Which BBC service would you axe?

What a load of nonsense. You want to scrap the most successful digital channels and make BBC Parliament finish broadcasting part way through the parliamentary day. Apart from being ridiculous, it has an agreement with Parliament to broadcast the Commons in full.

And you want to scrap the licence fee. How exactly would you pay for all this? And don't just say "adverts", because that would kill off ITV as well as the BBC. There's only so much ad money to go around.

Adverts

Re: Black and White licence - it's time that was stopped completly!


Re: commercials - as much as I hate it, scrapping the TV Licence in favour of commercials on the BBC TV channels would have too great an impact on the market as a whole.

I'd rather it became a subscription service, but that causes problems of it's own, especially around Free to Air events such as the Olympics. Sky would have a valid objection if the BBC were given permission to continue screening them as a subscription service, while banning the BBC from screening such events is unthinkable - and IMO it's events such as that which are the only thing the BBC are good for.


I strongly believe though it's a different matter in radio. There are so many ads for BBC services on radio, they might as well have commercial breaks - and certainly IMO Radio 1, Radio 2 and 5 Live are commercially viable - and as part of a family of channels, Radio 3 and Radio 4 are too.

There is also a strong market in local radio, and I see very little justification for the BBC running local stations that could be run commercially.

It wouldn't be a case of selling to anyone though - I'd have them run on a similar model to C4, and even allow the BBC to run as a commercial venture in a similar way to their involvement in UKTV. So I'm thinking UK Radio 1, UK Radio 5 Live etc...

BBC online is really useful, get rid of bbc3 & or 4 and bring new comedy etc back to BBC2 where it belongs.

Indeed, I have acknowledged in the past that the BBC did try to do this. But they are ultimately in charge of collecting the TV Licence, and even though they did try to create a cheaper analogue-only licence, once their plans were blocked the entire matter was put to bed (almost 6 years ago) and to date has never been mentioned again. Why, as a public service, did they not continue to argue their case?


Thankyou for your support, but again, the BBC are charged directly with collecting the licence fee. 'TV Licencing' is a trading name under which various bodies collaborate to collect the fee under appointment from the BBC. When they know that the TV Licence is allready unpopular, why on earth do they allow a group of companies which use such underhand practices to remain in charge of it's collection?

IMO, the very reason that the licence is such a bone of contention is only 50% due to the need to pay the money - the other 50% is due to the horrific practices of the collection mechanism.

As I said above, some of the more reputable *DEBT COLLECTORS* do not use tacticts like those of TV Licencing, so why do the BBC allow the operation to continue as it is when, since they are ultimately in chrage, they can so easily strap them down or dismiss them and bring in a new system?

The answer - however much many of this forum's members may not want to admit - is that the BBC ultimately only want as many TV licences as possible to be sold and do not care about how they come to be sold.

So when people come to praise the unique work they do because of the unique way in which they are funded, perhaps it's time people came to question about how those licences are being sold and why the BBC are happy to let those methods carry on.

I think there are some advantages of having a public-service broadcaster that is not commercial.

Firstly it is advantageous to slow-burning or "cult" programmes. Some programmes aren't smash-hits straight away. Commercial stations can be accused of "strangling at birth" some shows that have promise, but don't intially deliver ratings. That naval drama shown by ITV a couple of years ago is one example that sticks in my mind.

The first series of Fawlty Towers didn't fare that well in the ratings intially; now it is regarded as one of the BBC's most succesful comedies. It is possible that if it had aired on a commerical channel, the second series wouldn't have been commissioned considering the "poor" ratings.

Coast intially had low viewing figures, but now is one of BBC2's highest-performing shows. Again, if that was on a commercial channel I suspect it would have been pulled after a few episodes.

Secondly the BBC can do serious public service broadcasting , which may not be high-rating, but it is of high-quality-- PSB at its best. A lot of David Attenborough's work may not have been ratings-busters, I feel his work shows to me why the BBC deserves a (resonably priced)licence fee. You would be hard-pressed to find TV anywhere in the world, that is "worthier" than some of David Attenborough's work or some of the BBC's other serious output.

The BBC could do with trimming back I think-- surely there is plenty of unnecessary bureaucarcy they could unburden themselves with?

