Free BBC from the licence fee?

[Bunk]

good point, the SBC? has Alex realised they would lose Sherlock and Dr Who?

That's alright, they can keep River City and BBC Alba

[VectraMan]

The BBC pays Sky to broadcast BBC programs too.

The bbc pays Sky for the channel numbers on the EPG, they do the broadcasting themselves. Which is peanuts.

I think there's a good argument for having a small licence fee that would pay for news, current affairs, kids programmes etc, but Strictly, Dr Who and all that tulipe is taking the piss.

[Zero Liability]

BBC should be financed from General Taxation - this BS with small discount to blind (!) people and taxing of TVs is crazy.

Why should it be? If its programming is so high quality, it can compete as a private entity.

[AtW]

Why should it be? If its programming is so high quality, it can compete as a private entity.

It should be because otherwise it won't be able to do programs that go against wishes of big advertisers - stuff like Top Gear (outspoken without fear of legal action) would not be possible on private channel.

Also funding with taxes can make sure some RIGHT stuff is done, including giving platform to opposition and those who wish to say things against Govt - with private company it's much more difficult.

[Zero Liability]

That scarcely implies it 'should' be. If people would willingly pay for that sort of programming, they can finance it as a non-profit or it can come up with a model to redress a perceived market gap.

Regarding the representation of views contrary to the government's, when does the BBC actually do this? Does it have a few 'colorful' characters interspersed here and there to pay lip service to the idea? It would be nice if it actually did. Also, note that this is separate to shows like Top gear, and would still entail a much more limited scope for it.

Technically speaking, you can do anything you like with a private company, it's more a matter of getting licensed and attracting eyeballs. If the licensing process favours a few large, politically connected incumbents, then that also needs to be reviewed. There are loads of new distribution channels coming out that will render the MSM obsolete over time, anyway, provided they don't get creative with things like copyright law.

[jmo21]

It should be because otherwise it won't be able to do programs that go against wishes of big advertisers - stuff like Top Gear (outspoken without fear of legal action) would not be possible on private channel.

Nonsense.

[AtW]

Nonsense.

Car manufacturers are very big TV advertisers. Except on BBC.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Car manufacturers are very big TV advertisers. Except on BBC.

There is no requirement for a privately operated tv broadcaster to advertise. The BBC doesn't, and takes it's funding by force. If it's really that good and I'm a mug for bitching about having to pay for it, then a competitor would be able to attract a subscription based funding such that it also didn't need to advertise.

[AtW]

There is no requirement for a privately operated tv broadcaster to advertise.

Ah yes, no requirement for private tv company to have any revenues - everybody will work for free out of goodness of their hearts.

[xoggoth]

They do by far the best programs IMO like BBC News, Father Brown, Shylock and er, um. Apart from The Simpsons and South Park and the occasional 70s horror film on The Horror Channel none of the other n million channels on Sky ever has anything worth watching.

Oh yeh, Merlin er um.