Britain's media regulator, Ofcom, has blown a raspberry at the government's proposals to prop up the BBC for another ten years. That's how long Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell plans to extend the licence fee - an annual tax on TV ownership that goes exclusively into the BBC's pockets.

But Ofcom argues that the licence fee should be raised a bit and divided up between the Corporation and its commercial rivals. It also proposes getting rid of the BBC Governors, who at present try to run and regulate the same organization, in favour of an independent watchdog overseeing the public broadcasting content of both the BBC and commercial stations.

From its sleek riverside headquarters, Ofcom argues that the country will soon switch wholly from analogue to digital broadcasting, which will produce "seismic changes to the broadcasting landscape", making the old way of funding and running the BBC out of date.

I'm not sure what 'public service broadcasting' is, exactly. Our report Media Meddling and Mediocrity says it's little more than making sure that politicians appear on the box. But if the government is determined to support 'public service broadcasting', then the idea of paying competing networks to produce it seems a good one. Why should the state maintain its own broadcast network solely in order to produce the odd Newsnight or Panorama that only the political junkies watch? Better just to pay for the programmes themselves, regardless of who is contracted to produce them.

Frankly, though, I'd still prefer my money back. Sky News or the History Channel produce excellent serious programming without needing public subsidies. Why can't the BBC?