I'm sure there will be quite a few right-wingers out there that will be pleased with news that the £3.4bn the BBC receives from the licence fee may be carved up with commercial operators. Obviously those that say they "believe" in the BBC will think it's the end of the world and someone somewhere will note how it is caving into profit and the talk of funding right-wing propaganda will probably appear.
Personally, I don't think that it should be done. After all, commercial outlets operate under heavy regulations already which stop them really being allowed to have an opinion. As such, there is a mythical notion of impartiality pushed throughout the broadcast industry.
What would it mean for those commercial enterpruses if they started receiving public money?
If a commercial operator gets public funds how will they be governed to prove what is and what is not being funded by the public in their output? You can imagine what will happen already, if, for example, a documentary that goes against the grain of received wisdom is shown there will be all manner of crowing from people saying it is a misuse of public funds.
It already happens with the BBC from the Right as it is. If public funds are spent on commercial operators you can guarantee that accusations of bias programming using public funds will appear from the Left. What would be far more effective is to scrap the BBC Charter altogether, lose the licence fee and move some of the corporation's output to a subscription based service.