Minister for Fun opens consultation on future of the BBC

The Government has opened up a wide-ranging consultation on the future of the BBC, whose ten-year duration Royal Charter expires in 2017. Inside the BBC Micro From this ... Coincidentally a Government review of the criminalisation of license fee evasion, was also published today, the Perry Review, which has decided to …

[JeffyPoooh]

Open up BBC TV to the world

For a moderate fee (comparable to the License Fee), allow anyone anywhere to subscribe to all BBC TV channels.

Via that Intertubes-thingy.

Ignore any local government demands for channel licensing. Just tell them it's an Intertubes-thingy.

[Bob Vistakin]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

And whatever you do, don't look too closely at how much is spent putting up all those downtrodden managers from darn sarf forced to slum it oop north.

Insiders know full well the turf war since the move just gets fiercer every year, so god knows what it costs in the 3 since that article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

For a moderate fee (comparable to the License Fee), allow anyone anywhere to subscribe to all BBC TV channels.

Yes, this. For years I've been saying that just the ex-pat market alone could probably bring in a sizeable boost. In 2012 there were roughly 4.5m British ex-pats in the top 10 destinations. If my maths is correct that's a potential UKP650m just sitting there.

Look in any ex-pat forum and there's inevitably a "what do you miss most about life in the UK?" thread and the BBC is always in the top two or three.

[enormous c word]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

And add to that the rest of the English speaking world....

[Cowfly]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

Your maths maybe correct based on 4.5m , but if only 100.000 people where asked then that's not a potential 650m .

I'm one myself and I don't miss the BBC

[John Brown (no body)]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

"For a moderate fee (comparable to the License Fee), allow anyone anywhere to subscribe to all BBC TV channels."

I agree. But even Amazon and Netflix streaming TV services can't manage to get worldwide licensing for "broadcast" from the IP holders. Territorial broadcast rights are holding back all streaming services. I have nor idea why they are still so entrenched in that outdated system since by definition a subscription service knows exactly how many subscribers there are and exactly how many subscribers watch any particular show.

I can only imagine that it's based on some artificially inflated number of "potential" viewers in a territory and if the streaming services/broadcasters paid for shows based on the actual numbers of viewers, the IP holders would have to start selling their Learjets and yachts.

[tirk]

Re: Open up BBC TV to the world

"I agree. But even Amazon and Netflix streaming TV services can't manage to get worldwide licensing for "broadcast" from the IP holders."

If it's BBC created content, then presumably the BBC own the IP rights anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should Auntie be forced to identify what on Earth she is for, and do that?"

What, you mean other than operating a mass Trojanising programme for other government department(s)? ...because that rôle is pretty obvious now.

[Dan 55]

How to get rid of the BBC in 10 easy years

Restrict BBC's role to a something very small and tightly defined, huge penalties if BBC steps outside that role, get loads of complaints that the licence fee is unfair because it hardly does anything that anyone wants, make BBC subscription only.

And when that happens you'll be left with an emasculated BBC and Murdoch (or his sons) handing out directorships to the MPs of a certain party. Won't the country be better for that?

[codejunky]

Re: How to get rid of the BBC in 10 easy years

The sky will fall, people will eat babies and you will be stuck having to pay for the content you want instead of taking it off people who pay for their own choice of entertainment but then fork out for yours.

[Dan 55]

Re: How to get rid of the BBC in 10 easy years

Sorry, were you saying that Freeview/sat viewers break into Virgin or Sky subscribers' houses and run away with their decoder box or something?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the BBC to get a 'new deal' I'd like the following to be dealt with, please...

1 - Bring an end to the very narrow and creatively sterile programme portfolio: umpteen and repeated shows about auctions, cooking, dancing and singing - including the "Show about the show" needs to stop - It's not enough to simply fill the schedules with such tat

2 - Stop reducing everything to a competition

3 - Stop the pattern of 'regular' then 'celebrity' versions of those competitions - It's not novel nor creative

4 - Consider how the BBC projects itself and patronises its audience when it uses 'celebrities' as "experts" and tries to turn experts into celebrities - No need to compete with ITV for that

5 - Really revisit the notion of 'buying-in' from production companies and make your own as, clearly evident, commissioning someone to make content for you means your obliged to show it (as you've already promised the production cost) and the content providers go "too safe" in what they make.

