Yeah but ultimately it's the government who enable license fee collection as it currently stands with their blokes in a van who come around to harrass you if you've not coughed up. There's a special legal framework around TV licensing which more or less ensures the BBC's success - taking that away and forcing them to operate like a normal private company would inevitably massively harm their revenue and force them into finding external private investors, advertisers within the UK and such. So I think it's fair to say that the BBC's operations certainly are dependent on government good-will even if they don't officially control it.
I think there is some value in having a network like this, however, in that it adds to the diversity of networks in that it's not just "yet another privately owned network".
I find it interesting, however, that Channel 4 is state owned yet they (maybe I just mean Jon Snow in particular) seem to have an easier time being more critical of the government. It is likely that this is because it's not totally dependent on any one form of revenue given that it also has adverts on its main channels, but also it probably sees less pressure because of its smaller viewership and I suppose generally less serious tone of programmes.
I think there is some value in having a network like this, however, in that it adds to the diversity of networks in that it's not just "yet another privately owned network".
I find it interesting, however, that Channel 4 is state owned yet they (maybe I just mean Jon Snow in particular) seem to have an easier time being more critical of the government. It is likely that this is because it's not totally dependent on any one form of revenue given that it also has adverts on its main channels, but also it probably sees less pressure because of its smaller viewership and I suppose generally less serious tone of programmes.