http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html

I’m a staunch supporter of the BBC and of public service broadcasting, in this time of digital media, on-demand services and subscription packages, the days of the license fee are numbered. In this brave new digital world, are there are fairer and more effective ways of charging people for what they want to watch, while at the same time safeguarding the BBC’s public service broadcasting ethos?

The future for broadcasting is television on demand: the programmes that you want, when you want it, where you want it. Scheduled programming will still have its place, for live events such as sports, for shows like Strictly Come Dancing and X Factor where the audience votes, and for event dramas like Doctor Who where loyal viewers can’t wait to see and discuss the next episode. But in the modern tv environment, the scheduled air date is less the one off opportunity to watch something, and more the “release date” after which a show can be watched at the viewer’s convenience.

Technology is still playing catch-up, of course. This will all really come into its own when you can get an integrated package across television, internet at home and on the move, and mobile devices such as phone. In principle, there’s no reason you can’t be able to start watching something on the television, but if you had to go out, you could bookmark your place, and then carry on watching on your phone or laptop while on the bus, for example, or to rent a film from an on-demand service and be able to watch it on any device you own for a given period of time. What you want, when you want it, and we’ll get to that point soon. The BBC iPlayer is at the forefront of the convergence between web and television.

But this raises some interesting issues, as Ashley Highfield, director of BBC Future Media and Technology discusses on the BBC Internet Blog. As it stands at the moment, you only need a tv license to watch television live as it airs. If you’re in the UK, you can have no television, yet watch and listen to a wealth of programmes from the BBC (and other similar players) without paying a penny.

However, the BBC already simulcasts some stuff, such as sports, and has begun beta testing live streaming of some channels. You could start requiring people who have broadband to pay the license fee, but that would hardly be a popular move – you’d basically be giving anyone who uses the Internet no opt out from the license fee under current legislation.

Here’s my view: the future for funding the BBC, and public service broadcasting in general, lies with a subscription model.

One possible structure would to to have BBC Basic (equivalent to terrestrial TV and radio), BBC Plus (to include BBC’s digital channels), and BBC HD packages, for example, for a given amount per month or annually. Those who just wanted the basic package would end up paying a bit less than they do at the moment, while those who want the full range of BBC content would pay a bit more.

The advantage of subscription packages is that you can include the cost of minority and public interest programming within the package price. The subscription cost would go towards not only popular shows like Doctor Who and EastEnders, but to the news and minority programming.

A subscription model has the advantage over other commercial systems of funding television that the viewer is the primary customer, rather than the advertiser. When you watch ITV, you aren’t the customer, but the product. ITV sells audiences to advertisers. The commercial logic is that it doesn’t really matter what content you show in between the adverts, as long as it gets the right audience (the more affluent, the better, generally) watching in large numbers and in a mood where they want to buy stuff.

The exact system would have to be very carefully worked out in order to make it fair and attractive to viewers, and also to safeguard the future of public service broadcasting. You’d need a stronger statutory requirement for television broadcasters to provide public service broadcasting. Perhaps the government could require that a certain percentage of subscription fees be spent on such programming.

The BBC’s services could also be opened up so that people internationally could subscribe to these packages, bringing in additional revenue. Given the reputation attached to the BBC brand worldwide, I suspect it would be very popular. For example, I’m sure lo2C I’m sure lots of American Doctor Who fans wouldopportunity to watch their favourite show uncut and without adverts direct from the BBC, for example, and many who watch the show via torrents would be happy to support it by downloading it through legitimate means if that option were available. The best way to stop people obtaining a service illegitimately is to offer it to them legitimately.

The danger, of course, is that any attempt to alter “the unique way the BBC is funded” will be used as an opportunity by whoever is in government to restrict the BBC. The BBC is far from perfect, but the license fee and its public service ethos makes it a world-class broadcaster, and I don’t trust Gordon Brown or David Cameron to go mucking about with the BBC.

Anyway, no-one’s likely to pay any attention to what I think, but it’ll be interesting to see what the future holds for the BBC and for broadcasting in general…