"(The) Corporation says it would make more revenue from a German-style charge that applies to all households rather than just those that watch live TV".

According to this article in "The Guardian"...

"The BBC is backing a new system of funding that would see all households pay a levy, replacing the current licence fee which only targets homes that watch live TV.

The corporation says that it will make significantly more revenue from the move with TV Licensing, the body tasked with collecting the licence fee and chasing down evaders, costing more than £100m last year."



According to Wikipedia:-

"As of 1 January 2013, the licence fee in Germany is now a blanket contribution of €17.98 per month (€215.76 per annum) [about £155] for all households and is payable regardless of equipment or television/radio usage.

Businesses and institutions must also contribute (the amount is based on several factors including number of employees, vehicles and, for hotels, number of beds).

The fee is billed by the month, but typically paid quarterly (yearly advanced payments are possible). People on minimum wage, or certain similar types of income e.g. low unemployment benefits) are exempt from the licence fee and those with certain disabilities can apply to pay a reduced contribution of €5.99."

I believe that, although I've previously advocated a subscription model for the BBC as the best way forward, a 'household tax' will merely harden the opinions of those who proclaim not to watch what the BBC outputs that funding the organisation in such a way is 'unjust'. After all, they pay for Sky and never watch (or listen) to the daily output of the BBC, and believe that old chestnut that ITV output is 'free' to everyone.
Those who are shirt-tailing the broadcasters - watching everything on catch-up services, and contributing nothing to the pot available for creation of that content - are equally likely to be 'turned off' by the compulsive nature of such a tax on all of our community.

The world of broadcasting is changing, whether we want to acknowledge that or not. The internet is becoming more and more important - if only because it's allowing new players such as Netflix, Amazon, BT, etc., into the game. Much of their influence is simply driving up the prices of what new content there is available, in the way that Sky did befoe their entry. Ultimately the audience will be the loser as their subscription for those services will forever increase as the demands of Sport, the Arts, Drama and the technologies to deliver that content are forced higher and higher.
Of course by that time it could all be too late anyway: the option of tailoring the BBC output to what the whole audience want rather than 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' or the surviving followers of Mary Whitehouse.

Frankly, without the BBC's News output and the availability of Radio's output on the internet, the material available on the web as entertainment is paltry. YouTube seems to satisfy a considerable portion of my needs, since it allows me to watch once again programmes that had merit in the value. The apparent desire by people to watch such as Big Brother (complete with its "Celebrity craze") and "I'm a Celebrity: Get me out of here" would seem to be based on our basest instincts and (IMNSHO) have little place on entertainment channels. But then I'm an old duffer, and should be put away like Victor Meldrew.
Thank heaven that much good output has been assigned to DVD/Blu-ray as it allows me to tailor my own viewing to high-grade entertainment, and avoid having to watch the general pap which seems to be the current offerings.