BBC is ready for a fight to defend licence fee

The six-year funding agreement underpins the BBC's editorial independence. If the Corporation were to haggle every 12 months over the size of the licence fee, it might well affect the judgments of editorial executives during negotiations. Keeping the government of the day sweet would become a requirement of the job.

Tory leader David Cameron knows that well enough. He is convinced that the BBC has too much money already, and should not have more, especially during a period without inflation. It is also a pointer to the future, should he win the general election. The next fee settlement is due in 2012, and the BBC is on his agenda. The Corporation will not get an easy ride under a Tory government.

By chance, the chairman of the BBC Trust, Sir Michael Lyons, gave a speech at the Royal Television Society last night in which he spoke about money too.

Unsurprisingly, he underlined the need to avoid an annual negotiation but much more interesting was his view on the BBC's desire to support other public service broadcasters without sacrificing a penny of the fee. This is the nub of a debate that has a long way yet to run. One of the undeniable features of the 21st-century BBC is its increasing media dominance.

Rupert Murdoch has been saying it for years. Leaving aside the fact that he has a vested interest, through his Sky TV, there are plenty of media owners around who now agree with him, particularly in the light of the BBC's growth, whether in extra TV channels, the rise of its commercial arm Worldwide and the huge resources it has devoted to the internet.

ITV has already thrown in the public service towel in the regions, and its national commitment is slight. Beleaguered Channel 4, the BBC's supposed public service rival, is desperate to find a way of picking a hole in the Corporation's pocket to share its bounty.

Commercial radio operators complain about its supremacy. Newspaper publishers, even including the historically supportive Guardian Media Group (for which I write a blog), are envious at its online success. Some magazine publishers have raised their voices too about the BBC moving on to their territory. Everywhere I go, I hear people say: "It's just too big." What they mean, especially in these recessionary times, is that it has too much money, has moved - albeit tentatively - into inappropriate commercial activities and simply has too many fingers in too many pies.

While sharing some of these concerns, this kind of argument is rooted in a traditionalist, even reactionary, view of media. It does not take account of the new possibilities of the digital age, not least convergence. As the BBC's director general, Mark Thompson, said recently, the Corporation's greatest success has been in seizing the future, thus ensuring it is neither irrelevant nor obsolete. Note also that the most successful media companies across the world, including Murdoch's, are those with a diverse media portfolio.

Should the BBC really cut off a limb or two in order to please less successful media companies or merely to shave a pound or two from the licence fee? Then again, should it help those competitors in some other way?

Both Thompson and Lyons believe so, arguing that they do not want to see the BBC as the only supplier of public service content. The Trust does appear to be going to some lengths in order to find ways of supporting other public-service broadcasters. Talks continue between BBC Worldwide and Channel 4, and the Corporation has signed an agreement with ITV about sharing facilities for regional news in England and Wales. After representations from regional newspaper publishers, the Trust also backed down on allowing the BBC to extend its regional online coverage.

What the Trust will not contemplate is top-slicing the fee. Nor will it contemplate handing over any digital switchover surplus directly to other broadcasters, preferring instead to see it fund universal broadband rollout.

In justifying its actions, Lyons referred to the Trust's remit as  "the guardian of the licence fee", which is all about judging it in terms of the public value it delivers to the people who pay for it. "Let's not forget whose money we are talking about here," he said. It was "not the government's, not political parties', not other regulators' and ultimately not the BBC's. It's the public's money. "To suddenly tell them midway through the settlement that their money is being siphoned off, as some have suggested it should be, would be more than an act of bad faith, it would be tantamount to breaking a contract."

That might sound like rhetoric, but Cameron would do well to take note of the most important fact dropped into Lyons's speech, the result of a poll in which people were asked: "Would you miss the BBC if it wasn't there?"

Two years ago, 70% said they would. A pretty good figure. Nothing like as good, however, as the latest result. Now 85% say they would miss it. Given the BBC's high-profile dramas of the past year or so - fiddled phone polls, Ross-Brand, continual sniping from national newspapers - that is remarkable support. Would we miss MPs as much?