[fhs man 2]

The BBC was set up to be the national broadcaster but now there is loads of channels, Do you think the BBC are spending their money right are they producing the right quality of TV shows. Do you think they will last ?

With the scottish independence referendum in a couple of years if the vote is yes then could you see the BBC continuing ?

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

The BBC was set up to be the national broadcaster but now there is loads of channels,

The BBC was originally set up to create demand for receivers manufactured by a group of electrical companies.

Do you think the BBC are spending their money right

Mostly yes, but there is becoming an urgent need to offer more programming that addresses the correct use of the English language.

are they producing the right quality of TV shows.

The BBC produces, commissions and transmits far more hours of radio than television - why single out a minority activity?

Do you think they will last ?

Yes.

With the scottish independence referendum in a couple of years if the vote is yes then could you see the BBC continuing ?

Yes.

[Caxton]

Basically I think the BBC overall does a good job.

I do believe they try too hard to be too competitive with other channels lowering their standards to show dross programmes to appeal and hold attention of the masses who are basically too brain dead to watch a decent documentary or factual programme. Less over-egged Americanised situations and far more basic fact, they do not have to compete on viewing figures but give us who want to watch a good factual or documentary programme without all the hype good programmes.

[mikw]

Programmes like "Frozen Planet" and "earthflight" are as good as anything anyone has ever shown ever - and BBC radio is unique in this country too.

It's very relevant too in this country. Until the commercial sector can produce all that the BBC does as the same price to the viewer then there's still a need for it.

And the DO have to get large audiences for some of their programmes otherwise they'll be howls of not proving to the masses. They've always done both minority and majority.

[Gaz125]

The BBC does a fantastic job,and lets not forget that it has to stay relevant to a varied audience which is why it does commision shows like the voice which is doing well in the ratings,but the BBC also excels in my view with news and documentaries and when its got the wind in its sails,it can produce some of the greatest drama and comedy!!!!!

I have no doubt the uk would be a poorer place tv wise if it didnt exist!!

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

The BBC was set up to be the national broadcaster but now there is loads of channels, Do you think the BBC are spending their money right are they producing the right quality of TV shows. Do you think they will last ?

The BBC was set up as a public service broadcaster, though much of their content is purely entertainment, unecessary, and not what most people would regard as PSB.

The BBC and it's supporters have to realise there isn't a bottomless pit of money, with an income of 5 billion pounds, I think they are very over-funded for what they produce. Certainly not 5 billion pounds worth of content in my book!

With the revelation that they spent £25m on just the rights to a foreign reality TV format mimicking ITVs BGT/X-Factor with "the Voice", i think they have lost focus on what they are there to do, provide PSB, not copycating and ratings contests with commercial broadcasters.

And while there is a need for a PSB broadcaster, there's certainly no reason a PSB broadcaster should be the "largest broadcaster in the world" as the BBC themselves have claimed. A more modest position with more modest funding is in order.

Originally Posted by fhs man 2

With the scottish independence referendum in a couple of years if the vote is yes then could you see the BBC continuing ?

It would be interesting to see the BBC split up to allow a completely separate Scottish BBC.

[Ramsay Ladders]

I would willingly sell my house and all my posessions to help fund the BBC. ; )

Re the question about independence it's irellevant as fat smug Sandy Salmond won't win his vote anyway.

[mossy2103]

[quote=slow motion;58051204]

The BBC and it's supporters have to realise there isn't a bottomless pit of money, with an income of 5 billion pounds,

Who has ever said or suggested that there was?

[jmclaugh]

I don't want the BBC to disappear or become a commercial outfit although it now has almost as much advertising time between programmes advertising itself as a commercial station does. It has become too bloated and still is including in terms of the number of presenters etc it employs on just about everything and it needs to refocus more on what, as a PSB, makes it different and worth preserving.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

.... although it now has almost as much advertising time between programmes advertising itself as a commercial station does. ....

If this much repeated claim were true then a huge number of both internal and outside productions would have broken their contractual obligations.

Programme duration

[mike65]

It arguably does too much, its best is brilliant, its spending too much on material not fit for it (ie trashy guff designed to beat ITV in the ratings).

