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

More people live in London than anywhere else - the other channels are mainly London based too, its where the program makers mainly live? Cbeebies now mainly Salford based and loads of programs made in Scotland and Wales.

Try living abroad, then you'll really learn to appreciate the quality of most BBC programmes, not to mention the radio stations. It's incredibly well respected around the world, especially for the quality of its news reporting.

To quote Joni Mitchell, 'Don't it always seem to go, that we don't know what we've got till it's gone'.

I second that flimflam

I agree with you too prettybird, a lot of it isn't my taste but was is, is good.

The nice thing about the BBC is it doesn't have to pull the same tricks as ITV, four and five. So whilst it may be a bit mild, or bland in places I much prefer that to ratings-led junk the others have to show to get the advertising rates.

Of course the other channels show some good things too, but it's nice to have a more gentle corner for things.

I miss the BBC. I love that we still get some of the programmes over here, but I miss a lot of the stuff they do and the lack of adverts. Once you can only watch channels with adverts, you do tend to appreciate the Beeb more, I feel.

You know it's funny. When I was 23 I lived in barracks in Germany. You couldn't have Sky then, so the only TV I watched was BFBS - which was pretty shite.

When I used to come home on leave I was facinated by the adverts! Mum and Dad had Sky, and whereas they'd stop talking to me when the programmes were on, I'd stop talking when the adverts come on! I actually missed them

(yes, I know I'm strange)

YANBU! yes, we should get rid of it (or rather get rid of the forced tax). If people love the BBC and want to pay for their channels then they should be free to do so via a subscription which THEY pay for and not people who don't watch the BBC.

thirded to FLim flam ..somebody has already seconded it .. Living abroad when you go back the channel I tend to switch to is the BBC. The series I tend to hire/ borrow or watch on mums i player are BBc series/ documentaries. However with the I pad I do watch stuff 'live' and it is almost always BBC. My dds adore c beebies .
Here we pay an equivalent tv licence for the leading channels - however the tv is crap , its full of adverts and really not worth it at all.

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?

larrygrylls I live in a socially deprive area and daily interact with people on very low incomes. They watch a wide range of programs - honestly its not all soaps and reality TV- and their DC use the education stuff on the bbc website - they are often directed to it by the local schools.

The BBC at it's best seems to generate mass interest in nature programs, history programs and Science - the licence fee gives them freedom to try and do that.

I've also experienced money being tight - you have to make difficult choices - and while you may value things like educational sites and documentaries you may well not be able to priories it and afford to pay more for them.

I'm sure people without DC or pensioners may object as well to paying for such children?s services - I don't particularly like paying for sport or celebrities wages I don't like. However there are many state services I don?t use my taxes still go into collective pot to pay for them.

I get cheaper more comprehensive health care with state NHS than I could do with private health care. I believe I get cheaper more comprehensive and wide ranging services with the BBC than I could if it became subscription service and was broken into smaller constituent parts.

Commercial stuff tends to go to where the most people are and where the money is greatest. Why bother educating if you could just make money?

If you have a popular service - you make people pay the most they can for that service - you don't provide it for production costs.

The licence fee is worth it so I don't have to listen to adverts on the radio. Also, can anyone imagine a service like 6 Music or most of BBC2 and 4 being produced on a commercial basis ?

The BBC have some of the most popular internet sites in the UK as well as being a major innovator in this area. All paid for by the licence fee.

And complaining about any bias is irrelevant. How balanced are the commercial stations ?

It depresses me when the BBC compete for sporting events and pay ludicrous amounts of money for them - at least a commercial broadcaster can make that money back. That said, all international sport with a UK presence should be free to air. And I'm not much of a sports fan.

According to the BBC Annual Report 96% of the UK population watch the BBC each week, with an average viewing period of 19 hours. (And that was before the Olympics)

So there you go - 96% of the UK population can pay the licence fee, and 4% could opt out. Surely that wouldn't make a big difference to the programmes, but it would make a big difference to the pockets of the 4%.

I like the educational and informational aspect, and think the independence and relative freedom from commercial pressures is very important too.

I'd like to see more of the Beeb's educational side, as it used to be, and less of the everyday gratuitous violence in things like Eastenders.

If you really don't want to pay for the licence isn't it easer than ever to avoid - can't you avoid it by not having a TV?

I mean radio and website you can still access - I'm not sure about the status of the iplayer but the commercial channels all have similar technology which I'm sure could be played without incurring the licence fee and dvd's of entire series are now available.

Surley that 4 % can easily opt out?

Sugarplum you can access I player without a tv license provided you aren't watching as the programme is broadcast.

can't you avoid it by not having a TV?

But I want to watch TV, and I pay a Sky Subscription to be able to watch the programmes I like - I just don't want to watch BBC because they don't make programmes I want to watch.

Why should the 4% give up TV altogether if all they don't want is BBC?

Interesting - so to opt out you really do just have to not have a TV.

Does make you wonder why so many of us pay the licence fee with out much fuss.

We pay as while it's a lot of money we feel we get value. We could avoid it fairly easily then as we rarely watch things now at broadcast times. We are not planning to though.

Sky has a service like the Iplayer - you can access on line.

Why mess with the 96 % broadly happy because you don't want to change your habits and technology.

YABU - I would hate to live in a world where the only TV was such innovative and informative shows at Jeremy Kyle and that awful Essex thing

Give decent drama and documentary progs with brilliant news and debate over commercial pap any day

Does make you wonder why so many of us pay the licence fee with out much fuss

Not really. Some will pay because they like the BBC. Some will pay because they are scared of being fined. Some will pay because they are used to paying. Some will pay because their employer forces them to (that's the boat I'm in).

the Licence goes to commercial channels as well not just BBC

the Licence goes to commercial channels as well not just BBC

Not according to the BBC website . See my post above.

YABU in my view. You only need to travel/live overseas to see how mindless and trite most commercially funded output is. Yes, the BBC is flawed and complacent, and it definitely needs reform, but it is still WAY better than most other stuff that's out there. I know the BBC produces some utter rubbish, but I'd hate to be faced with a world in which TV consisted of wall-to-wall X-Factor/I'm a Celebrity/Channel 5-style 'Shock Docs', all interspersed with ads every 2 minutes, a la Downton Abbey.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I watch mainly BBC1/2/4 with only occasional forays into the other channels. And Radio 4 is on pretty much all the time in our house. At least with the licence fee they have to make some (albeit sometimes meagre) effort to produce quality programming, rather than pandering solely to commercial interests.

they do get some of it - and BBC also collaborates with other channels

IMO the BBC is the best TV company IN THE WORLD. No one else even comes close. £12/month is a bargain. I pay £10/month for spotify.

The BBC is taken seriously, it is an amazing ambassador for the UK.

And don't assume that without the BBC there would be no TV licence. We pay TV licence in France, and we don't get a commercial free station in return, we get dross.

I bet if the BBC opened up subsciptions at £12/month worldwide they would get a lot of takers. I would happily pay that just for iplayer (which we can't get here).

BBC gets £3.6 billion from us.

If so many people want BBC, why cannot it be through voluntary donations/subscriptions? If you want it, pay for it.

I think BBC can afford to be complacent and bloated and mediocre because people are complacent about how their taxpayer money is spent.

Oh, why are we so tied to traditions in UK? We can't get rid of the monarchy, we can't get rid of Aunty, we think school ties are more important than competence. And that someone who runs the Royal Opera house should be given the job of managing £5 billion without even a formal interview process.

We just bumble along as a nation, happy in our mediocrity.