There is also substantial support for replacing the licence fee with a subscription charge which is paid only by those wanting to view BBC programmes.

The results, from a survey of more than 2,000 people by ComRes, come as ministers and BBC executives prepare for the government’s review of the broadcaster’s charter in 2016.

The new Culture Secretary, Sajid Javid, has indicated he is prepared to be radical in reconsidering the BBC’s funding. He told the Telegraph in May that many families find the current £145.50 licence fee “a lot of money” to pay each year.

The poll, commissioned by the Whitehouse Consultancy media analysts, found 51 per cent would support the idea of abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself.

They backed the move even if it led to advertisements during programmes, a cut in the number of original programmes the BBC produces the abolition of the BBC’s “public service” broadcast duty.

A third of those questioned in the poll supported the idea of abolishing the licence fee in favour of a subscription model.

Chris Whitehouse, Chairman of the Whitehouse Consultancy, said: “There clearly isn’t solid support for the licence fee model and the public appears willing to consider alternative means of funding the BBC, as long as abolishing the licence fee doesn’t mean higher taxes instead.
“These figures show the huge job of work still be done by the BBC if it is to have a strong hand in the future in renegotiating the licence fee and justifying why the public should continue to pay it.

”The BBC is a world renowned institution of which I am a keen supporter, and it is alarming that its support-base has been allowed to erode to this low level.”

A BBC spokesperson said: “In fact, support for the licence fee is higher today at 53 per cent of the population than ten years ago when it was 31 per cent, and our research shows the licence fee remains the most popular way of funding the BBC across all ages and backgrounds – it’s tremendous value, and ensures that everyone gets access to great content that informs, educates and entertains."

The poll as recorded by ComRes - you can view the full record by clicking on 'download' below,

Poll Digest - Political - Whitehouse Consultancy: BBC Funding Poll

DOWNLOADS: Whitehouse Consultancy_BBC Funding Poll

Four in ten (40%) British adults support the current system of funding the BBC, however, just as many oppose it (40%). Of the four potential funding models tested, the one which gained most popular support is abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself, even if that means adverts during programmes, reducing the number of original programmes they can produce or scrapping their public service broadcasting duty (51% support, 34% oppose).

o The highest level of support for the current way of funding the BBC comes from Britons aged 65+ (52%).

o There is also a clear pattern of difference by social grade, with those in social grades AB (50%), C1 (44%) being more likely to support the licence fee than those in social grades C2 (30%) and DE (33%).

o Conversely, abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself is particularly popular among C2s (59%) and DEs (58%) compared to ABs (41%) and C1s (47%).

A third (36%) of Britons support abolishing the licence fee and introducing a subscription fee paid only by those who want to access the BBC while 44% oppose this proposed model of funding.

· The least popular option for funding the BBC is to abolish the licence fee and increase taxes, just one in five (18%) support this proposal while two-thirds (64%) oppose it.


Q. Do you support or oppose the following ways in which the BBC should be funded?

	Support	Oppose	Don't Know
Abolishing the licence fee and making the BBC fund itself, even if that means adverts during programmes, reducing the number of original programmes they can produce or scrapping their public service broadcasting duty	51%	34%	15%
The current system of a compulsory licence fee paid by individuals who watch live television	40%	40%	20%
Abolishing the licence fee and introducing a subscription fee paid only by those who want to access the BBC	36%	44%	20%
Abolishing the licence fee and funding the BBC through increased taxes	18%	64%	20%

Base: 2,049 GB adults

[Teddy Bear]

For the benefit of anybody not wishing to wait and see whether the licence fee will be scrapped or not, here's how to stop paying it now legally.

The legal way to avoid paying the TV licence fee
Hundreds of thousands of people legitimately avoid paying for a TV licence, in many cases even if they have a TV. Here's how

By Richard Dyson

Can you save £145.50 by (legitimately) ditching your television licence? The last time the laws on television licensing were updated was in 2004 and since then avalanches of new technology – iPads and other tablets, high-speed internet, smartphones, and more – have transformed our viewing habits.

But the biggest change has been the roll-out of catch-up services such as BBC’s iPlayer and 4oD. These allow us to watch programmes after they’re broadcast, at any time that suits. And they give rise to a loophole that could spare some households the cost of the licence.

