Two ways

 I'm being spun in different directions by Lisa Nandy's consultation on funding the BBC. 

There are those who tell me the question about taking some (more) advertising is there simply to provoke the usual suspects - Reach, ITV, Channel 4, The Radio Centre - into such a cascade of outrage that she has no room to maneuovre. 

There are those who tell me that extending exemptions from licence fee payments is so complex that it will never fly. Imagine 'free' BBC to those in full time education; by proxy, you'd take half the diminishing number of households out of the system, watching on sons and daughters sign-ins.  Or a reduced deal for the 8m on universal credit - that's at least 6m households.  You'd have to more than double the full rate.

There are those who tell me a premium subscription, if only for archive, is a dead end.  The BBC hasn't got enough sizzle left to sell in competition with the US streamers.  

And yet, you sense that Lisa would be keen to produce change. Advertising might be confined, say, to sponsorship. On the archive, we already 'pay' twice for BBC produced, recycled endlessly with ads on the U-channels of BBC Studios. And the BBC likes Britbox in the States; why not revive it in the UK ?

And, on the households v individuals conundrum, a move to the award-winning tradingaswdr option of a levy on broadband and smartphone connections, might allow more flexibility.....