[foldr]

>and that we keep it.

Surely it would make more sense just to fund the BBC through general taxation. The cost of the license fee is set by legislation anyway, so it's not as if the license fee model gives the BBC any additional independence.

[flir]

The original idea was that by having a separate funding path, the BBC was at less risk of government control.

[mrkwse]

Another key tenet is the universality of the fee. Everyone pays the same rate regardless of background, so there should be no preference/bias to creating content for a wealthier demographic that may pay a greater proportion of the fee.

The funding is equally shouldered across the population, so the content should be created with equal consideration too. In practice doesn't always go that way, but that was the principle.

[epanchin]

I don’t think that makes sense. If everyone pays the same, most funding will come from the least wealthy, as there are more of them. Making the wealthy pay more would keep funding sources more equal.

[dependenttypes]

This would mean in theory that 10% of the population would pay 50% of the bbc fee and in turn would receive 50% of the content tailored to them.

It is not about teams being represented the same amount, but about individuals.

[newsgremlin]

The funding isn't controlled by the government but it may aswell be given how the BBC board is selected and their approval of the non-executives and the director of the BBC. The Queen (i.e. Ministers on her behalf) appoints all of them.

Those appointed from outside the BBC tend not to have any background in NGO or non-profits. Bit strange for a not for profit public broadcaster.

It's a very hairy arrangement and I don't think most of the public are aware of it.