to not want cuts to the BBC?

[Mintyy]

Can anyone explain to me how cutting the BBC massively will actually improve my life?

I hardly watch tv. I do listen to a lot of radio. But I fervently hope the BBC isn't going to change too much.

It is something that the rest of the world envies us for and I fear it may be one of those things we don't miss until it has gone.

I have a news feed that opens when I open my laptop, it gives me the top stories and feeds from different news sites.

That's great Grays... and what about the people who can't access news via their laptop?

Well there's newspapers I guess, but they're on their way out....

Me too about Netflix. Had access to it one evening and couldn't find anything at all to watch.

Anyone can watch the news without the BBC. Freeview? You're all acting as though the BBC is the be all and end all. The only thing important here is the fact we have to have a license to enable us to watch ANY live television.

So the only thing that is blocking people from doing so (for free) is the BBC and it's license.

You say our society needs education. That's an opinion. I might not agree with you. I might say that I believe that public education damages children and should be scrapped. But crucially, saying or even believing that doesn't give me the right to opt out of funding public education, because rightly or wrongly it's considered at the moment a public good.

The BBC, by virtue of how it was set up and how it is still funded, is a public good.

Now, there absolutely can be a debate about whether it should be classed so. That's a question that comes down to the heart of what it means to live in a civilised society: who gets to decide what is a public good and what isn't?

People who say "I don't think the BBC should be a public good" are making a reasonable point and there's a debate to be had. My original point was about people who are basically saying, "I don't like this thing which is currently considered a public good, therefore I should be able to opt out of funding it".

Which news channels would you watch on Freeview (which is partly funded by the BBC - about a quarter of it's funding comes from the BBC)? CNN? Al Jazeera? Sky News? None of which are particularly known for their impartiality?

If the BBC and it's licence fee is gone (or is a subscription service) mark my words every other broadcaster will go subscription only.

So you do watch bbc news but on freeview?

fabulous arts, available to all, for 40p a day God I love it!

I'm happy to psy for the bits I use - Sherlock, radio, website.

I see absolutely no reason for them to broadcast innuendo bingo on radio 1 though. Nasty, mindless bullying.

Who says all education comes from a class room? Turn on BBC2 now and watch the first night of the Proms

merrymouse that's at the heart of any publicly funded service though, none of us use it all. To pay for the bits we do use would reduce funding so much the viability of the whole organisation is at risk.

I don't expect to use or like it all.

I just want them to cut the bit that's all about laughing at people for saying things that have a very tenuous link to body parts and sex. Some of radio 1 is really dire. It makes 'the word' look intelligent.

No johncusazk I never said I watch BBC news, where was that said? I said people can watch the news without the BBC.

And if we're talking about what's good to the public, I can think of many things more important than TV channels and radio that may benefit but isn't propped up by license fees that people are obligated to pay whether they utilise it or not. It's an archaic model, one steeped in a sense of institution and I think that's fundamentally the reason why people don't like to hear that people just aren't that fussed anymore.

And headfairy I wouldn't harp about the BBC having impartiality when it has been observed on quite a few occasions this hasn't been the case. Isreali-palestinian conflict being one of them. In fact there's been resignations in the past over this impartiality not being delivered, so lets not kid ourselves that the BBC is a bastion of neutrality.

The licence fee can't carry on in its current state - linked as it is to a broadcasting device that is becoming increasingly obsolete. Change is inevitable.

Again, the BBC news is nothing more than a government mouthpiece, especially since the Dr Kelly affair, so all this talk of impartiality is nonsense and no government will want to get rid.

All the talk of public good is subjective as evident across the Internet forums and within this thread, the trend for watching TV is changing and the current licensing model is stuck in the past.

I don't want to see it dissapear and I don't think it will, however I do agree with the non payers who when met with the often used 'quality programming/respected worldwide' trope that if it is such quality and is so respected then it should be able to stand on its own.

The BBC has become a monolith that has recently existed on the guaranteed income of the license payer through threat of a criminal conviction, and with the levels of Middle managers increasing so the quality has dropped and is now competing with toe to toe in some areas with other dross just to chase viewers.

As for the Iplayer I was in the initial dev team, and yes it is possible to enforce a license number to enter as we initially rolled out without geo-location blocking and used to display adverts instead.

I think the BBC can work on less, if that means cutting some channels and scaling down the website or not sending an army of reporters out to Brazil to cover the World Cup, so be it.

I say scrap radio 4 and lets see all the people who bleat on about the licence fee winge when they don't get their dose of The Archers ;-)

Sport is such minority broadcasting anyway, who on earth watches sport these days? Why bother sending anyone?

What the BBC needs less of is managers, not programming.

Headfairy I admire your passion! Yes the BBC is an important eductional tool. I have learnt so much from Brian Cox, David Attenborough, Mary Beard, Lucy Worsley, Ruth Goodman, Chris Packham, Michael Moseley et al in the last few years. Cbeebies is also teaching my child before he starts school. Without the BBC I cannot imagine the state of our educational programming.

Well sport is widley watched world wide hence the separate subscription model used by Sky,Virgin,NBC and even BT Sport which inderictly funds other parts of the programming whilst lining corporate pockets and increasing the English Premierships TV rights, but I digress.

I think the programming output should be looked into, they have been producing a lot of low rate/effort programming for years just to chase viewers just as the website is sinking to click bait article within certain sections just go attract page hits, for every beard/cox/Attenborough (that have all produced excellent documentaries on sky) you have people such as hawking discussing donut theory on some distant sky channel, Sky Arts is also punching pretty highly with some of its output that is showing that the BBC has become complacent.

I think radio should be separated personally and a very small amount should come from general taxation, but even then that output should be trimmed, I'm a big 6music fan even before the call to protect it, so I wouldn't like to make a call on what should go

You can't get Sky for £12 per month though, so I'd rather stick with the TV licence.

Sorry for spelling, dyslexic and my tab is messing up tonight.

What Springbabydays says... why should sport/arts/entertainment/educational programming just be for people who can afford £££ every month? The licence fee means the BBC can produce all of this for a relatively low cost. Get rid of that and you get rid of all those services for people who can't spare the money for Sky.

i do think something needs to be cut from the bbc budget but they are going to do that. i dunno i am not really impressed with alot of the content especially dance talent shows/cookery/tweet english middle class programmes (countryfile) but appreciate bbcfour and bbc films.

i dunno part of me thinks it should be paid for by the people who seem to love it, they could afford it to be a paid for channel.

now i am waiting for a bbc four rock show and have to watch the sodding golf. it is a bit topsy turvey.

Well, I think the basic sky subscription is ~15/20 a month (including a broadband package in some instances) and with the DVR that they provide means you can access catchup of a wide range of channels and also depending on how you view TV it is possible to never watch an advert again, so it kind of comes back to why force everyone to pay £12 a month on top, unless your one of the very few who only watch BBC output and never strays onto those ghastly terrestrial channels.