What is your reaction to the BBC finance proposals?

So the BBC's income is being cut by 16%, and the government is also making you take on an additional £340 million of service provision? Hardly a good deal, is it? Uncle Rupert will be very pleased with this.

May I suggest bringing back the test card?

The BBC executives and staff seem to be living the lifestyle of millionaires - time to squeeze them till the pips squeak.

More adverts then?

1. At 8:21pm on 19 Oct 2010, RadialSymmetry wrote:
"...May I suggest bringing back the test card?"
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What was wrong with the potter's wheel?

The BBC is a near-monopolist and as such can afford to stick its fingers into many pies that do not belong to it. (Does the Beeb still own Lonely Planet?)

A cut-back will be most welcome.

So much for us all being in this together - the Beeb don't even want to let over 75s off with this ludicrous tax on owning a telly!

Ah poor BBC. Income frozen. I expect those technicians etc. you sold off and who have lost their DB pensions (equivalent to a 15% pay cut typically) would have been more than happy with a pay freeze.

still too expensive, can I opt out of paying if I only watch Sky?

The freeze is welcome, but the figure is set too high, and I am unhappy that the proposals do not go far enough.

If the BBC is to continue to be granted the anti-competitive monopoly on the funds from the License Fee, the fee should be cut to around £99 to reflect the current quality of BBC 'product'.

My preference however, is for the fee to be distributed amongst all providers, so as to encourage competition, and to remove the complacency that exists in the BBC.

This is unfortunately a halfway house that does not do enough, unless of course the Government is planning to sell the BBC - it might get about £3.5B - by turning it into a fit & lean business.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

This is not good enough. End this insidious tax now. If the BBC is as good as it thinks it can go subscription like Sky.

If the government feel the need to 'force' the BBC to give more in terms of value for money, then may I suggest that they also follow suit?

I do personally feel that some employees of the BBC are over-renumerated for the job that they do-though I would like to make it clear that it is the upper-echelons of the BBC Trust et al I feel this about, not those at production level eg camera operators, vision mixers etc.

Maybe the Ministers of the Coalition Government should look at what value for money they bring because I certainly do not feel that I get any from them and I am sure there are others who may feel the same.

All media/leisure giants need to make efficiency savings. Whether it is Film company, a TV company, a Music company or Sports club, they all pay ridiculous wages to select few, just like Banks do. The difference between salaries of the people who get such wages, and those left out is ridiculously out of proportion. Employ some people from the lower ranges; you will find even if you have to employ a few more, the wages will be much less and their families will be supported as well as a result. The outcome in quality will not be so bad that people will stop watching altogether. People will watch TV anyway, especially now so many more will be out of jobs.

The common heard idea that "unless we pay the market rate we will not get top people" does not wash, Don't go for the top people, who want ridiculous wages. Go for something that provides a satisfactory but inexpensive product (eg policy of A M Sugar's Amstrad company - pile them high and sell them cheap)

Cut your web-site(even altogether) cut out-sourcing; centralise but ensure it anywhere North of Milton Keynes where wages will be cheaper, as will site costs be; cut number of channels - just BBC1 and 2 was good enough for me; cut iPlayer services; cut any expensive documentaries; fill up with air-time with cheap shows bought in from any english speaking countries.

Overall try not to compete with free trading media concerns like Sky or ITV. There is no level playing field. so don't try to play the same game. Focus on your product as something that is cheap and cheerful, and provides value for litte money.

Time to face the music. Maybe I will dig out the radio

9. At 8:40pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:
"...the fee should be cut to around £99"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That'll be 100 quid, then.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

Personally i`m happy to see a freeze in the licence fee, what with other cuts coming it`s to be welcomed. But then again i`ve never been anti BBC (was that a pun? not sure). At about 39p a day for 9 tv channels and 12 radio channles, you cannot question its value for money. What`s that, the price of a newspaper, or a cuppa at the local cafe`?

It's only a matter for time before the Tories privatise the BBC. It's the only great company we have left. This would also mean the quality of news would deteriorate and that's exactly what the right wing in any country like - it helps to keep people dumb so they don't have a clue what's truly happening.

The BBC should be treated like gold. It is the world's best news source although I have seen it deteriorate a little since Cameron came into power.

All this user's posts have been removed.Why?

I do not know what difference these proposals will make to the BBC's output but it will make no difference to me as I do not have a television so do not buy a licence.