6 - Don't let the specifications for content, produced and paid for by the licence fee payers, be dictated by BBC Worldwide Sales (You can't argue "BBC.. the best TV in the world" if you dumb everything for non-British audiences... IMHO)

7 - Stand up, more, to government "initiatives" - How is that £40 million taken from BBC licence fee payers actually being used by the local/community TV broadcasters? Is that "Value for Money"? (Going by the output of Manchester.TV, there should questions being asked about that whole proposition...)

Not a Charter but a "Starter for 10"... (Well, 7 at least...)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: For the BBC to get a 'new deal' I'd like the following to be dealt with, please...

Sounds like many of your issues should be more directed at the commercial sector.

And as for point 7, That's Manchester seem to be one of the better performing local TV stations.

[Doctor_Wibble]

FTF Gov Consultation Page:

> "to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster"

So if anyone wants to make a useful contribution, that's what they are looking for, not a 20-page rant on why the licence fee is the work of the devil, which is probably what this will turn into.

Not fussed either way, I just look forward to the collated apoplexy when they close the consultation and publish the responses.

Icon choice because on a subject like this, every remark is trolling, everyone is the enemy and it's every man for herself!

[codejunky]

to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

Remove the countless channels and their repeats. Stop hiring the most expensive of the expensive but instead develop talent. Provide a good long catalogue of everything it has from the old nostalgia to the existing shows and anything new. Abandon bias towards multiculturalism/MMCC Co2 theory/green tech/EU and against eurosceptics (not that anyone seems stupid enough to call people that now)/nuclear power/right wing. While we have or own views on each of these topics it is not for a public broadcaster to indoctrinate or abuse a large part of the population.

Basically to take our money and provide for us. Preferably they could offer a subscription model so the people it does represent and provide for and consider it value for money can support it without the rest of us being bothered by it

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

Ah, another person who mistakes "bias" for "not agreeing with my viewpoint".

I suppose you also believe that a neutral point-of-view means giving every viewpoint an equal standing?

[tin 2]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

^ this. Read it 100 times. The BBC is as unbaised as you can get, cheifly proven by it being possible to find people who will swear to you it is biased towards either side of any given argument.

Further, while it may not be able to achieve perfect balance - I imagine it's not possible without shutting up shop completely - everything else we have is very much less balanced. I'm not sure why we keep trying to hold the BBC to a standard that is not actually set anywhere.

[codejunky]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

@ tin 2

"The BBC is as unbaised as you can get"

Amusing but I fear you consider it true.

"cheifly proven by it being possible to find people who will swear to you it is biased towards either side of any given argument."

There is an amusing comparison to be made of people as to the right of Hitler or the left of Stalin/Pol Pot/Kim Jong. The reason for this is there is a spectrum of absolute freaking nutter on the left all the way to absolute freaking nutter on the right and people generally land somewhere between (it is actually more complicated than that but this gives you an idea). So it is possible for a left wing group to have people to its left, just as you can have people to the right of a right wing group. Also the spectrum is different per culture and the idea of the 'centre vote' is a moving target governments try to hit but usually end up lying to appeal to. I do find the guardian (and commenter's) like to moan the bbc is righty but they are closer to socialist than centre. Even the BBC confirmed various biases over time. One comment about its left leaning (was a while back I think) and the absolute position it has 'decided' on green energy/MMCC co2 theory which abandoned science quite strictly. Then there is the 100% fearmongering reports concerning nuclear energy and guns.

If that is your idea of balance then you have fallen over.

"I'm not sure why we keep trying to hold the BBC to a standard that is not actually set anywhere."

You make a good point. So lets hold all the other public service British broadcasters to the same standard. A standard that is supposed to be better due to it being a public service broadcaster. If it is as crap as all the others then lets stop giving it special treatment and it can stand on its own 2 feet.

[jaywin]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

> A standard that is supposed to be better due to it being a public service broadcaster.

As are ITV, C4 and C5. None of which are anywhere near to being as unbiased as the Beeb.

[codejunky]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

@ jaywin

"As are ITV, C4 and C5. None of which are anywhere near to being as unbiased as the Beeb."

You seem to miss the point. They are not supposed to be. They are private and capitalist, not public service broadcasters with special treatment under the assumption of being held to standards and impartiality. The BBC is funded through a taxation model with the attempts of removing bias to provide fact and opinion without trying to influence and manipulate.

