BBC - just how do we continue to justify the fee?

I'm not knocking the fee, but you have got to ask what the BBC actualy provide now, that is different from any other commercial channel?

In my business, if you provide a service that you think might make a profit, the taxpayers purse is prevented from providing a similar service at the taxpayers expense.

Looking at all the BBC channels, drama, comedy and childrens programmes are provided on other channels, with inevitably better results. Take for example Art Attack. The BBC provides the pittifully poor copy called Smart. Why is the fee paying for such drivel.

The BBC news output is good at national level, however News 24 is nothing special and frequently in error. Even the once undeniable lack of bias has been exploded by the Gilligan affair. At local level the ITV programmes are better, more inclusive of the area and enjoyable (except HTV West).

Even the arts are better presented on ITV1 and five. Why don't they get a share of the fee to promote there output?

Radio output is again provided better by commercial channels.

So what to do? Well, the BBC as a corporation ought to be disbanded, replaced by a BBC plc, split 60/40 in the governments favour.

BBC One should become a commercial channel taking advertising and sponsorship. It would then become a real rival for ITV1 on a level playing field.

BBC Two would become a commercial channel after 1600 hrs. During the day, it would concentrate on politics and offbeat programmes not provided elsewhere.

BBC News 24 would remain as a non-commercial station, but would also take more current affairs programming.

All other BBC Television channels would be closed - how can anybody justify BBC Four is beyond me.

On radio, the National stations would become commercial, with the exception of Five live, which would convert into a news/sport only station. Local Radio would remain as now.

BBCi would continue as now, but the sections dealing with non-programme items would be commercial.

The regional structure would change as well. Each BBC area would be required to come up with programme ideas, removing the 'pro-London' bias from the schedules. As was the case on the ITV network, a schedule controller would pick the best programmes. In addition, all non-commercial programmes would be on a publisher-producer basis, if a BBC can provide the best programmes, they would get the jobs. In addition, the BBC would be able to provide programmes to other networks as desired.

BBC production facilities would be reorgainsed into a proper commercial BBC Resources, not the hashed up version we had recently. I can't imagine that TV Centre couldn't be hugely profitable. In addition the 500+ buildings the BBC occupy must cost a fortune.

The licence fee would then be split between the BBC, ITV and Channel Four and Five to produce Arts, documentary, 'risky' drama and cultual diversity programming.

I'm sure the BBC could survive any such change, and probably appear better at the end of it. In addition, it would be free of the meddling of the board of govenors, who only have knghthoods and royal engagements on their mind.

I don't think your suggestion is workable, why make all these BBC services commercial ? That would cause problems for the existing commercial companies, already fighting for a share of the ever decreasing advertising pot.

No, what should happened is that some of the unnecessary services should be merged or completey removed altogether, and the licence fee should be scrapped in favour of a BBC subscription when the analogue signal is switched off.

That way, those who want the BBC can continue to receive and pay for it, whilst those that don't can continue to watch the television without fear of a knock on the door and a hefty fine or even a prison sentence.

Let those who wish to use the BBC service pay for it.

I could pick holes in all of that, but I'll start at just this:



It wouldn't be a level playing field - long-term, advertising budgets would be split 50/50 (or worse, 60/40) in favour of one of the channels. Programming budgets would nose dive.

It is a well-known fact advertisers would not shell out more in their budget to support a commercial BBC1. The budgets would remain the same.

So, if either BBC or ITV doesn't go bust - at least one of Five, Sky One or the UK TV channels would fall, along with a host of smaller channels who would find ad revenues diverted ...

Uninterrupted programming?

Well if I'm going to be picky... some junctions do have enough trailers to fill an ad break!

...which don't interrupt a programme!

And I'd say the BBC is far more than a broadcaster that doesn't show commercials; giving that as a reason is a very basic debate.

Ah... I misunderstood Katherine there.

This is patently untrue and the monster that is Granalton is now doing all it can to get rid of local programming.


Again you are living in cloud cuckoo land -- commercial radio provides no equivalent to BBC Radio 4,
and the local in ILR is a total joke. The coverage of news and local affairs is infinitely better than anything on ILR, whose idea of "local" programming is a DJ in a "local" studio spinning discs.


The fact that is beyond you, only reveals your lack of appreciation of quality programming and your total failure at comprehending the role of public service broadcasting.

With you there, Corin. Just take one look at the national viewing figures for local news. ITV only get more in one region. That's down to them nationally sucking the life, and money, from their news programmes.

...or that they are up against the BBC 6 o'clock news, which is the highest rated in that timeslot.

I'm perfectly happy with the licence fee - it means we get arguably the best television in the world, without any adverts at all. However, I'm sure when I get my own house somewhere I'll find it a pain in the neck to shell out the ~£120/an, and my opinion on this subject will change.

-chris

Talk with Talk Talk? But seriously, have to agree with everything you've said there Corin.