9. At 8:40pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:
"...unless of course the Government is planning to sell the BBC - it might get about £3.5B - by turning it into a fit & lean business."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From where on earth did you pluck the £3.5 billion? How, if the BBC were sold, could it continue to be the BBC? It would just be another commercial broadcaster without any special standing. Why should a public service be suitable for transformation into a "fit and lean business" in any case? I'd choose someone other than the Adam Smith Institute to write your software if I were you.

''The BBC licence fee will be frozen at £145.50 for the next six years''
It sounds like the BBC will have to learn to live within its means, a bit like the rest of the country has to do. Welcome to real world.

I don't mind the cuts so long as they don't affect the quality of exceptional, unparallelled service that the BBC offers.

And I certainly don't want it to change, and I do NOT want to see adverts plague their channels!

''11. At 8:48pm on 19 Oct 2010, Steve wrote:
This is not good enough. End this insidious tax now. If the BBC is as good as it thinks it can go subscription like Sky.''

Steve, that's a very good idea. Now why didn't anyone think of that before?

> 16. At 9:03pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:
"Personally i`m happy to see a freeze in the licence fee, what with other cuts coming it`s to be welcomed. But then again i`ve never been anti BBC (was that a pun? not sure). At about 39p a day for 9 tv channels and 12 radio channles, you cannot question its value for money. What`s that, the price of a newspaper, or a cuppa at the local cafe`?"

The difference is that you have no choice in the matter - you may only want to watch ITV, but you still have to pay the BBC.

The licence fee is optional anyway.

You dont have to have a television by law and detector vans cant detect the flat screens

The licence fee should be scrapped altogether. The bbc is not worth the effort.

Most people watch sky anyway.

Not long ago the Tories complained that Local Authorities were forced (by government) to undertake more and more functions but without being given any additional resources to carry out these functions and the pledged to end this practice.

Yet this is exactly what they are forcing the BBC to do - take on three additonal functions but without any extra resources to do it (some £370 million in total - World Service - £250m, S4C - £ 100m and Monitoring service - £ 20m)

So in additionl to the cuts the BBC was having to implement anyway it now has to find an addtional £ 370 million of cuts (about 17% of its current income) as well to be able to provide these services that the GOVERNMENT still want providing

We the viewers will be the first to notice and suffer - more repeats, dramas with lower production values, less coverage of expensive sports and other live events etc etc

19. At 9:07pm on 19 Oct 2010, Keith wrote:

I do not know what difference these proposals will make to the BBC's output but it will make no difference to me as I do not have a television so do not buy a licence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don`t know how to tell you this Keith but i think you`ll find you need a TV licence if you have a computer.

Meaning of “television receiver”

9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

Why do I HAVE to pay for the BBC ?? With the multitude of choice available to us we should be allowed to choose !

Never watch TV & NEVER listen to radio so WHY MUST I PAY ? ITS ALL WRONG

Comment No 15 by Nina Szombately sums it up really, only I think BBC is part and parcel of the problem. It has completely succumbed to market forces and tries to mimic other media companies; as it mimics them, it can't control its own costs and it can't present an alternative recipe to world issues that affect majority of the world populus. It just shows what will interest and satisfy the "haves", and they will indulge on the service provided, at the cost of licence payers. It means there is never ending shift to global monopolisation by huge conglomerate concerns all inter-connected with good contacts, in huge media companies.

24. At 9:12pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:

> 16. At 9:03pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:
"Personally i`m happy to see a freeze in the licence fee, what with other cuts coming it`s to be welcomed. But then again i`ve never been anti BBC (was that a pun? not sure). At about 39p a day for 9 tv channels and 12 radio channles, you cannot question its value for money. What`s that, the price of a newspaper, or a cuppa at the local cafe`?"

The difference is that you have no choice in the matter - you may only want to watch ITV, but you still have to pay the BBC.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Tis true Lorentz, but the upside is that i don`t have to watch inane adverts either, a plus in anyones books i suspect ;-)

25. At 9:14pm on 19 Oct 2010, steve_the_chauffeur wrote:
The licence fee is optional anyway.

You dont have to have a television by law
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Anyone who has tried could be forgiven for thinking that you do. You will be bombarded with endless questionnaires as to why you do not have a licence by the authorities, accompanied by threats to enter your property to find out if you do in fact have a TV after all.