Although there is talk about changing the regulations (see below) at the moment you do not need a licence to watch catch-up programmes. In other words, that content is licence-free. But the rules are labyrinthine so, before you declare to the authorities you don’t need a licence, read on.

The two primary rules that you must never break

1. You won’t need a licence if you don’t watch live programmes. If you do watch anything live – be it on your standard set or online via PC, phone, tablet or anything else – you need a licence. That applies even if you’re watching using a mobile 3G connection or your Wi-Fi.
2. You cannot record live broadcasts. As far as the authorities are concerned, recording a live broadcast is the same as watching it. So that’s a no-no.

Q. How do you convert older sets to “smart” ones in order that you can use them to watch catch-up?

Most British households have one or more sets that predate the internet-enabled “smart” televisions, which connect to the internet and let viewers watch catch-up services as well as log on to Facebook and other sites.

Older sets can’t do this, and instead get their programmes through traditional broadcast methods, such as an aerial.
The solution is a set-top box which you can buy for a one-off fee – and no subscription – which make sets internet-enabled.
Such boxes are made by Apple, Sony, Roku and others and cost between £50-£100. They can be plugged into most sets, and they are then connected to the internet through a cable or Wi-Fi.

Most offer only a selection of streaming TV services, though, so check that those you want are included. Roku, for instance, has offered BBC iPlayer and 4oD, the Channel 4 equivalent, for some time, but has only this month added the ITV Player.
Once you’ve converted your television into a “smart” set and are streaming your programmes only after they have been broadcast, you can unplug the aerial – and you won’t need the licence, either.

Q. What about watching television on my mobile or tablet out of the house?

The rules here are old-fashioned, designed more for the era of portable sets on caravan holidays than for an age in which millions of us effectively carry hi-tech televisions in our pockets in the form of smartphones.

But the first rule applies overall. So if you’re watching live on a phone anywhere, you need to have a licence.
There’s a secondary rule applying to whether your “device” – that’s the TV Licensing lingo for tablet, phone or PC – is “powered by its own batteries” or plugged into the mains supply. If it’s battery-powered – like the portable set taken on a picnic – the licence from your home address covers it. If it’s plugged into the mains, the property needs the licence.

Q. Can the licensing authorities really detect whether or not I’m watching live programmes, as opposed to catch-up?

No one wants to encourage breaking the rules. But this question crops up time and again and is interesting if only from a technological point of view. Can the licensing enforcers – “TV Licensing” – really tell the difference between your watching a programme live on, say, your phone through your Wi-Fi connection and watching it on iPlayer 40 minutes after broadcast? The first requires a licence and the second doesn’t.

“We don’t talk in detail about detection because we do not want to inadvertently aid people deliberately trying to evade the licence,” a TV Licensing spokesman said. “But our processes enable us to identify whether live TV is being watched, regardless of the technology used.”
TV Licensing says it is highly successful, claiming to net 1,000 offenders per day. It says that where viewers declare they only watch catch-up, and hence don’t need a licence, they may well receive an inspector’s visit.

Q. Will the licensing rules change?

Yes, quite possibly. Earlier this month, following a report that 460,000 households now escape the fee with this loophole, Conservative MP Rob Wilson told the Daily Mail: 'These figures demonstrate exactly why the current licence fee model is out of date. It won’t last long with the rapid technological advances of the 21st century.”

But any change would require legislation to be passed through Parliament and so is probably some distance away.
The BBC told Your Money: “Over its history, the licence fee has been modernised a number of times, from a wireless licence to one that now applies to tablets and computers. It is for Parliament to decide the next stage.”
Earlier this year BBC director-general Tony Hall indicated imminent change was unlikely.

He argued that while some claim the licence fee is “a dinosaur from a pre-digital age, doomed to inevitable extinction in an on-demand world where you don’t watch live TV… the facts just don’t bear this out. Around 90pc of all television viewing is still live. Well under 2pc of households consume only on-demand TV content”.

In other words the loophole may be around for a few years yet, for those who want to take advantage.

[charmbrights]

Jul 6, 2014 21:33:59 GMT Teddy Bear said:

For the benefit of anybody not wishing to wait and see whether the licence fee will be scrapped or not, here's how to stop paying it now legally.

...

Q. Can the licensing authorities really detect whether or not I’m watching live programmes, as opposed to catch-up?

...

