I should say I agree, as others have said, that viewing figures are not the main part of the story. In fact good viewing figures for the BBC have often been used to argue it should not be making that programme (because people watch that instead of adverts and how can that be good for business? I exaggerate a little, but not much).

It is hard to see any commercial company funding the "Life on Earth" standard of programme becauae they are phenomenonally expensive: they often require a cameraman to sit in a remote location for a month or two on the hope of filming a few seconds of some animal. And they may not see anything at all. So few commercial companies make any animal wildlife programmes and the few that do stock to thongs that are easy to film, as far as I can tell.

And that sort argument applies to lots of other programmes.

So I see a well funded public broadcaster as essential if you want quality programmes. It does not guarantee such programmes, but not having one goes a long way to guarenteeing dross. Whether is is fundwd through a licwnce fee or taxation is a second-order question: both have there advantages and disadvantages. But very few people calling for the end of a licence fee seem to be demanding supporting it via taxation.