> 20. At 9:08pm on 19 Oct 2010, Eddy from Waring wrote:

From where on earth did you pluck the £3.5 billion? How, if the BBC were sold, could it continue to be the BBC? It would just be another commercial broadcaster without any special standing. Why should a public service be suitable for transformation into a "fit and lean business" in any case? I'd choose someone other than the Adam Smith Institute to write your software if I were you.

Some points:

- £3.5B is the value put on the assets of the BBC - they may get more from a competitive tender,

- BAA continued trading as BAA after privatisation,

- The proposals were for postal services to continue trading as Royal Mail after privatisation,

- The operations of the BBC are not core to the functioning of the Government (unless you compare it with places such as Russia and Thailand), yet it has a monopoly on a tax that is akin to the windows tax of the 17th century,

- There is no justification for the BBC holding a privilege position,

- The BBC needs to be made fit and lean like any other business.

Actually, forget my earlier comment, I'll gladly pay double the licence fee if you keep Harry Enfield off the television

You people who write here are really out of touch with reality should I use this word?
I have lived in 10 countries throughout the world and you pay TV taxes even if the broadcaster is advertising.
I would like that YOU ALL watch TV in France, Belgium, America, Canada, Australia, etc. Then tell me that the BBC isn't worth 145,00 a year!
For Rupert Murdock this is a God send and in six months the Government will give him the right to buy ALL of SKY.
For commercial stations you still pay via HIGHER prices for the products you buy. Then pay more for the Exclusives so you pay whatever.
In my travels I hear very often people saying how good the BBC is, do you want that creative body die?

talking about scroungers!!! Why does the man who looses his job and lives off 55 per week and cannot afford a tv license or a man earning 15 k a year with one tv have to subsidise a middle class family with up to ten tv's in the home?

The bbc is a state asset and must be available to all UK Subjects regardless!!!!

This tax is unaffordable to the poor who cannot afford more than 22.75 per year..

Sorry BBC accept this or go private!!!!!

What a gravey chain!!!

The sooner the BBC are left to market forces the better. I pay my licence fee to watch Eastenders 3 times a week, nothing more. I watch sky for the rest and I dont see why I should pay the licence for just that.

The sooner TASS's licence fee is removed and the whole bloated corporate entity collapses the better.

two TV channels and two radio is all we can afford..the BBC gravey chain must go asap!

"the government's plans mean there will be 16% real terms cut in the corporation's funds over the next six years."

No doubt the £300k a year socialists who run the BEEB will soon be spouting on about government interferance.

34. At 9:32pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:

Actually, forget my earlier comment, I'll gladly pay double the licence fee if you keep Harry Enfield off the television

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You`re telling me you don`t like Harry " Tim nice but dim " Enfield? For shame...lol

NPR and PBS in the US is paid for by contributions and seems to get by. Of course the BBC could cut costs and start buying foreign TV shows and use subtitles :-).

PS I get to see the stupid ads on the BBC website in the US but my dad gets free TV as he's 80+ and in the UK so its OK. I guess.

Seriously, maybe its time to scrap the license and go commerical

> 31. At 9:26pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:

"Tis true Lorentz, but the upside is that i don`t have to watch inane adverts either, a plus in anyones books i suspect ;-)"

You are correct (apart for the BBC's adverts for its own services), but I am happy to tolerate adverts in place of the license fee over which I have no control if I want to view another channel.

I've always thought that the BBC and all the services it provides at 40 pence per day is great value for money and I applaud the fact that the licence fee has been frozen for the next 6 years.

Plus I find it very amusing that people come on HYS to say that they never use the BBC. Priceless!

Why not scrap the TV Licence once and for all.

Other TV channels don't charge us watching their programs at all, they use adverts to generate funding, why not the BBC?
Its just another way to make us working folk feel more deflated and angry at the very rich getting more money, than what we will ever see in our lives.
I guess money has to come from somewhere to pay for the BBC's CEO's holidays and bonuses.

40. At 9:40pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:

34. At 9:32pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:

Actually, forget my earlier comment, I'll gladly pay double the licence fee if you keep Harry Enfield off the television

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You`re telling me you don`t like Harry " Tim nice but dim " Enfield? For shame...lol
-------------------------------------
it was moderately funny 20 years ago, the joke has worn thin since then, well, it had done that about 19 years ago in fact ...

This is brilliant news! I am not surprised by the arrogant response from the BBC Trust (not long for this world). The BBC is making a fortune from its commercial operations and BBC America which is free. Despite its argument that the money is ploughed into programme making I see no evidence of this whatsoever. Prove it I say!