Actually yes - the process is called TEMPEST or "van Eck radiation" [see wikipedia Tempest_(codename)].  Basically your screen broadcasts a weak signal as it works and this can be picked up by sensitive equipment, so that the person checking your TV can actually see what you are watching and hence whether you are watching what is being broadcast at that moment.  This is true of any screen based device and can be prevented only by putting the receiver inside what is called a Faraday Cage.  Getting the aerial signal in to the cage can be done using fibre optic transmission.

That is a very expensive option. TEMPEST proof computer terminals cost several times as much as ordinary ones.

[Teddy Bear]

I used to be a regular contributor on an anti-TVL website and the question of whether a TV detection device was used by TVL agents was an ongoing one. As far as I'm aware nobody has ever been convicted on the basis of any TV detection evidence. TV detector vans appear to be used to scare people into admission or purchasing their licence. Some had even said when they were able to peek into the back of one of these detector vans all they saw were discarded sweet wrappers.

It might well be possible to detect a TV working using the device you explain, but as to whether it can differentiate the channel being watched, or whether the programme is from live TV or recorded, much less if it is being watched on a mobile phone, I have no idea. I also don't know if the company who runs TVL enforcement, Capita, want to invest in real detectors if they believe that just the threat works well enough.

[charmbrights]

Jul 7, 2014 15:04:19 GMT Teddy Bear said:

...

It might well be possible to detect a TV working using the device you explain, but as to whether it can differentiate the channel being watched, or whether the programme is from live TV or recorded, ... I have no idea.

...

The detection equipment will actually show the same image as is being watched on the target screen, so it is obvious from a glance at the schedules what channel is being watched and whether it is live.

Jul 7, 2014 15:04:19 GMT Teddy Bear said:

...

much less if it is being watched on a mobile phone,

...

Since the current mobile phones must use similar technology to send a signal to their own screens*, then I assume the same emissions are generated. However I do not know the relative power of those transmissions.

*since the input signal is identical and the screens are identical in operation

[Teddy Bear]

Thanks for the info Charm.

In reading Wikipedia about it though it appears that this type of technology is highly classified, and for very good reasons. I find it hard to believe that the government would allow a private company to have and use this technology precisely because it can be used to spy and snoop on anybody's private computer and phone use. Were it to become public knowledge the outcry would be huge.

Your thoughts?

[steevo]

I read the emission from a cathode-ray monitor can transmit up to 10 meters. LCD screens can also emit but I don't know if it will be that distance. Equipment to decode the signals was built in a laboratory and relatively unsophisticated for less than $2000. The bottom line with this discussion is whether anyone has been prosecuted by the BBC using it. I had read years ago about this ability and at that time it was emphasized how unreliable detection is because you have to time it just right, get close enough to the emanating source, and avoid potential obstruction.

[Teddy Bear]

Which reinforces the likelihood that TVL only pretend to have and use this technology.

[charmbrights]

Jul 8, 2014 13:18:36 GMT Teddy Bear said:

... it appears that this type of technology is highly classified, and for very good reasons. I find it hard to believe that the government would allow a private company to have and use this technology ...

It was classified, but in 1987 at the public conference Compsec '87 in London organised by Elsevier there was supposed to be a demonstration of this by Honeywell which was pulled at the last minute (almost literally - 1 hour's notice) by the US authorities when ABC TV had flown a crew from the USA to film a report on the presentation.

In 1988 at the public conference Compsec '88 in London organised by Elsevier there was a demonstration of this which was given by an Irish based manufacturer who said they were not interested in military contracts, and hence not susceptible to government pressure. Their target market was financial organisations, such as banks and accountants, who held very confidential information. As they pointed out, you can't classify facts which any physics undergraduate can tell you.

Many banks, building societies, etc use such terminals in their branches.

[Teddy Bear]

I'm impressed by your knowledge on the subject Charm

I still find it odd that the government would allow any private organisation to have the means where they can covertly spy on the public. I find this most disturbing, as no doubt would the rest of the public if they were aware of it.

[charmbrights]

Jul 9, 2014 12:34:34 GMT Teddy Bear said:

I'm impressed by your knowledge on the subject Charm ...

Computer security was my speciality in the last twenty years of my career. In the early eighties I was Chief Designer (Secure Computing) for Plessey.