[culttvfan]

People can argue about how good or bad the BBC is, whether it is fulfilling its public service remit, whether there is too much ratings chasing dross etc. but the problem at the heart of all of this is the way it is funded, forcing everyone under 75 to pay a total of 5 billion a year for it, no matter how bad they think it is, and even if they never watch it, particularly with so many free-to-air channels providing programming as good, and often better.

Having a situation where one broadcaster can force viewers to pay for it, regardless of what they think, simply has no place in a modern, democratic society. A subscription service, or funded by advertising, is infinitely better than the current system. I'm an adult - instead of the BBC constantly telling me how good it is, I'd like to be able to decide for myself.

[Glenn A]

Originally Posted by mike65

It arguably does too much, its best is brilliant, its spending too much on material not fit for it (ie trashy guff designed to beat ITV in the ratings).

I might have been in a minority of one at the time but when they bought in Neighbours to compete with equally bad Australian soaps on ITV this was a sign the BBC was moving downhill. Also I wish they would stop trying to dress up reality shows in posh clothes like that Maestro series in BBC Two, these shows aren't what the BBC should be about.

[Dan's Dad]

Originally Posted by culttvfan

.... but the problem at the heart of all of this is the way it is funded, forcing everyone under 75 to pay a total of 5 billion a year for it ....

Having a situation where one broadcaster can force viewers to pay for it .... simply has no place in a modern, democratic society..

The income from the Licence Fee is some £3.5bn, not £5bn.

The £3.5bn includes that payment made by the Treasury on behalf of household in which one resident is aged 75 years or more.

Only householders are required to pay the Fee, not 'everyone'.

The broadcaster does not "force viewers to pay for" the BBC; the law, determined by Parliament, does.
That Parliament is democratically elected and accountable.
So, it does "have a place in a modern, democratic society" after all!

[neo_wales]

The BBC offer a great service at a very low cost, long may it continue.

[zx50]

I think BBC4's got some great documentaries on quite regularly. BBC1's also great at times for soaps as well. I definitely think the BBC will last. Definitely. I think there could be more mini series being shown at peak times. That's my input.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by slow motion

The BBC was set up as a public service broadcaster, though much of their content is purely entertainment, unecessary, and not what most people would regard as PSB.

For once Slo-motion, put your money where your mouth is, how much exactly?

The BBC and it's supporters have to realise there isn't a bottomless pit of money, with an income of 5 billion pounds, I think they are very over-funded for what they produce. Certainly not 5 billion pounds worth of content in my book!

Compare it to how much Sky take and see how much content it CREATES - it's much better value in comparison to how much it spends on programming and services - no?

With the revelation that they spent £25m on just the rights to a foreign reality TV format mimicking ITVs BGT/X-Factor with "the Voice", i think they have lost focus on what they are there to do, provide PSB, not copycating and ratings contests with commercial broadcasters.

A sum of money that will - in part - be got back with record sales and tour receipts and possible sell ones - please (for once) look BEYOND the empty headlines.

And while there is a need for a PSB broadcaster, there's certainly no reason a PSB broadcaster should be the "largest broadcaster in the world" as the BBC themselves have claimed. A more modest position with more modest funding is in order.

It's just market-speak, there are - as you well know - larger broadcasters out there.

As for "more modest" funding, the LF (thanks to the Conservatives) will continue to cost the same, but more of it will fund other things, you're not going to get a Cheaper license fee Slo-motion.

It would be interesting to see the BBC split up to allow a completely separate Scottish BBC.

And as STV has proved, the Scottish would get a WORSE service.

[derek500]

Originally Posted by Dan's Dad

If this much repeated claim were true then a huge number of both internal and outside productions would have broken their contractual obligations.

Programme duration

It's the poor (intentional) timekeeping that causes the problem and gives long gaps between programmes that really shouldn't be there.

e.g.

Tuesday April 17th, BBC One.

Eastenders 19.28

Holby 20.01

By doing that they get up to four minutes of promos at the time when most people are watching BBC One.

If they started The One Show at its advertised time rather than the usual 18.58, it wouldn't happen.