How much income does the beeb derive from advertising on the website in the US?

BBC salaries are a disgrace and must be revised, I do not accept the commerical tv arguments - have you seen the drivel ITV has been putting out in recent years.

If I had my way I would close BBC3 and 4, Radio 5 Live, the other digital channels, consolidate and rationalise BBC local radio and regional tv news.

Get real BBC it's time to accept the hard times ahead, rise to the challenge and show us how good you really could be, because as of now you are way below par

Too few paying too much for too many

At 8:39pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:

Still too expensive, can I opt out of paying if I only watch Sky?
=================================================================
That should be the case, I agree 100%.

22. At 9:09pm on 19 Oct 2010, Planet Mars wrote:
I don't mind the cuts so long as they don't affect the quality of exceptional, unparallelled service that the BBC offers.
=========================================================

I can only assume you’re either joking or you work for the BBC.

The BBC gravy train should have hit the buffers a long time ago. It's still living on its 'best broadcaster in the world' reputation, but it's been many years since that was true. Now, it's just a left-leaning propaganda machine spilling out biased news stories and puerile programmes masquerading as entertainment.

I'd like to see the licence fee stopped completely and the BBC turn into a pay-per-view broadcaster; let it stand on its own without being propped up by our taxes. Given the dire quality of its current output it wouldn't make enough money to pay the executives' lunch expenses - it'd be off air inside six months.

So those who believe in feeding the masses right wing manure have won again. However, at least most people writting here realise what hobbling the BBC will mean.

Many seem to hate paying the licence fee but don't mind at all paying £40 per month for Sky? all that quality, or is there quality in quantity.

26. At 9:16pm on 19 Oct 2010, Rinc3wind wrote:

The licence fee should be scrapped altogether. The bbc is not worth the effort.

Most people watch sky anyway.

No they don't.

https://www.barb.co.uk/index/index

33. At 9:32pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:

"...- BAA continued trading as BAA after privatisation,

- The proposals were for postal services to continue trading as Royal Mail after privatisation,

- The operations of the BBC are not core to the functioning of the Government (unless you compare it with places such as Russia and Thailand), yet it has a monopoly on a tax that is akin to the windows tax of the 17th century,

- There is no justification for the BBC holding a privilege position,

- The BBC needs to be made fit and lean like any other business."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm sure, in a literal sense, that after privatisation the BBC could continue to be called the same as you point out, but the public's relationship with it would become akin to that it has with, say BT, British Gas or indeed BAA.

I was not claiming the BBC's operation was central to the functioning of government and cannot see why you mention this.

Many people, far more erudite than me have advanced cogent explanations as to why the BBC does, rightly, enjoy a priveleged position.

The BBC is a public service, not a business. I'm sorry, but there is still such a thing. The fact that its books need to balance like those of a business does not make it one. The same is true of a family home. What evidence do you have that, given the nature of what it does, the BBC is not reasonably lean and fit as it is?

(My salvos at the top brass salaries do not count).

42. At 9:43pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:

> 31. At 9:26pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:

"Tis true Lorentz, but the upside is that i don`t have to watch inane adverts either, a plus in anyones books i suspect ;-)"

You are correct (apart for the BBC's adverts for its own services), but I am happy to tolerate adverts in place of the license fee over which I have no control if I want to view another channel.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

All power to you Lorentz, what choice we make is right for the moment.

Ive recently moved to Mallorca and cannot get English TV at all, so I was hoping to be able to use the BBC iPlayer service, which I found out is also not available to anyone using an IP address outside the UK.

I would gladly pay £20 a year subscription to view all available BBC broadcasts on the internet, and I'm sure many other people across the world would pay for this too.

Obviously I don't know the logistics or legalities of setting this up, but it could potentially be a massive earner for the BBC.

45. At 9:55pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:

40. At 9:40pm on 19 Oct 2010, corncobuk wrote:

34. At 9:32pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:

Actually, forget my earlier comment, I'll gladly pay double the licence fee if you keep Harry Enfield off the television

------------------------------------------------------------------------

You`re telling me you don`t like Harry " Tim nice but dim " Enfield? For shame...lol
-------------------------------------
it was moderately funny 20 years ago, the joke has worn thin since then, well, it had done that about 19 years ago in fact ...

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok i`ll give you that but c`mon, you have to admit that QI is pretty funny.