In terms of the channels, BBC1 and BBC2 work fine as they are I feel. BBC1 is great for general entertainment, drama and mainstream current affairs. BBC2 is perfect for more specialist programmes, cult comedies and new programmes. I can't say I have ever watched BBC4 or BBC3 (nothing remotely appealing for me!)... so as others have suggested; merge those two and make BBC3 a repeats channel. No other digital BBC TV channels I think

As a side note, does the BBC really need seven national radio stations R2 a lot has variety on it, and probably covers some of R5's,R6's and R7's output

I think R1-5 and BBC local radio are the only stations necessary. I think BBC radio is good for the much same reasons I have argued ^ for BBC TV. Plus a lot of people like listening to BBC radio, because isn't interupted by commercials every five minutes

I would like to axe BBCi press red stuff. No need for it and it would free up space on freeview.

Also, Get rid of Three and Four, and being back BBC Choice showing the best of Three and Four without all the c**p.

I think that the biggest waste is the BBC Interactive service. It takes ages to load, the video streams only seem to be used for sport or the news summary (which is too small to get a good service) and contains no more textual information than Ceefax already provides.

As for the poll I voted for the BBC Digital Radio as I really don't see the need for it. Most of the content on there could be distributed amongst the analogue radio channels I'm sure. As someone not having digital radio, and having no intention to do so, I really don't feel I'm missing anything.

I agree with some of the comments about BBC Two - most of it's content has been taken by BBC Three and Four, with the best programming in the 21.00-22.30 slot. I think that BBC Four and BBC Two could merge, as the intended audiences of the channels are similar. I think that the CBBC and CBeebies channels could merge as well providing a blanket children's channel with a variety of programming for both groups. Considering that CBBC is on BBC Two in the mornings and afternoons on BBC One, both it and CBeebies could be acommodated on just the one channel.

What a shocking thread. Fancy ditching BBC2! It's the best network on TV!

Quite clearly the right option is for Cbeebies and CBBC to be merged into one service. BBC Parliament was originally a cable channel called The Parliament Channel, so perhaps a Community Channel-esque replacement could be in the offing?

BBC Interactive has never given me any trouble, BBC Three may be useless but it has it's purpose (funny how people forget such gems as Little Britain, Torchwood and The Smoking Room so easily) and BBC Four may be cerebral and niche, but surely (for this channel at least) quality programming is more important than quantity of viewers.

And as for the BBC 2W detractors, pfft.... I've seen more quality Welsh-subject documentaries in its 1 and a half hour airtime slot than I ever did before its existence.

So my solution: Offload BBC Parliament to a community broadcaster, tidy up BBC Three, and merge Cbeebies and CBBC.

Nope, no where near. BBC 7 is mostly repeats from the archives of Radio 4 and so costs sod all to run (although also not that much of a point). I'd argue that 6Music is a twenty/thirty somethings Radio 2, so i'd defend that - and i'm puzzled as to how you see much of a link between Radio 2 and Five Live's output.



All of the talk of axing BBCi services is crazy - it won't save you much money.

The BBCi text based services is largely duplicating information on the website and so costs very little, and to suggest dropping a teletext-esque service is a little disappointing. Also if a criticism of the service is how slow it is, it is probably the fault of your box; my own Pace DTVA is very slow, but i've used a new Sagem box that is much quicker. [It wouldn't suprise me is BBCi text has quite a bill attached to it, probably a an accounting practice to make bbc.co.uk look less expensive]

The interactive streams while not costing too much, provide a very handy service - a BBC Sport 'overspill on demand' - very handy; and quite cheap.


Likewise ditching Parliament won't save much money and is a classic example of how important the BBC are - running a public service when a private company went bankrupt.

There is probably some scope for re-organising the TV channels post switchover, into three main channels supported by News, and Childrens.

I would give BBC Digital Radio the axe, I would axe the stations but I'd keep the formats, but put them online, BBC7's shows could easily be put online, 6 Music is nothing but a glorified Radio 2. I can't say for 1Xtra as I don't listen to it or Radio 1, but the I'd have guessed that alot of the 1Xtra material is on Radio 1 at some point or another. Keep Asian Network on Digital as that is a good Public service that's well recieved.

BBC Three should be better, they have the money to invest more into original programmes but they just don't want to pull their finger out of their arsés to show new material, and just show repeats. Anything that Three has that is a success and an expensive production seems to be taken by One or Two, most notably Little Britain and more recently Torchwood.

I don't see anything wrong with BBC Four, it's a superb high brow channel that isn't offered anywhere else on Digital Television.

NO! 6Music is the only BBC radio station worth bothering with. Scrap Radio 3 instead or merge BBC7 with Radio 4 as they're basically the same but as previously mentioned BBC7 will cost nowt to run.