Jul 9, 2014 12:34:34 GMT Teddy Bear said:

... I still find it odd that the government would allow any private organisation to have the means where they can covertly spy on the public. I find this most disturbing, as no doubt would the rest of the public if they were aware of it.

As I pointed out, it depends on the laws of physics. The Government could (and some have*) pass laws against the physical facts, but that does not change the facts. If you use a device which has a touch screen the same laws are being used (change in the dielectric state) and your finger is being detected, rather than another device.

* The state of Illinois passed a law which stated that the circumference of a circle was exactly three times its diameter.

[Teddy Bear]

Just for my curiosity, would you say that one would need a high level of expertise to be able to operate this kind of detection technology?
I'm just wondering whether the type of person who would want to be a TVL agent would have the necessary eduction to use this kind of equipment with any success.

[charmbrights]

Jul 10, 2014 12:50:22 GMT Teddy Bear said:

Just for my curiosity, would you say that one would need a high level of expertise to be able to operate this kind of detection technology?
I'm just wondering whether the type of person who would want to be a TVL agent would have the necessary eduction to use this kind of equipment with any success.

I don't know your personal level of expertise so I'll give a few options:
Could you make a TV/motor vehicle/e-mail program?
Could you operate a TV/motor vehicle/e-mail program?

The skill in building a detector is considerable.
The skill in using a detector is switch on, point an aerial, then note what is on the screen and the address and the time. With modern GPS it is even possible to automate all the data collection!

In principle the detection is exactly the same process as when a builder puts a box against a wall to find where the mains wires are buried in the plaster.

[Teddy Bear]

Cheers Charm

[thehighlandrebel]

The TV detector van is a scam.
It's a technological impossibility to tell what someone is watching on television except when they have satellite TV with a line going back to your phone socket.
I remember in Glasgow in the 70's some locals overturned a van as one does and had a look inside. The van had one of these funny radars on it's roof going round and round but there was nothing in the van..just a small motor turning this thing round and round.

Instead of 'TV detectors' the bbc should spend a bit on 'lie detectors' and use them on their Middle East 'correspondents'

[Teddy Bear]

That's always been my understanding THR, and TVL meremly uses these vans to scare people into paying. But Charm seems to know what he's talking about. Whether TVL actually uses them, or simply pretends to no doubt we'll find out in due course.

[steevo]

Unfortunately this subject has to be concerned with tech analysis

The fact is frequency radio waves emanating from TV displays can be detected as it's already a proven capability. But it's also a fact that these waves are very, very subtle and with an older cathode ray tube which appears the most capable to emanate (remember, that's emanate not transmit) it's only 10 meters under ideal conditions. If you are familiar with radio wave transmission that is weak, and that's strait line-of-sight with no interference from walls, bushes, even windows. The receiving antenna has to be precisely honed in at a very short distance with highly sensitive signal amplifying equipment. I find it hard to imagine a roving van even with a super duper antenna can detect these waves coming from inside someone's home located where ever off what ever road. An exercise in futility, assuming they are actually serious. 

[Teddy Bear]

Which would explain why so far there appears to be no record of anybody being brought to court on the basis of this type of evidence.

[charmbrights]

Jul 12, 2014 16:44:46 GMT Teddy Bear said:

Which would explain why so far there appears to be no record of anybody being brought to court on the basis of this type of evidence.

I believe that there was a TV programme in the late 70s or early 80s demonstrating the technique. I do recall one court case where a van had been parked outside a building society in a successful attempt to gain useful information (like account number, passwords,etc.) and I'll try and dig out the reference from my files.

[Teddy Bear]

The BBC commissioned a poll earlier this year which according to the BBC showed 48% were in favour of the licence fee.
I have no idea what questions were asked in this poll, or how they were phrased, but since 48% is a rise on the other polls which we listed above, I smell something fishy.

But even so, the poll still shows that the majority of people, 52%, are NOT in favour of its continuation, yet the BBC take it as a a sign that it should be maintained.
The same logic that makes them claim that they are fair, impartial, and balanced.

Less than half of us want to pay the TV licence fee... but that's why it should STAY, says BBC boss Alan Yentob

• Alan Yentob, 68, was defending BBC licence fee at conference in London
• Said 48 per cent of people supported charge, meaning it should be kept
• Comes after Culture Secretary attacked the £145.50 charge as 'regressive'

By Katherine Rushton For The Daily Mail

BBC boss Alan Yentob has admitted that fewer than half of Britons want the TV licence fee but, in a bizarre twist of logic, said that this is the reason it should stay.