I am perfectly happy for the BBC not to be required to be unbiased and fair. I am more than happy for the BBC to push its leanings and beliefs through their channels for anyone who is into that. But if it wants to act like all the other broadcasters then it should not have special treatment and the unfair taxation funding model.

It is amusing that people will oppose fairness and impartiality and demand enforced taxation to prop up their entertainment. It is sad that people will argue that it is right. It is disturbing that these people probably consider themselves moral.

[jaywin]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

> You seem to miss the point. They are not supposed to be. They are private and capitalist, not public service broadcasters with special treatment under the assumption of being held to standards and impartiality.

You're wrong. BBC, ITV, C4 and C5 are all public service broadcasters, with strict requirements on the output they produce, and in return they get various benefits of that status. For example, ITV can't get rid of it's news provision without permission from the government - regardless of how much money it loses a year having to fund all the regional news centres.

While the commercial PSB's don't have access to the licence fee, they are guaranteed carriage on all the UK broadcast platforms (including the Freeview "lite" transmitters), as well as the slots at the top of the EPG (Sky can't decide to put Sky One in before the PSB channels even if they wanted). These two factors alone guarantee them a significant share of the UK commercial advertising income.

[codejunky]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

@ jaywin

"You're wrong."

I do feel I have landed in an odd dimension where you seem to be arguing there is little difference between the BBC and the other channels, except the way they are funded. If there is no difference then the BBC should lose its special privilege funding model.

If the BBC is so good and so wonderful then people will choose to pay for it and there is no need for the TV tax. The fact that this is so badly argued against and all the kicking and screaming that removing the license fee will doom the BBC seems to paint a different picture.

In fact people seem to consider adverts to be a killer of TV, except people will actually pay providers to watch their content even with adverts! But that is not the only way. The BBC could do a subscription model where people who actually want to access its content can pay to. Surely this is a great idea if the BBC is so well loved, but this seems to scare BBC lovers too. I liked the comment from Graham Norton who suggests turning the BBC off for 2 months and watch people s**t themselves. I expect a lot of people will be happy for the £24 back and realise how little the BBC means to them. Such a deadly experiment might cause the BBC to lose so much money that they cannot afford his salary! And I expect a lot of the country will not even notice. But I am willing for the BBC to prove me wrong.

[jaywin]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

Nice tangent.

Anyway, I thought you were complaining about bias, not funding models. Does this mean you accept the BBC does do a better job at remaining unbiased than the rest of our PSBs?

[codejunky]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

@ jaywin

"Nice tangent."

Dont blame me for discussing the train of thought you choose to go with.

"Anyway, I thought you were complaining about bias, not funding models."

Then read my comments concerning the BBC especially from my reply to you- I am perfectly happy for the BBC not to be required to be unbiased and fair. I am more than happy for the BBC to push its leanings and beliefs through their channels for anyone who is into that. But if it wants to act like all the other broadcasters then it should not have special treatment and the unfair taxation funding model..

Or from my earlier comment- Preferably they could offer a subscription model so the people it does represent and provide for and consider it value for money can support it without the rest of us being bothered by it

Or my reply to Dan 55 of hit hypothetical dystopia- and you will be stuck having to pay for the content you want instead of taking it off people who pay for their own choice of entertainment but then fork out for yours.

While mostly on the other BBC comment threads I often argue that if the BBC is so good them surely people will willingly pay for it. Nobody (even BBC lovers) seems to believe that though. But my personal reason for being irritated by paying the BBC is I have little to no use for them. I am not a fan of their entertainment shows (nothing against those who like it, just doesnt float my boat) and their bias makes their news and documentaries questionable if it approaches a sensitive topic for them (politics, religion, immigration, nuclear, guns, etc). So why should I pay them if I want to watch a provider of content I enjoy?

"Does this mean you accept the BBC does do a better job at remaining unbiased than the rest of our PSBs?"

Ha no. But it is plausible the other channels have got worse since I gave up the TV license and buy DVD's instead. But I was paying the BBC so I could pay sky for entertainment I enjoyed but episodes spaced over weeks. I barely watched the BBC but would find myself looking for things to watch to justify the fingers in my pocket. So now I buy it when it has been out a sufficient amount of time (I do have a couple of older BBC shows) and watch as I please. I dont miss the BBC. I barely notice until they make some stupid claim that the reg tears apart. I do sometimes miss sky when the new shows come out.