[slow motion]

For those who set out to spin or mislead the rest of us about the BBC income with false figures, note that the BBC itself declares its income as £5 billion pounds in their own 2010-2011 BBC annual report.

2011 - £4,993,000,000 (up 4.25% on 2010)
2010 - £4,789,800,000 (up 2.8% on 2009)
2009 - £4,660.200,000

BBC Income £4,993 million 2010-2011 - BBC Annual Report

I suggest anyone who claims otherwise should check their facts, rather than continuing to peddle incorrect figures.

Five billions pounds a year income is an astonishing amount of money for mere PSB broadcaster.

[Glenn A]

The BBC is the least worst broadcaster we have. One of the biggest worries would be is if it was commercialised, like Channel 4, which went from a highly respected and popular PSB to an outfit producing mindless trash like Big Brother and Hollyoaks and ratings have suffered as a consequence. If the BBC was commercialised, for all it is far from perfect now, we'd have even more talent contests, Eastenders episodes and banal dance and pop on BBC Radio.

[Nyota]

I'm glad we have them in general and don't mind the licence fee format at all, but they are far from flawless and not as above criticism as people here seem to think!

[Nilrem]

I think Glenn A sort of sums up my feelings.

The BBC is far from perfect (no doubt some members of the forum will be a while recovering from the shock of a "bbc fan"saying that), but it is by far the best of the UK broadcasters in terms of the range of content shown, the amount of it that is both UK sourced and of reasonable quality (at least), and the only remaining UK broadcaster for whom their PSB obligations aren't just an annoying anchor that's stopping them making more profit.

My dad is currently thoroughly enjoying the metalworks season on BBC4 - as he put it "I know much of it already, and have seen bits about different things in other programmes, but never a programme just about it", and I tend to agree with him on that, they've been informative and interesting - I'm sure some would argue recording on site in the Far East for some bits was wasteful, but it made a very important point about where metals come from and how they might have been found (and I suspect they probably filmed bits for a number of programmes whilst there), in a way that means more than if they just presented it from a studio (I wonder if filming on site actually saved some money compared to studio set...).

[wakey]

Originally Posted by slow motion;58051204!

With the revelation that they spent £25m on just the rights to a foreign reality TV format mimicking ITVs BGT/X-Factor with "the Voice", i think they have lost focus on what they are there to do, provide PSB, not copycating and ratings contests with commercial broadcasters.
.

It's £11mill seeing as the rest of your figures are yearly and The Voice is a 2 year deal.

And the problem is whenever these discussions happen one of the things people against the LF bring up is 'I don't watch anything on it' so what are they supposed to do because without popular programming more people will demand a removal of the LF because very few PSB niche programming will find a wide audience.

And the BBC charter does include the words 'Entertain' so actually they are expected to provide some mass appeal programming alongside the niche stuff

[wakey]

Originally Posted by derek500

It's the poor (intentional) timekeeping that causes the problem and gives long gaps between programmes that really shouldn't be there.

e.g.

Tuesday April 17th, BBC One.

Eastenders 19.28

Holby 20.01

By doing that they get up to four minutes of promos at the time when most people are watching BBC One.

If they started The One Show at its advertised time rather than the usual 18.58, it wouldn't happen.

You are forgotteing they have news headlines before the 8pm program which is why the scheduling is slightly odd from 18:58 till 20:05

[wakey]

Originally Posted by slow motion

For those who set out to spin or mislead the rest of us about the BBC income with false figures, note that the BBC itself declares its income as £5 billion pounds in their own 2010-2011 BBC annual report.

2011 - £4,993,000,000 (up 4.25% on 2010)
2010 - £4,789,800,000 (up 2.8% on 2009)
2009 - £4,660.200,000

BBC Income £4,993 million 2010-2011 - BBC Annual Report

I suggest anyone who claims otherwise should check their facts, rather than continuing to peddle incorrect figures.

Five billions pounds a year income is an astonishing amount of money for mere PSB broadcaster.

That figure includes the money they receive from BBCW doesn't it? This BBCW money would also drop if the LF was reduced or scrapped as they would have less content to sell