The 68-year old creative director said it would be a mistake to ‘risk’ all the ‘goodwill’ that the public feels towards the Corporation, as he cited a recent poll as evidence of its popularity.

‘Today, 48 per cent [of viewers] think the licence fee is the best way to fund the BBC. That is up from 31 per cent a year ago,’ he said.

However, Mr Yentob did not seem to realise that this means 52 per cent of Britons do not support the annual £145.50 charge.

He made his comments at a lecture in London, following claims by John Whittingdale, the Culture Secretary, that the licence fee is ‘regressive’.

Mr Whittingdale, who has in the past described the licence fee as a ‘poll tax’, said that the charge hit the poor hardest and was becoming ‘harder to justify and sustain’.

The poll Mr Yentob cited was commissioned by the BBC and conducted by IPSIS Mori earlier this year. It found that 29 per cent of Britons are in favour of an advertising-funded BBC, and 20 per cent want a subscription model. The remainder were undecided.

Critics of the licence fee have also suggested that the BBC should be funded through ordinary taxation. A small faction claims it should be scrapped altogether.

Mr Yentob - who earns more than £180,000 a year as creative director as well as an estimated £150,000 fee for editing and presenting the BBC arts series Imagine – reserved his harshest criticism for the idea of a subscription model.

‘[It] would forever put the kibosh on our ability to provide something for everyone. And who knows what disruption it would cause to the marketplace,’ he said.

Earlier this year, the powerful Culture, Media and Sport Committee - which was led by Mr Whittingdale at the time - said that the BBC has ‘tried for too long to be all things to all people’ and that it had appeared ‘profligate’ with licence fee cash.

The powerful group of MPs warned the BBC that it should prepare for the end of the licence fee within the next decade, and suggested a number of alternatives.

Top of the pile was a household levy, which families would have to pay regardless of whether they own or watch television.

As Culture Secretary, Mr Whittingdale is now in charge of the government’s negotiations with the BBC over its funding, which is due to be finalised next year.

His appointment to the cabinet has been interpreted as a warning shot to the corporation by Prime Minister David Cameron.

The BBC said: ‘The licence fee is by far the most popular way to fund the BBC and the percentage of people who think it’s the best way to pay for programmes like Strictly, Dr Who, Sherlock and Wolf Hall has risen significantly from 31 per cent in 2004 to per cent today.’

Earlier this year, the BBC was plunged into embarrassment after it was forced to admit that Mr Yentob’s lucrative job as creative director is not a full time role.

In an embarrassing series of letters, the BBC also struggled to explain what he does in the position, claiming it is ‘highly specialised and bespoke role unique to him’.

[Teddy Bear]

There's a few things to notice in Hall's statements regarding the licence fee.
First, it's not his decision about how the BBC is funded. It's understandable that he would love to continue sucking at the public teat by a public that is forced to pay for it, as would the rest of the scum there. In this way they can continue to do as they wish with little or no accountability, and don't have to be concerned with the quality needed to make the BBC desirable.

Secondly, he outright lies when he claims that the BBC audience want the licence fee to continue, as this thread plainly shows. But the lies and deceit that we have become accustomed to getting from the BBC are part of the reason that the public should be freed from its insidious shackles.

Thirdly, if the licence fee in its current form where anybody would get a criminal record for non payment is not to be maintained, he would prefer it to come out of general taxation where everybody is forced to pay for it. Shows how desperate the parasitical BBC are at whatever masquerades as a heart to keep their funding coming.

Finally, his only remark regarding being put on a subscription model shows the pure hypocrisy of his claims: '...and insisted families would have to pay more if it was replaced with Sky-TV style subscription model'.

If the BBC audience wanted the BBC they would be happy to pay for it, just as they do with Sky, which is far more than they cough up for the licence fee. He knows that the majority of the public would cast it aside, and rightly so, and WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY MORE. They wouldn't have to pay at all.

Choice - it goes with a free country as this one pretends to be.

