Indeed, much of the US output is rubbish. A lot of it ends up on digital channels here as cheap filler between episodes of Chris Barrie being smug about a machine.
However, for me, the BBC simply isn't producing any thing I watch. Or listen to, for that matter. The only thing I use the BBC website for is the weather forecast.
They don't even show Neighbours any more.

The BBC have maybe three series that have sparked international recognition - Doctor Who, Top Gear and some breathy Attenborough vehicle in HD.
None of them I'm wildly enthused about. So if that's the organisation firing on all cylinders, I'm sorry, they need to do better.

I watch far more BBC output now as a result of iPlayer - they could do so much by scrapping BBC Three and Four and just rolling the relevant programmes into one channel. Or stop repeating everything on BBC2 and fill it with those programmes. All Three and Four seem to be is a testing ground for the big two, or something that meets the loftier aspects of their remit.

Also, iPlayer is either increasing their viewers or enabling them, so IMO why not make that jump at least?

Whatever way it's funded (and I have both problems with that and some of the more recent output), I don't think we need to see standards drop any further, and we'd be looking at ITV levels of sh1te within two to three years if that happened I reckon...

That has always been the primary argument to me - we already have ITV and if we deregulate the BBC, surely all we will get is another ITV. Which I don't really see there is a demand for, or the advertising revenue to support.

Jon

It's a funny word, 'deregulate'. It conjures up a sort of air of responsibility, that the BBC are 'regulated' and are therefore good, honest and decent. After all, they're regulated.

Can I ask what we mean by 'deregulate'?

ITV, despite not receiving a licence fee, are still subject to regulations, are they not? In other words, they are not an 'unregulated' broadcaster?

Semantics, maybe, but the organisation would be just as capable of producing 'Cash In The Attic' with an ad break, or indeed the Planet Earth series. I can't imagine that a top level production like that wouldn't draw advertisers interests. If you're interested in 'greening' your brand, where do you go - Planet Earth or X-Factor?

Or maybe we should make the BBC subscription based, just as Sky is, instead?

Ooh that's a bit harsh, Planet Earth is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. It has a few too many "can we have a slow-mo helicopter shot" moments but it's genuinely awe-inspiring.

We have to consider also that all video entertainment will be available on the internet in the near future, thus TV as a separate entitiy from a PC will soon cease to exist.

I wonder how people will feel when they lose their job and then cant find that the benefits do not stretch enough to cover even one program.

I am in favour of scrapping the fee and then reducing everyones personal allowance by say £150 that way they can still give free TV to the elderly, and families with multiple earners and multiple TV's will pay slightly more than before. The TV license cost £700 million to collect and enforce. You would save that sum instantly. The BBC would get exactly the same amount that they do now, and the government would save £700 million on collecting it.

They are clearly less able to fill a proper hour with original programming because advertising takes time from their slots. Want an hour of Battlestar Galactica? You have to watch one and a half episodes then.

My point: the BBC has more time to fill because it doesn’t have to give up time to the advertisers. It can do more with an hour than a commercial channel could.

I'll pay for the BBC just to keep the independent and objective journalism (particularly Newsnight, although standards at the Beeb have been noticeably slipping in recent years).

I'm hoping by this, you mean the original and not the godawful remake that was on earlier this year.

The BBC, unlike other UK broadcasters, is subject to the provisions of the BBC charter (and associated agreements and amendments) that requires it to meet specific standards and requirements:



The full text of the Charter and Agreement can be accessed here.

The BBC has to meet these obligations in order to receive its share of licences fee money. Other broadcasters, whatever other obligations are placed upon them by the authorities, are not specifically bound by the conditions of the BBC's charter obligations. If the BBC was deregulated (and stripped of the licence fee) it would not have an obligation to meet the Charter provisions and so would no longer need to provide certain services (for example local news, education & children's services, some religious programming e.t.c.) in line with other broadcasters.

Assuming the BBC was required to raise revenue by means other than the licence fee (or another source of public funds) it would presumably have to obtain funds from other sources such as advertising and there would be a reduction in the amount of programming broadcast in order to fit in the adverts (so, as has been said, instead of Dr. Who being a 45 minute program it would be an hour long program with advertising breaks interspersed throughout it).

If we want some sort of performance (rather than arbitrary legislative) based benchmark to which other broadcasters aspire to then we need a publicly funded broadcaster that has a set of clear programming requirements. As as been said previously in this thread, we consider it of cultural value to fund the arts, museums, public entertainment entertainment and education and the BBC is a part of that mixture. Whether you choose to avail yourself of those services is not the issue, the issue is whether our society is better for having them or not.

Throughout its history the BBC has exerted a massive amount of cultural influence and has played a significant part in shaping what people expect broadcasters in the UK, and indeed throughout the world, to deliver both in terms of content and quality. Should it continue to be able to do so in the future or should it be allowed to disappear into the hemogeny on commercial broadcasters? With what would it be replaced?

Are there other ways that funding for a public service broadcaster could be raised? Of course there are but no system is perfect.
Adding to general taxation would work but how do you guarantee the amount that goes to the broadcaster and ensure the government of the day doesn't have undue influence (as they would be holding the purse strings directly).

Have a clause that the spending cannot be withheld and if reduced by more than 10% over a parliament it triggers automatic elections.

The beeb is advert free, well almost, save for their ridiculous filler or navel gazing. This is a primary requirement. Ads just annoy me.
If the licence fee is to be scrapped an alternative, non commercial, funding method needs to be described.

question time, news 24, iPlayer and their web site are worth the licence fee just by themselves IMHO …

i agree BBC3 and BBC4 should be scrapped and then only BBC1, BBC2 and news 24 can be focused on ...

Actually, I'd prefer to keep BBC4 and scrap the news channel. BBC4 is what BBC2 used to be when I was a nipper, full of good documentaries and interesting drama. BBC2 is more like a dumping ground for the cheap stuff that's too intellectual for BBC1.