36. At 9:36pm on 19 Oct 2010, Rob jones wrote:

talking about scroungers!!! Why does the man who looses his job and lives off 55 per week and cannot afford a tv license or a man earning 15 k a year with one tv have to subsidise a middle class family with up to ten tv's in the home?
The bbc is a state asset and must be available to all UK Subjects regardless!!!!
This tax is unaffordable to the poor who cannot afford more than 22.75 per year..
Sorry BBC accept this or go private!!!!!
What a gravey chain!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------
Watch TV in other countries and you will understand why we have the BBC!
Rupert Murdock another media at your table.

49. At 9:57pm on 19 Oct 2010, Mrs Vee wrote:
22. At 9:09pm on 19 Oct 2010, Planet Mars wrote:
I don't mind the cuts so long as they don't affect the quality of exceptional, unparallelled service that the BBC offers.
=========================================================

I can only assume you’re either joking or you work for the BBC.

The BBC gravy train should have hit the buffers a long time ago. It's still living on its 'best broadcaster in the world' reputation, but it's been many years since that was true. Now, it's just a left-leaning propaganda machine spilling out biased news stories and puerile programmes masquerading as entertainment.

I'd like to see the licence fee stopped completely and the BBC turn into a pay-per-view broadcaster; let it stand on its own without being propped up by our taxes. Given the dire quality of its current output it wouldn't make enough money to pay the executives' lunch expenses - it'd be off air inside six months

---

No, I wasn't joking. However, I assume your post is a joke.

If you prefer right wing Murdoch channels, go waste your money on Sky and enjoy getting sucked in by American propaganda in the process. I won't care. Do you enjoy watching biased news channels consisting the likes of Hannity and o'Reilly shouting at guests in their 'fair and balanced' news broadcasts? Please, do me a favour.

Hire programmes? Like 'Planet Earth'? Obviously you either have no clue or you have bad taste.

I'd happily pay for BBC if it had to go private. You can keep Sky.
(I can't live without my MOTD anyway)

37. At 9:36pm on 19 Oct 2010, Mike wrote:
The sooner the BBC are left to market forces the better. I pay my licence fee to watch Eastenders 3 times a week, nothing more. I watch sky for the rest and I dont see why I should pay the licence for just that.
The sooner TASS's licence fee is removed and the whole bloated corporate entity collapses the better.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I watch Komme Kokken on Flemish TV five times a week at the same time as EastEnders, I assure you for my 300 pounds a year licence I think you have a good deal.

The tv licence should have been abolished in favour of a voluntary subscription.

If I purchase a new cd player I do not have to buy my cd's from any particular music company, so if I own a television set why should I have to 'buy' tv programming from any particular broadcasting organisation.

The simple fact is that there are only two full-time advert free channels broadcast in Britian, BBC1 and BBC2, BBC3 and BBC4 are only part-time channels.

As I am not a news junkie and couldn't care less about ideology in news broadcasting, right wing or left wing, that particular defence of the tv licence means nothing to me.

In common law one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but according to some commentators on this thread, a person is considered 'guilty' by default of owning a tv set and has to prove to the licencing authorities they do not own a tv set.

Which would be cheaper, to abolish the licence fee in favour of a voluntary subscription equivalent to the current licence fee, or drive detection vans all over the country wasting fossil fuels and adding to co2 levels in the atmosphere?.

Its about time the BBC Weather and News Presenters realised that they are just over paid auto cue readers,which any good teacher could perform on a greatly reduced salary. there's a good saving for the frozon licence fee...

Most of the ungrateful people who use the BBC message boards to express their view that the BBC should go are the same ones who moan about standards slipping and our way of life being over run by alien ideas and people.
Anyone who doesn't mind adverts at double sound volume interrupting programmes doesn't need a TV, because IMO they are not really interested in the programmes at all. Besides, with all the adverts I find it impossible to snooze through bad programmes herself is watching.
Do they believe that a commercial organisation would give us Radio 4, or business and science programmes of high quality? Do they not consider that a commercial BBC would totally change the face of ITV and the other independent broadcasters in a negative way? Or do they not actually care about what they watch or listen to, and want to inflict the same on the rest of us. The enlightened USA may well have PS broadcasters, but would they be allowed here if the BBC was privatised? I doubt it.