[codejunky]

Re: to make sure it remains a valued public broadcaster

@AC

Ah, another person who mistakes "bias" for "not agreeing with my viewpoint".

Ah another person who thinks because their little world is represented that everyone is represented (or not worth it).

"I suppose you also believe that a neutral point-of-view means giving every viewpoint an equal standing?"

God no. But at the same time indoctrination or complete misinformation should not be presented as if it is the one true answer *all bow now*.

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is excellent...

...but they need to concentrate on finding/building new UK talent and then spinning it off. E.g. Top Gear - once it was successful it should have been made it's own company.

Ditto their on-line stuff: Identify a need, build a base, incubate the company, set it free.

We should not be funding "high paid stars" through a license fee.

[LucreLout]

I'd quite like the BBC to...

1) Recognise that it is far more left leaning than the population of the UK. Determine why that is, and correct it, particularly in the case of BBC news. I vaguely recall they have some internal report telling them this, which they refuse to publish.

2) Stop the light entertainment. If I'm to be forced to fund the BBC then I don't care what their ratings are versus a commercial outfit that I am not compelled to fund. They can begin by selling off Strictly come cooking on ice with the stars, and all the other guff. Oh, and EastEnders. The lower end of the IQ bell curve is well catered for elsewhere.

3) Talent development. Instead of paying vastly over the odds for household names, just bring through new unsigned talent on cheaper contracts. If someone wants to earn megabucks presenting some football show, let them go to sky and just give the role to someone else. Nobody at the BBC needs to earn 6 figure salaries. It's just telly (and some radio).

4) Disposals of channels. There's simply no reason to have so many channels on either radio or tv. There's too much duplication and repetition. Prune this back to about half the offering and use the funds released to improve programming.

5) Accept that the content produced by the BBC belongs to the tax payer not some shell corporation. Move the licence fee onto iPlayer and sell access to that around the world. If the quality of offering is as high as the luvvies at the Beeb keep telling us, then there should be plenty of non-UK citizens willing to subscribe.

6) Pay their damn taxes. Everyone on screen should be hired as a PAYEemployee and their salary published. Thisis public money and they shouldn't be paying out phenomenal sums using incorproation to reduce tax and conceal salaries.

7) Realise that it is not entitled to take a stance such as "climate change is real". For as long as the science is in debate (and it is more so now than ever) then the BBC should not be taking sides. That neither educates, nor amuses.

8) Understand that words like "terrorist" or "illegal immigrant" are not verbotten.

9) Costs. How many people do you actually need to send to the world cup / olympics etc and how long do they actually need to be there?

10) Stop being so inward looking and self congratulatory. You're just a media outlet; And one which has past its prime at that. You need to be far more accountable to those compelled to pay for you.

[Tequila Joe]

Re: I'd quite like the BBC to...

A well thought through list.

Currently you have 5 upvotes and 10 downvotes.

I think the down-voters do not understand that their down-votes endorse your useful criticisms of the BBC.

It makes me nostalgic for the calmly logical days of Data Processing.

Is logic compulsory for IT nowadays? It certainly isn't for some of the more ideological commenters here, but perhaps they don't really work in IT - but use IT as 'social influencers'?

Never mind, I'm sure the Ministry of Truth BBC can throw up a host of Web pages mentioning the Jay Report without also once mentioning the people who protest-marched against the crimes detailed in the Jay Report.

Shiney!

[Anonymous Coward]

The future of the BBC

Replace the BBC iPwner IMMEDIATELY

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring back "Britain's Tastiest Village".

[Charlie Clark]

A wide remit is required

The original BBC Charter was successful because it gave the Corporation sufficient leeway to try things out, without fear of government interference. This has allowed the BBC to try things out and be one of the pioneers of new technologies. And it does this throughout its history in radio, television and more recently in the internet. Does this lead to mission creep? Absolutely, which is why periodic review, both by its governing body, and when the Charter is up for renewal, is important.

