the BBC isn't it time we just got shot of it?

[southeastastra]

it's very middle class blue peter biased in my view

not to mention the cover ups of late

i know that the majority wouldn't agree but a subscription service for radio 4 etc would ensure that's continuity

"The BBC spends hardly any many on quality broadcasting"

You then go on to complain about the megabucks paid to some of the presenters (I'd hardly call them "dubious celebrities" even if I personally don't like many of them, many others do) accounting for 0.37%, ie less than half of one percent of the BBC's budget.

I am still happy to pay the licence fee for the breadth of broadcasting we receive unfettered by advertising and relatively free of political meddling.

So MoreBeta, where does your figure of 50% come from?

And Dallas that isn't easy because of things like the iplayer.

I think the license fee is definitely an outdated model. However I want an organisation which makes decent programmes and I've yet to see a commercial company do that.

Iggy, if they want their pay based on a free market rate, then they should operate in a free market, no? Why mandate taxpayer funding for celebs?

I suggest two option. First option, is to follow the US model for Public Service Broadcasting (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) both of which are excellent. They only get 20% or so of their funding from the government, the rest are through donations and foundations. See here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

The second alternative is voluntary fees, and BBC competing like any other news and entertainment media.

ltEvans, I guess there is a first for everything

Sorry, the link
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_for_Public_Broadcasting

Oops - autocorrect changed "money" to "many"

It always amazes me that left wingers defend the anachronism which is the BBC. It is a retrograde tax on the poor to allow the wealthy to watch non economic but "high culture" programmes. At the same time it is an amazing public subsidy to a combination of untalented "talent" and mediocre non management which would have done any fatcat banker proud at the height of the financial bubble.

Come on. Time to call it a day. Maybe allow a small subsidised public service channel go forwards for a licence fee of £25 or so. As for the rest, let people pay for it if they want it, just like anyone else.

Absolutely not! The standard of broadcasting will drop overall if we lose the BBC.

This kind of thinking makes me very sad

LtEveDallas - are you my twin? I can't wait for all those non-BBC programmes to start again, definitely my favourites. The only thing I am currently watching on the Beeb is Strictly Come Dancing, and this is only the second series we have ever watched. I did watch The Great British Bake Off this year, but I see that one of the Sky channels is now running repeats of previous series.

I think the thing is that the people who say it is fantastic value for money and wonderful programming, shouldn't expect those of us, who mostly don't watch it, pay for their entertainment. They would quite rightly get upset if I asked them to pay for my Sky subscription.

There was a woman on the Today programme last week whose name I didn't catch (Culture & Media Select Committee perhaps?) who was banging on about how the BBC should stop making reality shows and only make wildlife programmes etc etc etc. Basically, she wanted the BBC to only show what she likes to watch.

The OP thinks they are too 'middle class'.

They can't please everyone all the time can they?

The BBC is local, national and worldwide. TV, radio and publishing. News, entertainment, information and education.

I love the BBC. I'm proud of it as a British organisation that leads the world in broadcasting. I dread what we would be left with if we lost it.

flatbread no, I dont think they should operate in a free market. Such a thing doesnt really exist as we've seen with banks being bailed out by the state. The idea of a free market is a lovely (!) one but it doesn't work. I don't think the BBC should be paying ridiculous packages to celebs quite frankly anyway.

Now the US isn't exactly known for its amazing television so I'm not sure about your proposal.

Even if you don't watch the BBC, the other channels you watch are most likely influenced for the better by the BBC's excellence in broadcasting - no not every BBC program is excellent, but overall - as Quenelle says, they are world-leaders, and their existence raises the bar for everyone.

There isn't a day that goes by where we don't use at least one of its services - so even though the licence fee is a lot I can't say it?s not worth it.

Can't say I watch BBC1 and BBC2 that much - we watch more the sky channels however the BBC children channels, webpages ? children?s which are full of activities and learning support and news, pod casts, and Radio 4 are regularly used and are fantastic quality. I also like the I-player when the sky box is on the fritz again or when the DC want to watch more episodes of a series.

I think subscription to these services would cost so much more and I'm not sure how you'd have a sunsciption to accesses radio stations.

I also think the DC webpages and the edcuations stuff on there would no longer exist.

"I think subscription to these services would cost so much more and I'm not sure how you'd have a sunsciption to accesses radio stations."

I wonder why that would be? Could it be that a lot of poor people would decide NOT to pay this retrograde tax and subsidise your viewing? How is making them pay for what they do not want to watch remotely fair?

"I love the BBC. I'm proud of it as a British organisation that leads the world in broadcasting. I dread what we would be left with if we lost it. "

If enough people feel the same as you, it would not be lost, merely paid for by the people who love and want it.