38. At 9:38pm on 19 Oct 2010, Rob jones wrote:
two TV channels and two radio is all we can afford..the BBC gravey chain must go asap!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Are you Camerooons press Officer?
How much do you pay for the goods you buy? remember they are inflated to pay for advertising on TV. Is this a tax???
And don't come out with argument that you have a choose, because when the social fabric has gone you don't.
Watch TV from other countries before you say such statements.

i don't know Ive got mixed views on this. Their is colossal wastage at the bbc there is no doubt about that and in addition to the overpaid so-called stars and executives, I'm sure there and thousands of leadswingers serving little purpose. That said maintaining a quality public broadcaster is one of the few things this country has left going for it...

39. At 9:39pm on 19 Oct 2010, panchopablo wrote:
"the government's plans mean there will be 16% real terms cut in the corporation's funds over the next six years."
No doubt the £300k a year socialists who run the BEEB will soon be spouting on about government interferance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am surprised that you haven't been taken to court for your statement, Oh of course you have worked at the BBC so you know that ALL staff are socialists!
Bordering on liability .

The party is over.

Sounds like a good deal to me, I would have capped the BBC at 100 quid for good and let staff do outside contract work if they wanted more munny.

145 quid is steep but worth it when you compare the quality of programming.

I live in the US and would gladly pay a partial fee for use of the iplayer. Charging for this service would provide additional income to the beeb and save me from watching Keeping up appearances.

44. At 9:53pm on 19 Oct 2010, officeboy76 wrote:
Why not scrap the TV Licence once and for all.
Other TV channels don't charge us watching their programs at all, they use adverts to generate funding, why not the BBC?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stupid Officeboy you do pay with adverts, you pay for higher prices! Do you think that Adverts are free? Who pays for the adverts? The company how do they get the money to pay for this?
Adverts are not free! averts convert you to a single product that you will love or hate.

Why should the over 75s receive a free licence? Not fair. They should pay their share like the rest of us. I don't care if they have "worked their whole lives", the elderly’s sense of entitlement is undigified and discourages people to save for their retirement. Why save for a decent pension when the state will coff up for everything when you retire?

It won't half hit the American broadcasters who make a living supplying American voices for Woman's Hour!

46. At 9:56pm on 19 Oct 2010, RicharddeLionheart wrote:
This is brilliant news! I am not surprised by the arrogant response from the BBC Trust (not long for this world). The BBC is making a fortune from its commercial operations and BBC America which is free. Despite its argument that the money is ploughed into programme making I see no evidence of this whatsoever. Prove it I say!
How much income does the beeb derive from advertising on the website in the US?
BBC salaries are a disgrace and must be revised, I do not accept the commerical tv arguments - have you seen the drivel ITV has been putting out in recent years.
If I had my way I would close BBC3 and 4, Radio 5 Live, the other digital channels, consolidate and rationalise BBC local radio and regional tv news.
Get real BBC it's time to accept the hard times ahead, rise to the challenge and show us how good you really could be, because as of now you are way below par
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Am the only person here that will defend the BBC are there so many stupid persons here that don't see the BBC as it is and not what they want for FREE? Nothing is free NOTHING I am so angry to see so many anti BBC I am sure that you have not seen TV in other countries where the standards are so low you would cry.
But then you will say YOU don't care. Is this a blog set up by Rupert Murdock?????
BBC has for years provided you people in England with excellent television and you slam it??? Now I understand why Britain is fast becoming a third rate country.
Slam anything that is good for you, because you don't want to pay for it.

Keep the BBC as it is, just reduce the salary to reasonable levels. Job done.

BBC > Murdoch empire.

46. At 9:56pm on 19 Oct 2010, RicharddeLionheart wrote:
It's your arrogance and tone of your letter that frightens me

The licence fee should be scrapped altogether. It used to be justified to support high standards of public service broadcasting, but that is no longer being delivered. 'Standards' and 'service' seem to have had no place in the BBC for years now; we get mainly populist trash and political bias. So can we afford the BBC at all? I wouldn't care if the whole organisation disappeared along with the licensing bureaucracy.

