"The TV license is an admittedly odd way of funding a state broadcaster, but it works well enough that nobody has bothered to change it."
I think the concept of the license is rather alien to people in countries where all civic amenities are subject to the whims of democracy and the government. This is very much not true of many things in the UK (the BBC, the Army, numerous universities and schools, guilds and societies) which would formally exist even if the government were to disappear.
I know you probably know all this, so this is really for everyone else's benefit.. but the BBC's entire basis is defined by a Royal Charter which is independent of politics. If the government of the day (or, say, a Trump-esque character) hates the BBC, they can't suddenly defund or destroy it. This is why we do not pay for it in a tax (which the government could adjust) but via a license defined by Royal Charter.
I think the British way of having government merely being one more institution amongst many (rather than the institution) is a rather powerful advantage.
It's a bit of legal fiction really. A government with a sufficient majority that felt like taking on one of the more respected/loved institutions in the UK could absolutely abolish the BBC if it wanted to, and can set the budget of the BBC and set the license fee. The current conservative government forced the BBC to cut its budget while taking on additional costs, e.g. the over 75s free license, and the cost of running the World Service (previously funded by the Foreign Office),
In reality Parliament cannot create any institution that it cannot also eliminate or change if it wanted to. It's why QANGO stands for "Quasi-Automimous Non Governmental Organisation", and isn't "ANGO". These sorts of arrangements are just there to put the organisation at arms length and make it clearer when the government or Parliament are exerting their authority (which they have done many times with the BBC, such as forcing out the director general).
The quasi-independent model is actually pretty common in many countries, including as someone else mentioned the German public service broadcaster.
I think the concept of the license is rather alien to people in countries where all civic amenities are subject to the whims of democracy and the government. This is very much not true of many things in the UK (the BBC, the Army, numerous universities and schools, guilds and societies) which would formally exist even if the government were to disappear.
I know you probably know all this, so this is really for everyone else's benefit.. but the BBC's entire basis is defined by a Royal Charter which is independent of politics. If the government of the day (or, say, a Trump-esque character) hates the BBC, they can't suddenly defund or destroy it. This is why we do not pay for it in a tax (which the government could adjust) but via a license defined by Royal Charter.
I think the British way of having government merely being one more institution amongst many (rather than the institution) is a rather powerful advantage.