As the current BBC charter agreement still has eight years to run, the culture secretary’s remarks about the future of the licence fee should not be blown out of proportion – particularly as they came on a day when ministers may have been keen to shift attention away from the decision to scrap an age verification system for online pornography. Responding to a question from a Conservative MP, Nicky Morgan said on Wednesday that she is “open-minded” on the subject of how the corporation should be funded in future, and will listen to arguments from all sides. A policy of switching to a Netflix-style voluntary subscription service is unlikely to form part of the Conservatives’ next general election manifesto, since the royal charter guarantees the licence fee’s maintenance until 2027.

But the BBC’s longer-term future nonetheless deserves attention. The “health check” due to be carried out partway through the current 11-year deal could provide an opportunity for ministerial intervention, although the licence fee falls outside that review’s scope. The transformation of the global media landscape by streaming services makes the compulsory £154.50 charge harder to justify than it was when the BBC dominated the UK’s television landscape (20 years ago BBC1 and BBC2 between them had an almost 40% share of TV audiences; last year they had only 27%). So does the corporation’s continuing struggle, shared by other traditional broadcasters, to engage younger and more ethnically diverse audiences. Policymakers, organisations with an interest in UK media and culture, and above all the BBC itself, must use this time to explore and reflect on options and possibilities.

Last month Mark Thompson, the BBC’s former director-general, gave a speech arguing that commercial and technological innovation by the BBC has been stymied by a combination of hostile politicians, rightwing competitors and an outdated regulatory framework. As an example, he cited a 2009 decision to block plans for a joint streaming service by the UK’s terrestrial broadcasters (a commercial service, Britbox, launched in the US and Canada in 2017 and will launch in the UK at the end of this year). Constraints have been imposed on the corporation to protect domestic rivals. But unless it is liberated from some of those, Mr Thompson argued, the BBC risks being squashed by the US giants Netflix and Amazon. Opportunities for British talent and inward investment could easily morph into a brain drain.

Do the US streaming giants pose a threat not only to British broadcasters and businesses, but to the UK’s distinctive televisual heritage and style? Because the UK and US share a language, the UK is arguably more susceptible than other countries to being swept off its feet by the sheer force of American digital innovation. Along with the NHS and the monarchy, the BBC is often cited as a key ingredient in the glue that sticks the four nations of the UK together. But even if it has played that part in the past, does that mean the corporation should seek to reinvent itself with a view to consolidating its role in domestic life and perhaps even extending its reach abroad?

Whatever the deliberations about the BBC’s future, it must not be treated in isolation. The corporation is part of a wider media landscape, and its £3.7bn in licence fee income brings obligations not only to the public but to the other media and news organisations, including regional and local ones, who are also contending with the effects of digital disruption. There is a role for a 21st-century national broadcaster. But it will be a different role from the one it played in the past.