Supposing they do away with the BBC Licence Fee?

I'm very loyal to the BBC, which is not the same thing as being a great fan, nor does that make me an an uncritical viewer or listener. But in the main I appreciate the BBC as a national institution with, on the whole, high standards, even if - like all big institutions, especially ones that have a long history - it takes a lofty view on many things, and is resistant to internal cultural change. It's a scandal that, for instance, it has discriminated so much between male and female presenters when it comes to pay. But it has undeniably been ground-breaking in its past programming, and commendably willing to try new things that speak to the modern audience. I say hats off to iPlayer. And hats off to the radio offshoot of iPlayer, BBC Sounds.

I especially appreciate the BBC not being in the hands of a profit-driven individual owner or syndicate with an agenda I don't share. It's such a valuable thing that the BBC is legally bound to provide a wide spectrum of public-service broadcasting under a charter, and is independent of owner or shareholder pressure. It might pander over-much to audiences it would like to reach, and it does sometimes abandon audiences it needs to keep; but the charter confines the Corporation to a broad remit that it can't ignore, one that ought to please most people. And presumably it does. It has some very popular programmes.

That said, the BBC's output, taken as a whole, is far from 'populist', and there isn't much that a fat lout and his fat girlfriend (neither with any culture; both with a taste for fast food, low humour and violence), stretched out on their sagging sofa, would find appealing. Unfortunately there are plenty of these horrible people around, and I'm sure they all consider the BBC stuffy, boring, elitist, over their heads, not cool, and not relevant to their slovenly lives. I suspect that there are swathes of people who believe that the BBC is actually an arm of the Conservative government, jumping to Tory orders, and condescending to the poor and low-achieving. Which is strangely at odds with constant accusations that the BBC has a strong left-wing bias, is locked in combat with Tory ministers, and is full of arty-farty lefties in cahoots with the Labour Party, if they are not actually card-carrying members. Clearly, the Corporation is perennially misunderstood, and can't win!

One image I've always disliked is that of the BBC as 'Auntie'. It has never been that to me. I hate the very notion of finger-wagging senior relatives anyway. I have always seen the BBC instead as a national pillar of excellence, one of Britain's flagship enterprises, a reliable provider of rock-solid news and intelligent programme content. I want it to stay that way, and not see the BBC become a dumbed-down privatised company that needs to prostitute itself to survive.

But now its funding is up for discussion again. And whether the current, universal, compulsory Licence Fee should continue.

Well, I do think it's time to rethink how the BBC gets its money. It can't be completely fair that folk who never flick onto a BBC channel or radio station have to pay. On the other hand, the public-service remit means that the Corporation must have an assured income, and can't simply tout for a subscription income.

One obvious solution is to fund the BBC out of personal taxation. So instead of the Licence Fee, those who pay Income Tax have a little more tax taken from their pay each month. It would be an 'invisible' levy, and therefore much less controversial. And the poorest members of society, who pay no tax, wouldn't be giving the BBC anything. (Quite possibly this would include many of the oldest pensioners, and a lot of people on benefits, both of them groups who might have to rely on the TV or radio quite a bit) The snag, of course, is that it looks like a government handout, and would certainly give the government a big say in what the BBC does, and would like to do. The government could veto some important roll-out on grounds of cost. Another snag is that the BBC's much-vaunted 'independence from government interference' would be compromised.

What if some kind of subscription model is adopted? Let's say that, broadly, the BBC's income level is to remain the same as now. I'll be paying a grand total of £155 in 2020 for my TV Licence. It's taken in monthly instalments by direct debit. It works out at, on average, at £12.92 a month.

Let's say that, with a subscription model, the BBC would be aiming to get £13 a month out of me. How would they design the charging structure? Would it be in packages, such as an Entertainment Package, a Drama Package, a Science and Culture Package, and a News and Current Affairs Package? Or would they put a price on each TV channel or radio station? Would live TV or radio cost more than the catch-up version - or less? - or just the same?

Let's say they charged £2 per month per TV channel and £1 per month per radio station, and the cost was the same whether watched live or in catch-up form. Well, these are the BBC TV channels and radio stations I'd want:

TV
BBC 1   £2
BBC 2   £2
BBC 4   £2

Radio
BBC Radio 4   £1

That covers all I ever look at or listen to. Total cost, £7 a month. I'll take it. But of course, the poor old BBC loses out by £6 a month. Its income slashed by 46%. It won't want that.

On the whole, I think the Corporation would sell its output using those Packages. In which case, if these were priced at £3 per month each, I'd go for:

Package
News and Current Affairs   £3
Science and Culture   £3
Drama   £3

Total cost, £9 a month. I'll still take it. But the Beeb is still £4 out of pocket. A 31% cut in income. Oh dear.

Clearly the subscription model is fraught with problems! At least with a quirky audience made up entirely of Lucy Melfords.

Maybe they'll keep the Licence Fee going for another ten years?