I would pay the fee for octonauts and horrible histories alone

I love a lot of bbc program's and I don't think I could bear to listen to radio program's with adverts all the time

If we are going to continue bankrolling the BBC, then it should be forced to only make dramas, news and documentaries - as much as I like Don't Tell The Bride, any commercial channel could make this. I'm not sure I should be taxed to fund the dire quiz shoes and reality TV that the BBC indulge themselves with.

This might mean that the BBC goes back to the days when it didn't run 24/7, and that would be okay, so long as we got more programmes like Sherlock and fewer programmes like Strictly.

Taken from the BBC Website:

The BBC used its income from the licence fee to pay for its TV, radio and online services, plus other costs, as shown below.

TV
£7.96 per month per household:
BBC1, BBC2, BBC3, BBC4, CBBC, CBeebies, BBC News, BBC Parliament, BBC HD, BBC red Button. Total spend £2,351million (66%)

Radio
£2.11 per month per household:
BBC R1, BBC R1X, BBC R2, BBCR3, BBCR4, BBCR5, BBCR6, BBCR7, BBCRA, BBC Local, BBC Nan Gaidheal, BBC Radio Wales, BBC Radio Cymru, BBC Radio Ulster Foyle. Total Spend £604million (17%)

Online
£0.66 per month per household: BBC Online, iPlayer, BBC Mobile. Total Spend £199million (6%)

Other costs
£1.40 per month per household: digitalTv, investment in new technology, running costs, collecting the licence fee. Total spend £406million (11%)

---

So that is £10.73 per month in services I don?t use. I would happily pay £1.40 per month, solely for the ?Investment in new technology? part of the licence, but I don't see why I should pay for the rest.

My list above shows what TV I watch, I only listen to local radio at work, or Heart when I am driving; I don't use BBC online, iPlayer or mobile.

Keep the BBC and the Licence Fee for the people that want it, let the rest of us opt out.

There is more to BBC than the tv and radio. My child's education improved significantly, especially science since I didn't know how to help her thanks to the BBC website (education sites).

Saying that, I hate when I hear people being paid ludicrous amounts of money especially when they had done crap job and when they leave they get large pay offs.

Larry is right, and the PBS/ NPR are good examples of how private funding can sustain a high-quality public broadcasting service. 60% of the funding comes from private donations. The programmes are excellent. Would give the BBC of former glory a run for their money.

The people who keep saying BBC is better than broadcasters worldwide have evidently not travelled/lived abroad in recent years because TV elsewhere has moved on to higher standards.

BBC is run by old white men who are caught in a time warp. Patten and his ilk are a joke, and only competent in feeding off the taxpayer trough. Time to move on.

Um, no. YABU.

Anyone who's ever lived in a place without quality public television - in my case, the US - will vouch for the greatness of the BBC. I genuinely don't think people appreciate it here because they take it for granted. It's so incredibly cheap for what you get. And what you get is truly amazing.

In the US, you get four crappy network channels for free, with five minutes of advertising every seven minutes or so. The programming quality and "journalism" on these television networks is abysmally low. There is one severely under-funded public television network (PBS) which is in constant threat of being cut by the government, so runs pledge drives to get people to pledge money constantly. None of these five channels can ever, ever hope to touch the quality of the BBC. To get anything better, you have to subscribe to basic cable - upwards of $75/ mo. To get anything REALLY good, like HBO, you will be spending $200/ mo or so. (My family was never able to afford it.) HBO in my opinion is about on par with what you get on the BBC.

The BBC is renowned worldwide - in the US people are in awe of the programming and journalism you get. Television access here is so much cheaper, better, more equitable than in the US. It's like night and day.

The BBC hasn't made the best TV programmes in the world for quite some time now. HBO and AMC make the best programmes nowadays (Mad Men, Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead)

No, you're right. Let's get rid of The Apprentice, Horrible Histories and Outnumbered and give all our money to Murdoch and his cronies. After all, we can't cope with Jeremy Clarkson earning more than us, or paying 40p a day for rubbish like Doctor Who, Sherlock and all the programmes the DCs watch!
And as spotsdots said, don't forget the BBC Bitesize websites. Great for revision.

Another note: I love PBS, but those saying it has amazing programming are neglecting the fact that SO MUCH of PBS' programming comes straight from the BBC!

BBC is run by old white men who are caught in a time warp. Patten and his ilk are a joke, and only competent in feeding off the taxpayer trough. Time to move on

as is our country, minus the "old".

as for a retrograde tax on the poor - you could say that about anything we pay for? When I buy a loaf of bread, it's the same price regardless of income.

And flatbread, who says the programmes are excellent? You?

Cozy9 - yes, and HBO is able to make these programmes because they get scads and scads of money from rich subscribers.

If the BBC was a subscription channel today and someone asked people whether they would prefer for it to change to one paid by license fee, people would laugh at the idea.

The only reason people pay is because they are attached to what they have now. There is a psychological term for it, but I forget the name.