Another fine example of how the government is using the cover of public spending cuts to savage everything it is philosophically against - the public sector in particular irrespective of how essential a job is done, the Beeb because it perceives it as left wing and also because if it is wounded sufficiently this will be another business that could collapse against a free market onslaught. Isn't it interesting. There has barely been a whimper about Post Office privatisation from the public. After Mrs Thatcher first took away all the profitable bits of that service leaving the costly rump of foot sloggers in the public domain, it now wants to sell the remainder off. I wonder why the POs rivals didn't want the cost intensive bit? Now, not only do the government want to get rid of it but they want the public not the purchasers to still foot the employees pensions bill! Well folks, don't ever believe you will get the same service from a private company because they don't do labour intensive. You'll have to collect your mail from a central point for sure.
Same with nuclear power. Let the private sector make money from it but saddle Joe Public with the astronomical clean up costs that will follow (not even mentioning the wonderful saftey records of some of these companies after taking over organisations formerly publically owned.) And as for the public sector; they know full well that they'll still have to have much of the work done, but now by their "friends" in the private sector - but with the foot soldier employees getting subsistence wages.
Now the BBC are being attacked so they too can hampered in competing with Murdoch et al - possibly the trade off for the grizzled Ozzie's support for our beloved government. All this without a real mandate from the electorate too. But they are clever enough to know that if you leave everyone in panic about how they are going to survive the austerity measures no one will have time to fret about the damage they are wreaking against national institutions.

60. At 10:16pm on 19 Oct 2010, Rover wrote:
Its about time the BBC Weather and News Presenters realised that they are just over paid auto cue readers,which any good teacher could perform on a greatly reduced salary. there's a good saving for the frozon licence fee...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you know how much they earn? please tell us all so we can agree with your statement.
If not then a liable case could be at your door.

I don't want the licence to be held at the current figure for 5 years if this means that my beloved BBC cannot continue with its existing superb standard. I would happily pay a voluntary contribution to prevent the Government interfering with the independence of the organisation, why are we not offered this option?

8. At 8:39pm on 19 Oct 2010, betahail wrote:
"still too expensive, can I opt out of paying if I only watch Sky?"

---------------------------------------------------------------

No, but your brain will

Mr Creosote wrote: "NPR and PBS in the US is paid for by contributions and seems to get by."

Not entirely true. National Pinko Radio etc are partly funded by the Newspeak name of Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which gets its funding from Congress, to the tune of $400M in 2009. Thieves!

"Seriously, maybe its time to scrap the license and go commerical"

Of course it is.

Mrs Vee wrote: "Now, it's just a left-leaning propaganda machine spilling out biased news stories and puerile programmes masquerading as entertainment.

I'd like to see the licence fee stopped completely and the BBC turn into a pay-per-view broadcaster; let it stand on its own without being propped up by our taxes. Given the dire quality of its current output it wouldn't make enough money to pay the executives' lunch expenses - it'd be off air inside six months."

And best of all, it would take those two propagandist Dimblebys with it!

61. At 10:17pm on 19 Oct 2010, piscator wrote:
Thank you very much I thought was the only person here that feels that the BBC does have a right to be here. are we the only non conservative or non Murdock here?
If the BBC does need to cut back then let HYS be the first to go.

65. At 10:21pm on 19 Oct 2010, ady wrote:
The party is over.
Sounds like a good deal to me, I would have capped the BBC at 100 quid for good and let staff do outside contract work if they wanted more munny.
----------------------------------------------------------
would you say the same when you buy a peach pear? You will and always pay for TV it's a fact of life.
Difference is that you see what you pay for

We could start by firing the moderators.

Compare the random behavior of the Beeb moderators with this: "The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers."

And a reporting mechanism.

17. At 9:05pm on 19 Oct 2010, Icebloo wrote:
It's only a matter for time before the Tories privatise the BBC. It's the only great company we have left. This would also mean the quality of news would deteriorate and that's exactly what the right wing in any country like - it helps to keep people dumb so they don't have a clue what's truly happening.

The BBC should be treated like gold. It is the world's best news source although I have seen it deteriorate a little since Cameron came into power.
--------------------------
I fear you are living in the past. The quality of BBC news HAS deteriorated, seriously, both in content and presentation. The rot set in long before Cameron (or Brown, or Blair, for that matter). Content - bias towards the sensational rather than the important, speculation on forthcoming events presented as 'news', poorly managed interviews with silly questions from inexperienced reporters. Presentation - poor voice projection and enunciation, often gabbled at high speed; appalling grammar.
Similar problems infect many of its other programmes too, the quality of which is no better than you find on commercial channels. It has simply lost the plot.
So, far from being treated like gold, the BBC should be ordered to cut out waste and raise standards quickly or else lose the licence fee altogether. If that means it goes out of business, tough. It will have been self-inflicted.

