It seemed pretty obvious to me as I trawled through Ofcom's second public service broadcasting document and listened and watched chief executive Ed Richards field questions on the review yesterday, that there is a clear policy solution standing head and shoulders above the others among the four options for funding a short fall in PSB provision from 2011.
The point where Richards became animated and where the arguments in favour seem to outweigh the cons in Ofcom's charts, is the proposal to utilise the portion of the licence fee currently earmarked for digital switchover from the BBC licence fee.
This annual excess amount is put at £150m and instead of it being re-directed back to the BBC after 2012, it could be ring fenced for other things. This is described as a flexible, transparent, accountable, stable and transferable mechanism by the Ofcom review.
But it is also a nice pot of money, which the BBC is learning to live without, however painfully. It would cover Channel 4's estimated funding gap pretty neatly. Channel 4 pleaded eloquently for a minimum £100m aid a year last month, which would leave another £50m left over for other worthy causes, perhaps local and regional news or for children's programming.
The apparent beauty of this ruse is that the ring fencing is already in place, the licence fee money is already being collected and spent, and no one has seriously suggested that it has called the licence fee into question.
And the BBC, while hurt, is not on its uppers. It is still moving to Manchester, redoubling its commercial efforts, striding into digital media and making some great programmes.
As a policy option, compared with alternatives such as imposing levies, it is painless. The BBC even offered up this sacrifice, in the interests of getting last year's ten year licence fee settlement, which it must surely now regret. The previous culture secretary but one, Tessa Jowell, agreed it. And behind the scenes Channel 4 has been quietly pointing out the existence of this potential windfall, while trying in public not to look too predatory.
However, there are considerable down sides to a longer term deal. Siphoning off licence fee cash for approved PSB programmes and content is very different to paying for digital set top boxes or aerials. Ofcom sees the downside as diluting the connection between licence fee payer and the BBC, all very true.
But do we want to give politicians, or a politically appointed board or body, the right to take a slice of the licence fee, and dispense this money for the kind of PSB programming they want to see?
This is not so far from the Conservative Party's media policy, in favour of top slicing.
Richards, to be fair, is scathing of a broadcasting arts council of the air idea. Under the ring fencing approach content providers, such as Channel 4, would be awarded longer term contracts, with grants tied to specific outcomes.
However, it is worth noting in passing that this is not a particularly flexible way to run a quasi commercial broadcaster such as Channel 4.
So while ring fencing a portion of the licence fee is preferable to a fully blown public service broadcasting council, to whom the BBC would be just a big customer, it is still, potentially, the thin end of a slippery wedge. Do we really think politicians, once they this tool in their hands, would stop at a modest sum?
This all needs very careful consideration. Not least the issue of unfair state aid - a very real stumbling block; and an alternative suggestion, to let Channel 4 have more advertising minuteage.
Finally, Ofcom's analysis shows how very much more important the internet has become in providing information about public matters compared with 2003, and there is certainly going to be another step change by 2012.
Could it be that the digital television switchover task force might even need a sister programme, a digital broadband extension, to close another very real divide?