The licence fee provides a backstop so that ratings chasing is important but not the categorical imperative. It's not just about entertainment, though the principle of universal access is inshrined in this, but also about informing and educating the public. In a competitive environment the BBC both leads by example, and may help create new markets as it does so, as well as a follower of trends (I'm thinking here more of commissions for Dennis Potter, et al. than yet another celebrity show, though they too have their place). It's also a talent factory.

It must establish and stick to its own definitions of quality. The dumbing down of news production in favour of emotion since Greg Dyke makes me weep. I used to read a lot of new on the website but do so less and less and it becomes just another peddler or rumour and PR. I really don't give a fuck what someone says on Twitter; I may want to know why they said it. Less speculation, more facts and analysis: I can live with well-argued editorials from experienced journalists. Reanimate Brian Redhead and drop the confrontational interview style: if someone is stonewalling, take control back. If they won't answer the real question, let them say nothing and make sure everyone knows.

Oh, and I want to be able to listen to TMS all over the world, though Guerilla Cricket is proving a worthy substitute.

[returnmyjedi]

Easy peasy

Here's my thrupenny's worth:

• Get rid of BBC Three and Four and bundle everything that doesn't involve drunk teenagers / newly weds onto One and Two.

• Exorcise any "me too" show (The Voice the worst offender)

• Leave Radio alone, although perhaps limit Radio 1 to just one pop/rock festival per year, rather than one per month as they seem to do at present

• More Jonathan Strange, Wolf Hall, Peaky Blinders, The Fall type drama; ditch Holby

• Reconsider why it's necessary for the political reporters to stand outside Dave's house at ten o'clock at night when they could be in a warm studio a mere fifteen minute trot away

Finally keep the licence fee. I've lived in countries where commercial television was the only option and it wasn't a pleasant experience.

[Just Enough]

What?

"Which is true, but Scotland gets the rest of the BBC's output "for free".

And the rest of the UK gets BBC Scotland's output "for free". So what exactly is the point here?

[Ilmarinen]

"The Public Purposes of the BBC are as follows — (a) bla bla bla"

When I read smug boll**ks like this, I wish that I had a revolver to reach for.

Why oh why oh why should we fund this bloated, PC, biased, agenda ridden, FOI avoiding propoganda machine?

Let people who want it pay for it and get rid of the telly tax for everyone else.

[Tim99]

Simple

How about going back to just "inform, educate, entertain" (Lord Reith: Wikipedia) - In that order, and get the politicians out of it.

[Tequila Joe]

Re: Simple

"... and get the politicians out of it."

That's a lot of layers of BBC management, but some useful savings might be made:

"More than 100 BBC executives on six-figure salaries"

Hang on though, they appear to be sticking to the BBC trough:

"It also follows last year's severance pay scandal in which the National Audit Office found that the BBC handed over £1.4million more in pay-offs to senior managers than it needed to."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2571491/More-BBC-executives-earning-six-figure-salaries-despite-pledge-curb-pay.html

[Tim Jenkins]

Re: Simple

Good plan; so that's Radio 4 and BBC4. At a pinch, just Radio 4, please (but you can lose Midweek, Loose Ends and that dreadful thing that forces me out of bed on Saturday mornings since John Peel left us). The rest of the BBC? Meh...

[M.Zaccone]

That's the problem with politicians....

They have to keep doing stuff to make it seem like there is a point to their existence.

The BBC works, leave it alone. It isn't perfect but it's a lot better than Sky. I've got relatives in the States and Australia who pay for VPNs just so they can get the iPlayer which seems to me a good measure of the alternatives.

[zebthecat]

Re: That's the problem with politicians....

I am with you on that, the BBC is too important to leave to (quoting Robin Day) "here today, gone tomorrow" politicians.

The charter renewal should be the responsibility of a non partisan body and this should lead it to be less open to party political abuse.

Also the license fee is becoming increasingly anachronistic (even if it is a simple and cheap way of collecting revenue). I think it should paid from general taxation BUT there should be legislation to protect it from the grasp of the Treasury.

The idea that it should not attempt mass appeal TV is ludicrous and a pretty transparent ruse to make the BBC a lesser broadcaster therefore easier to take to pieces politically (having said that - The Voice is still shite).

[Kaltern]

I'd like to know why there is a need for so many antique/house sale shows.

Antiques Roadshow is a must of course, it is almost a Sunday evening tradition of 'guess the value of the plant pot', and as such, informs and entertains.

