Should the BBC license be mandatory?

The BBC provides a service for the public good

Question: Should the BBC license be mandatory?
Position1 of 2›: Yes, the BBC license should be mandatory
Argument‹2 of 4›: The BBC provides a service for the public good

The BBC provides a unique service that can be consumed by everyone equally.

The argument

The case for a mandatory licence rests on what kind of good the BBC is, and the clearest way to see it is by comparison with another institution funded the same way. Another example of a non-excludable service that is provided largely for entertainment purposes is the Royal Family. In the UK, there is a sizeable segment of the population that does not agree with the concept of the monarchy. At this point, the monarchy is entirely symptomatic and its public function goes little beyond entertainment. By the standard usually applied to the licence fee — that people who do not want a service should not have to pay for it — the monarchy would be an obvious candidate for reform. But it would be inconceivable to make the financial support of the Royal Family based off of a subscription model or voluntary donations, and the reason is structural rather than sentimental. They are a national, non-excludable institution: the benefit they provide cannot be switched off for non-payers, so a subscription model has nothing to sell and a voluntary model collects from the minority who happen to volunteer while everyone else enjoys the same thing for nothing. Funding of that sort does not reflect how much the institution is valued; it reflects only who is willing to pay when payment is optional. The same description fits the BBC. It provides a unique service that cannot be replicated or found elsewhere, and everyone in the country can enjoy the benefits it offers whether or not they have contributed. Where a service is genuinely non-excludable, a mandatory contribution is not an imposition on people who would rather opt out — it is the only mechanism that matches what is actually being provided. The BBC functions in very much the same way as the monarchy in this respect, and should be funded in the same way, through the public purse.

Context

There are some services in British society that are non-excludable. The can be consumed and enjoyed by everyone equally with no barrier to entry. They also serve a public good. These institutions must be publicly-funded, regardless of cost or burden to the taxpayer.

Premises

[P1]Some institutions provide non-excludable public services whose benefits are available to everyone and cannot be replicated elsewhere, making subscription or voluntary funding impractical. [P2] The BBC, like the Royal Family, is such a national, non-excludable institution providing unique entertainment and cultural benefits to the whole country. [C] Therefore, the BBC should be funded through a mandatory public mechanism like the license fee.

Counter-arguments

The BBC was once a non-excludable service that served a unique function. It is not anymore. Once the BBC provided a service of essential public need. It was informing the population and providing a unique service of a public good. Now, with a host of other media outlets providing news coverage, the BBC’s public worth is severely diminished. Additionally, the Royal Family is public-funded, but not through a mandatory Royal license fee. It comes from our tax revenues. Nothing would stop the BBC from being funded in the same way, removing the arbitrary and inefficient license fee.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] The public worth of the BBC is limited in the modern media landscape. [Rejecting P3] There are other formats for publicly funding the BBC, including through general taxation (like the Royal Family).