BBC licence fee could be scrapped in ten years and replaced with a compulsory 'household tax' forcing EVERYONE to pay

• Lord Hall, the BBC director-general, defended the £145.50 a year charge
• But he admitted it could replaced in 10 years by a new funding model
• BBC chief said a compulsory 'household tax' was a 'very interesting idea'

By Tom McTague, Deputy Political Editor for MailOnline

The BBC licence fee could be scrapped in 10 years – and replaced with a 'household tax', the corporation's chief Tony Hall revealed today.

Lord Hall, the BBC director-general, defended the £145.50 a year charge and insisted families would have to pay more if it was replaced with Sky-TV style subscription model.

But he admitted it could be replaced by a new way of funding the corporation, adding: 'I'll go along with the argument that's it got 10 years life in it.'

Speaking on BBC1's the Andrew Marr Show, Lord Hall said a 'household tax' - as proposed by the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee - was a 'very interesting idea'.

He added there is broad agreement for the licence fee to be reformed to ensure 'everyone is paying equally for it and I would go along with that'.

Lord Hall said the type of reform is up to the Government to decide and the BBC to debate, adding: 'It could be a household tax, I don't know whether that works or not.

'We suggested ways of reforming it so whatever way you consume and use BBC services you can pay for it and I think somewhere in there lies a solution.'

But he claimed the public were happy with the current set up.

He said : 'Our audiences, when you ask them, actually think that the case for the licence fee as a method of funding the BBC has gone up and has not gone down. That's really important.

'And they believe in a high quality BBC that's producing excellent programmes right across a broad range of genres.'

Lord Hall dismissed accusations that the licence fee was out of date. He said a Commons report published before the election showed 'it's actually got 10 years of life left in it at least'.

He went on: 'Beyond that Andrew, you and I sitting here 10 years ago had no idea what an iPad was, had no idea about Netflix, had no idea about Spotify - I'll go along with the argument that's it got 10 years life in it.

'And then it went on to say what the licence fee has got to do is what the licence fee has continually done since it was first invented, which is to adapt to modernise, to change because - and this is the principle - by everybody paying something we all get great services for a lot less than if you went down a subscription model or some other route.'

[Teddy Bear]

A year later after the original poll at the beginning of this thread, and another one by the same people shows that the number of people against the licence fee has risen. It's only a 1% increase, but it's still an increase, and still a majority that shows any BBC claim that most people support the licence fee is just another lie from the media outlet where lies are the standard.

I think more and more of the public are becoming aware of the BBC agenda, particularly because their lives are becoming more and more negatively affected by it, and want it to stop.

We would endure adverts to end BBC licence fee: Just over half of viewers back abolishing charge and forcing corporation to fund itself

• 52% back idea of getting rid of £145.50 charge even if that means adverts
• Poll will fuel debate about licence fee's future in run-up to charter review
• But only 15% backed scrapping licence fee if it resulted in higher taxes
• BBC says licence fee is 'by far most popular way' to fund corporation

By Jason Groves, Deputy Political Editor for the Daily Mail

Most television viewers would be willing to suffer adverts on the BBC if it meant an end to the licence fee, according to a poll published yesterday.

The ComRes survey found 52 per cent backed the idea of abolishing the £145.50 charge and forcing the BBC to fund itself, ‘even if that means adverts during programmes, reducing the number of original programmes they can produce or scrapping their public service duty’.

By contrast, only 34 per cent opposed the idea. The findings will fuel the debate about the future of the licence fee in the run-up to next year’s review of the BBC charter.

But the poll, commissioned by Whitehouse Consultancy, found little support for scrapping the licence fee if it resulted in higher taxes. Just 15 per cent backed this idea, compared to 69 per cent opposed.

There was also only modest support for replacing it with a subscription charge. Just 36 per cent agreed with this option, compared to 46 per cent against.

Supporters of the BBC claim that the licence fee remains the best guarantee that the BBC’s public service remit will be fulfilled.

But critics, particularly on the Tory benches, argue that the licence fee is an anachronism in multi-channel age, when many viewers do not even own a TV set.

Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has described the TV licence as ‘worse than the poll tax’, arguing that it is disproportionately hits the poor.

A spokesman for the corporation said: ‘Independent research from Ipsos Mori shows the licence fee is by far the most popular way to fund the BBC.

‘And the percentage of people who think it’s the best way to pay for programmes like Strictly, Dr Who, Sherlock and Wolf Hall has risen significantly from 31 per cent in 2004 to 48 per cent today.’