Part govt funding and part subscription sounds like a logical compromise but the devil would be in the detail.
No other major UK broadcaster (or any at all, perhaps?) operates a subscription-only model. So would BBC 'entertainment' be allowed to sell advertising slots? I suspect ITV, Sky, Channel 4 etc would argue that it could have a devestating impact on their businesses.
Of course, there's the argument that we're in the streaming world now, so the BBC should be like Netflix, which costs subscribers significantly less per month than the TV licence. But every subscriber has had their bill effectively subsidised by Netflix's $15 billion debt. Will the government be happy to have billions of debt on its balance sheet in order for a subscription BBC to compete? Given the govt wants to sell Channel 4 because it *might* one day lead to a liability on the govt balance sheet, I suspect not.
Of course there's also the question of how Freeview and Freesat homes - many of which have equipment that's incapable of decrypting broadcasts - would access pay BBC - think about the elderly etc.
I can't see how Andrew Neill's suggestion would work in practice. I suspect the BBC will ultimately end up doing a lot less and be limited to whatever funding the govt decides upon for PSB news, radio etc. Any entertainment offering will be sold off (anyone for EastEnders at 7pm on ITV?
)