Before we replace it,
let’s understand it.
“Just put ads on it.” It sounds simple. Before we change how the BBC is paid for, let’s look at the amount, the purpose and the alternatives.
It is a large sum. The next question is what we ask it to do.
What does it support? →The BBC you watch.
And the BBC you might not see.
Learning. Local voices. Reporting beyond our borders. A public service can matter even when you are not its audience.
The BBC is a broadcaster, a learning resource, a local presence and an international news service. A single funding debate reaches all of them.
You do not have to use every part to think it should exist.
A bigger future.
Homework without a checkout.
Learning resources that a child can open without asking a parent to buy another subscription. The BBC’s learning remit includes resources to support formal education and preschool learning.
Supporting learning is part of the BBC’s remit. Provision can be commissioned for its educational value, rather than only its ability to attract paying households.
These are examples of public value, not slices of a spending chart.
Can your alternative fund it? →Same ambition.
Different way to pay.
Start with the alternative you think should work. Change the assumptions, watch the total, then take your proposal into the next section.
What would close the gap?
At 10 million subscribing homes, this mix needs £21.04 a month before additional costs.
Every assumption, calculation and limitation
- Target: £3,843m net licence-fee income in 2024/25. NAO. This is a dated benchmark, not total BBC income or a claim about the current year.
- Advertising: £5,271.4m × the selected market share. AA/WARC, 2024. This is TV including streaming, not all advertising. The model holds market size fixed; it does not predict demand growth, prices, radio or other digital advertising.
- Subscription: price × 12 × subscribing homes. Price and demand are deliberately independent so you can test your own case. The 30m slider ceiling is a design range, not a demand forecast or a measured market size.
- Retained licence-fee income: £3,843m × the selected percentage. It is revenue retained, not a proposed household price or a household levy.
- Advertising and subscriptions are counted before deductions. VAT, sales costs, collection, churn, enforcement, exemptions and transition costs are not modelled. Existing non-licence income and the service ambition are held constant. This is optimistic gross arithmetic, not a business plan.
- A hybrid assumes the two revenue streams can be added. It does not model how an ad-free tier reduces ad inventory or how advertising affects subscriber demand.
- Presets are illustrative starting points, not forecasts. The chart rescales if income exceeds the target. Break-even rounds the subscription price up to the next 10p. Saving an attempt keeps it only until you reload this page.
- The next section uses an explicitly illustrative schedule. No funding gap is allocated to a named service, and no programme cost or future cut is calculated.
What about a household levy?
A levy could also raise public funding. Replacing the collection system would raise separate questions about fairness, exemptions, enforcement, independence and transition. This calculator cannot establish that the licence fee is uniquely capable of funding the BBC.
A mix can reach the target. The next question is whether it can sustain the service and its public obligations.
What disappears
between the favourites?
The funding total is only part of the story. Confirm your mix above, or explore the funding level below.
A day of public service.
An illustrative day across TV, radio and online. The fading entries show kinds of provision at risk—not predicted cuts or actual BBC listings.
The morning headlines
TV & radio · news bulletin
A new story, made for children here
Children’s TV · original UK commission
Your council, questioned
Local radio · a locally produced interview
Help with tomorrow’s lesson
Online & educational TV · learning resources
A world beyond the headlines
World Service · a language-service radio broadcast
The programme everyone’s talking about
TV · shared evening viewing
At the benchmark, the full illustrative schedule is visible.
How to read the disappearing schedule
The money comes from your calculation. The gaps are an editorial illustration of vulnerability, not calculated programme losses. Children’s commissioning, local programme sharing and World Service broadcasts are foregrounded because there are documented changes to examine below. We cannot establish which would be cut first in a future BBC.
In this illustration, those three entries fade together over the first 35 percentage points of a funding reduction, with a small visual stagger. Remaining entries fade as the slider falls below 65%. These figures are animation settings, not evidence-based cost thresholds. Empty slots remain visible to make absence noticeable; raising funding brings the entries back. A fully funded mix causes no deletion here, but still needs to explain access and public obligations.
The gaps have a history.
These examples establish vulnerability. They do not establish a future order of cuts.
More choice does not guarantee more made here.
Ofcom records falling UK commissions and commercial pressure across children’s TV. It identifies children’s programmes and news as less commercially attractive genres that need support.
This is a sector-wide trend, including the BBC. Changing viewing habits and distribution also matter; it is not a controlled experiment proving one cause.
History shows the vulnerability. It cannot tell us exactly which future programme would be cut.
What should we keep? →Keep the licence fee.
Demand a better BBC.
You can question the spending, challenge the coverage and expect reform. The case for retaining the fee is a case for protecting a shared service while improving it.
Public funding that supports services beyond the programmes any one of us would choose to buy.
Accountability, value for money and support for people who struggle to pay.
Any replacement to explain who will pay, who will have access and how less commercial services will be protected.
A starting point to adapt
I support retaining the BBC licence fee through Charter renewal, alongside stronger accountability and fair treatment of people who struggle to pay. Before any replacement is adopted, I want clear evidence of how it would fund the BBC’s public remit, maintain access and protect less commercial services.
What position will you take on this in Parliament?
Draft only. Review and send it yourself through your MP’s official contact details.
The current Charter expires on 31 December 2027. The public consultation has closed; Charter review continues. Follow the review ↗
Read the evidenceAn argument you can check.
Keeping the licence fee is the position of this site. Published facts, our calculations and illustrative scenarios are labelled separately.
Net licence-fee income in 2024/25. Not the BBC’s total income.
02 / Advertising Association & WARCThe television ad market ↗£5.2714bn in 2024, including streaming. The model holds this market fixed.
03 / OfcomChildren’s media and public provision ↗Evidence to Parliament on UK commissioning, market pressures and the BBC’s remit.
04 / National Audit OfficeWorld Service savings and reach ↗Documented platform closures and the decline in audience, with qualifications.
05 / OfcomIndependent scrutiny of the BBC ↗Performance against its public purposes, including areas needing improvement.
06 / UK GovernmentThe Charter review ↗The current Charter expires on 31 December 2027. Follow official developments here.
Why use 2024/25 figures?
This version keeps the £3.843bn benchmark used throughout the original argument and pairs it with 2024 advertising data. It does not describe these as the latest figures. 2025/26 accounts are available; any update to this exercise should update the target, comparisons and source notes together.