I can't quite say the same for Bargain Hunt, Homes under the Hammer, and other such useless crap. All these programs do is let other people know how rich/poor those on the show are, compared to the host.

Give me more Science. In fact, rename BBC4 to BBC Science.

What happened to good, funny, enlightening Saturday evening viewing? I know it wouldn't quite fit in these days, but House Party was just great TV. Not to everyone's taste of course, but then there's BBC2 for that.

It seems to me, that the only 'new' programming allowed on BBC1 now is totally PC, LGBT friendly, non-trigger TV.

The UK can do better. There are bound to be people out there who could be the next big presenter, if only they were allowed the time to actually get known.

[Eponymous Cowherd]

Bargain Hunt

Barrgain Hunt? Elitist? What are you smoking?.

[Charlie Clark]

I can't quite say the same for Bargain Hunt, Homes under the Hammer, and other such useless crap. All these programs do is let other people know how rich/poor those on the show are, compared to the host.

My mum loves them all, even admits to being slightly addicted to them, but not for that reason. She loves the stories about the antiques and likes to see how the houses are redecorated. When it comes to sneering about other people she's olympic material, but she virtually never makes negative comments about what she says.

Property and possessions and the trade of them are bourgeois obsessions, just like technology is for us geeks.

[Anonymous Coward]

"House Party was just great TV"

I can only assume that you left your PC unattended for a while and a "friend" wrote this as a prank.

[s. pam]

Why doesn't the press catch on - Auntie is telling Porkies

Anyone not in the UK pays a fee NOW to Auntie to use iPrayer in other countries and gas girl a while now! So the Bleeb already has the technological and the ability and the know how.

Sounds like more luvvie pork barrel dosh about to be flushed in the Loo!!!

[Dan 55]

Re: Why doesn't the press catch on - Auntie is telling Porkies

You mean the iPlayer Global iDevice app? It had limited content, they shut it down two months ago, and the first I knew about it was when I read the news that it had shut down.

[tin 2]

"However Whittingdale said he was doubtful that a full switch from a flat rate poll tax to a subscription model wasn’t possible just yet, for technological reasons."

Halle-bastard-lujah! While I assume there's a mistaken double negative in there, making the BBC subscription is not currently technically possible without introducing at least a lot of potential for compromising the system.

Certainly even if you did get 100% of current TV owning households recieving the BBC, you would get far less than 100% actually paying for it. And then it would probably go completely down the toilet and the argument is over.

[MJI]

I could imagine

A couple of MPs chatting

"Well I liked the BBC coverage of F1 but they stopped doing it live."

"I know, and I really liked Outcasts but they pulled that."

"I can't stand The Voice."

"Yeah they got rid of F1 to pay for that rubbish."

"Oh well at least the next series of Atlantis will be good, they will be on the Argo."

"Haven't you heard?"

"What?"

"BBC Cancelled it."

"So they cancel my favourite sport, a fun fantasy series and an interesting SciFi series?"

"Yes. And now the shocker."

"Chris 'Ginger Twat' Evans is taking over Top Gear."

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Why do we need the BBC?"

"Exactly."

[rhydian]

A few suggestions...

1) Split TV and Radio properly, up to and including having separate public bodies running them.

Programmes like R4's Today and PM are terrible for promoting specific news stories just because Panorama or Newsnight has a "special" on that night. It would also help stop the BBC from bombarding me with Chris Bloody Evans. No other company would be allowed to own the only national DAB network, four national FM networks and the four TV channels available from every single TV mast

2) Bin all the "Me too" commercial imports and programme genres that are already well served

"The Voice" is the worst example of this. An imported Dutch format only there to compete for ratings. Eastenders is another example of a genre well served commercially.

3) Look outside the urban, metropolitan comfort zone of meeja luvvies

BBC Take note: There is a world outside London, Manchester, Cardiff and Glasgow. When there's a story of note somewhere like Wales or Cornwall, don't spend thousands on sending a crew from London so that the deputy editor for Fish can do a two minute piece to camera in the dark, use the experienced crew you have in the area. Realise that the countryside contains people and stories just as important as those in towns.

4) Stop pinching local newspaper stories for your website

It's amazing how often the BBC news site for mid Wales is updated on a Wednesday afternoon, just after the weekly local rag is sent out...