24. At 9:12pm on 19 Oct 2010, Lorentz wrote:
"The difference is that you have no choice in the matter - you may only want to watch ITV, but you still have to pay the BBC." -
The fact is Lorentz your bright idea would leave the way clear for news and information provision to the average household being purely in the hands of the super-rich and those with vested interests. Hobson's choice is no choice at all. I'm sure you would be up in arms if someone dared to suggest that no TV should be allowed unless state provided. So why is it fine to effectively allow only the powerful and wealthy to control the menu that the public can select from? I'd be interested to know if you are philosophically against any public service of any kind, believing the free market is better at everything?

68. At 10:33pm on 19 Oct 2010, DavidGraham1984 wrote:
Typical conservative remark!

Oh dear, how sad, never mind LOL Perhaps the Auntie should ask for more when they sell programmes to overseas broadcasters? After all, it was "us" licence fee payers that financed the making of them in the first place!

Hardly a surprise. An organisation that can afford to send outrageous numbers of staff to cover international events like the Olympics and employs so many grossly overpaid executives who feel the need to personally oversee these staff on location shows how much fat it has to cut. An organisation that pays its presenters and executives excessive salaries and pensions clearly has no need of more money. Of course your managememt could have dealt with the problem but it has kept up its wasteful ways and now much tighten its belt.

71. At 10:37pm on 19 Oct 2010, Planet Mars wrote:
Keep the BBC as it is, just reduce the salary to reasonable levels. Job done.
BBC > Murdoch empire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You work for the BBC so you know the salary rates and you know how much Murdock pays???
Clever boy

It will mean even more cheap,tacky,antique,property,cooking,relocation crap to bore us to death.

I have long been aware of the phenomenal benefits of being a part of the BBC having heard years ago from the son of a friend who was employed within the organisation for a few years. Compared to other organisations in the public sector the BBC has fared exceedingly well for many years. In the main the BBC does a very good job and we should be wary of any measures that might make it less effective. However it is a pity that it's foreign services are not given the independence that the domestic services enjoy. Let us just hope that the urge to privatise everything within sight does not drive the new government to sell it off, it would then sooner or later undoubtedly end up in the hands of that awful man Murdoch and then we would be deprived completely of any hope of having a truthful source of knowledge of our world.

73. At 10:41pm on 19 Oct 2010, Rabbitkiller wrote:

The licence fee should be scrapped altogether. It used to be justified to support high standards of public service broadcasting, but that is no longer being delivered. 'Standards' and 'service' seem to have had no place in the BBC for years now; we get mainly populist trash and political bias. So can we afford the BBC at all? I wouldn't care if the whole organisation disappeared along with the licensing bureaucracy.
------------------------------------------------------------------
So I have read your comments on the other blogs and you seem to know all, tell me where has the standards and service been lowered? what is Populist trash? and political bias? So tell me who would you prefer to run the country?

What happens to the sales of older material? OK, so there are royalties to be paid on DVDs and CDs, but surely any profit should be going to fund new (and better) programming. In the global scheme of things, reducing the top bods' remuneration probably won't have much impact, but all the little couple of quids on a programme here and there soon add up.

corncobuk i think you find you don't need one as long as

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

So basicly you don't need one for the pc unless anyone slips up and watchs while its been boardcast on tv.

foxyeric wrote: "If not then a liable case could be at your door"

Ohhhh! I wouldn't want to be liable for a liable case.

Once again I will ask all here tell me where do you see GOOD television, on this wonderful planet?
If anyone can give me a reasonable answer then I will congratulate him/her

Its so hilarious.

All those using this HYS to continuously put the BBC down.

Its relatively of similar hypercritical nature as a rapist saying they doesnt like rapists because they get too much out of it.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The licence fee should be cut by 20% with immediate effect for two reasons:

- taxpayers need the money more
- given the number of repeats and the amount of drivel, there isn't much left that is worth watching.

74. At 10:43pm on 19 Oct 2010, Ackwern wrote:
Well said, I agree entirely with your remarks the first intelligent remark here so far.
Most people here are just happy with the X-factor, they are happy with thier over loud adverts, because they are so ingorant to the fact they think they are not paying for it.
I will say once again, watch TV from any country throughout the world, then say that the BBC is trash.

It's a disgrace you after to pay that much!!
I have to pay a TV license and then have to pay extra for SKY, ESPN etc..

You should only pay for what you are watching!!