5) "The Arts" aren't really BBC territory

Why should licence fee money go to the BBC for producing arts events like the Proms? Either reduce the licence fee or use the money to set up an arts fund for independent providers.

6) End the halfway-house that is UKTV

As rubbish as Dave/Yesterday/Gold etc. are, they are 50% owned by the BBC, yet are only available to some licence payers free to air, while the rest have to pay a subscription. Either make the channels available UK-wide (either via terrestrial or FTA satellite) or force the BBC to sell its stake.

[Dan 55]

Re: A few suggestions...

Aren't The Voice and EastEnders for the poor, as some are wont to say? If you get rid of them then the BBC will be even more elitist...

[rhydian]

Re: A few suggestions...

The fact is that the kind of lowbrow drama that Eastenders provides is provided for perfectly well by commercial broadcasters. Back in the 80s (when eastenders started) you might have been able to argue for it (as there were only BBC, ITV and C4 available) but now, with the number of commercial stations available and offering soap/lowbrow drama you do have to ask why the BBC are still funding it.

As for the voice, it's purely a ratings show. It's a bought-in format that the BBC hasn't developed much at all. Strictly Come Dancing, for all its faults, is a different proposition, as it's a BBC developed format which they can then sell on to other broadcasters.

[enormous c word]

Too many Channels ...

There are generally speaking too many channels of crap: Celebrity Gravy-Train Crap, Dumbed Down Reality-TV Crap and imagination-less derivatives of the former. The BBC have spread themselves too thinly in the interests of diversity and would be better served focussing their energies on 2 or 3 TV channels and 2 or 3 Radio Channels and creating original content that can be re-sold to the rest of the world or repeated ad-nauseum on the commercial channels.

The BBC Licencing Model is an absolutely unbelievable gift from UK Licence Fee paying TV users and the BBC squander too much of it on an enormous *Civil-Service* of middle managers and contracted production companies.

[Graham Cobb]

Put on a lot of stuff I don't like

The main tasks of the BBC should be three:

1) Independent and unbiased communication of important news and information (on all channels, including web). "Unbiased" does not mean "without editorial selection", nor does it mean "inclusive of all possible viewpoints" -- experts (including expert journalists) should provide the information, including expert opinion. If there is real (not fake) controversy then create a "special" about the controversy. Hint: if it is Murdoch or the Daily Mail claiming they are biased then they have probably got it right -- those channels are perfectly capable of distributing their own propaganda and don't need the BBC's help.

2) Minority and community programmes. Most programmes on the BBC should be things I find very dull (but someone else finds very interesting). Leave commercially successful topics (cooking, holidays, antiques, pop music) to commercial broadcasters but carry a very wide range of minority interest programmes. Some of them will be aimed at particular communities (Bangladeshi, Lesbian, etc), others at special interests (minority sports, arts and hobbies), others may deal with unpopular but important topics (e.g. foreign current affairs). Many will be pure entertainment, but they will be material which is aimed at a small audience so is not carried by the commercial channels.

3) Education, both in documentary and drama form. Personally I want to see REAL science (not dumbed down) and other educational topics like history. Others may be interested in education about human rights issues in foreign countries, or the threats to ecosystems. Note: this material does NOT need to be unbiased -- in many cases opposing viewpoints are well covered by commercial broadcasters and their corporate sponsors.

In most cases the BBC should be making their own programmes, And avoiding expensive stars. They should not be measured on commercial success or ratings. Rather, they should be measured on diversity: the measure of success should be that every person in the country has watched (and values) one BBC programme in the year, not that very many have watched each programme.

[Fruit and Nutcase]

Why Don't You...

"Why Don't You Just Switch Off Your Television Set and Go and Do Something Less Boring Instead?"

Some may remember that from the 70's and 80's, around the summer holidays. Even then, it may not have been to everyone's taste, but one should applaud the sentiment - get the kids doing something better than sitting in front of the TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRUhjFF5a6Y

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Don%27t_You%3F

[Jagged]

I Like the BBC ...

... except that when I think about it I realise that I don't actually watch it or listen to it any more.

No science programmes. Poor journalism. I can't listen to an interview with a politician without swearing at the tv/radio. I blame Paxman and Humphries.

If it went to a subscription model, would I pay for any of it? Probably, but not much. 3 series from the last year, 4 if you count Poldark for the Misses *rolls eyes*