BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Is the BBC good value for money?

12:17 UK time, Monday, 19 July 2010

The BBC's television licence fee could be cut under the government's public spending austerity drive. Do you think the BBC provides good value for money?

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said that the cost of the TV licence fee - which is used to fund the BBC - could be cut under new austerity measures.

On Monday, Education Secretary Michael Gove questioned whether the licence fee was good value for money on the BBC's Today programme.

Do you agree that the licence fee should be cut? Do you think changes should be made at the BBC? Or do you think the licence fee is money well spent? Where would you like to see money spent within the BBC?

Thank you for your comments. This debate is now closed.

Comments

Page 1 of 6

  • Comment number 1.

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

  • Comment number 2.

    I've lived in a number of countries, and this is the ONLY one in which I have had to pay a fee just for the privilege of having a television in my home.

    I realise that this is because the BBC doesn't have commercials, but maybe it's time they entertained the notion. The viewing public is so used to advertisements now that they probably wouldn't be too fussed about it, especially if it saved them nearly £140 per year.

    The other irksome thing is that I have to fork out for a satellite package because my aerial reception is virtually zero. So I basically have to pay twice for my viewing - once to my satellite provider, and once to the Beeb. Given that BBC programs account for only about 10% of what I watch, this isn't great value for money.

    Sorry, BBC, but it's time to move into the 21st century, and accept that you can't make television owners pay for programs that they might not even watch.

  • Comment number 3.

    In a word "NO" the BBC is not good value for money, advertising is used on BBC world and they are selling everything they can to Dave & UK gold who pay for these BBC programmes with.... you guessed it....advertising revenue! So I'm kind of at a loss why they still need my licence fee what with all this lovely money coming in from other sources.

  • Comment number 4.

    Is the BBC good value for money? No. It should be closed down.

  • Comment number 5.

    Please please lets not ruin this one last vestige of well respected Britishness. Government, leave it alone please, and tell Murdoch to back off!

  • Comment number 6.

    To me the BBC is the best TV Radio and on-line media group in the world. Its world class and leads other media groups. It faces issues for minority groups and tackles issues that other media groups would be too scared to tackle due to shareholders and their controls. Fine like all organisations it may from time to time need some controls changed or refined but please do not cut the fee. Encourage new less expensive talent. Travel around the world and see what a world service the BBC is and everyone in this country would be proud to here the feedback.
    The UK may not be a world power anymore but we still have influence and are trusted by our non controlled media as a voice of freedom.

    Do not listen to Murdock B sky B etc. The cost of their media is huge and limited. Profit only.

    Fine cit costs for our OAPs but on the whole I plead leave the BBC alone - it's UK's greatest asset worldwide.

  • Comment number 7.

    For the amount of services, the hours of broadcasting and the cost of the licence fee the BBC is good value. But it could be much better value.

    Like all public services, the BBC is choked with over-complicated and expensive upper and middle management. I can't believe that when wage packets get that high that the recipient's first thought is to the BBC and to the country, rather than their own pocket. Wehave seen this in the banking industries.

    Also, although vitally important, the BBC news service seems a little over-manned and bloated. I don't want a 'bells and whistles, must grab the audience share at all costs, here's *another* presenter telling us what the first presenter could have told us' news service, just a streamlined, trustworthy, unbiased information service.

  • Comment number 8.

    Between programmes, you sometimes get more time spent on ads than you do on Sky or ITV, except they are promoting BBC programmes.

    I have no problems with the BBC and for £12 a month its EXCELLENT value.

    If it had to get advertising instead of the license fee, could ITV go bust?

    Is there so much advertising around for the BBC, Sky and ITV to all survive?

    I doubt it...

    I also love the BBC website............

  • Comment number 9.

    The best public service broadcaster in the world bar none.

    World class programmes and website. Worth every penny.

    I wonder if any of the people moaning about the cost of the licence at £140 per year shell out £70, £100 or more per MONTH to watch SKY or VIRGIN etc?

    Carry on Auntie, you are a credit to what can be good in 'public service'.

  • Comment number 10.

    "I've lived in a number of countries, and this is the ONLY one in which I have had to pay a fee just for the privilege of having a television in my home. I realise that this is because the BBC doesn't have commercials, but maybe it's time they entertained the notion. The viewing public is so used to advertisements now that they probably wouldn't be too fussed about it, especially if it saved them nearly £140 per year."

    You are missing the point. I lived in the US for 7 years and their news channels are laughably poor. The BBC must remain independent of any influence, especially advertiser revenue. The US news channels cannot afford to upset the advertisers and their editorial decisions are based on attracting viewers and advertisers - hardly a recipe for informed programming. If there's one thing I'd join a public protest for it would be to maintain the public funding of the BBC, without it C4, Sky News etc would degenerate into the puerile nonsense that is FOX "news".

  • Comment number 11.

    I think it's disgusting that we are forced to pay for the BBC under an outdated extortionistic law. We have to pay over the odds to buy a television set then we've to pay what should be an illegal "tax" for the privilege of owning one, the proceeds of which go to one company that never delivers in my opinion. If the BBC was a commodity that we could chose to buy I wager there'd be very few takers.

  • Comment number 12.

    Just take a look a the "new and improved" BBC news website. I wonder how much cash was wasted there ruining something which was absolutely fine in the first place.

  • Comment number 13.

    To anyone saying No, you would notice the impact on your daily life very quickly if you were banned from watching BBC TV, browsing BBC website or any BBC services (including Match of the Day etc).

    Could you survive on just GMTV!

  • Comment number 14.

    Hands off the BBC! No advertising, please!

  • Comment number 15.

    I am appalled at Saturday night TV from every channel including BBC.
    Repeats, material that is just not entertainment - it really is a poor show.
    Generally I would say the BBC is not good value - why are so many people paid and involved in outside events - there does not seem to be any economics applied.
    The final insult to our intelligence was having the World Cup screened by both ITV and BBC - why oh why was this seen as necessary..........

  • Comment number 16.

    No it is not good value for money. The BBC programmes are so PC that I am really put of by the poor quality of these shows bring. All dramas seem to have to have the standard woman, black man and homosexual. Now if I want to watch a period drama set in a mining village in the 1800s......you won't find that many black people. I stick to good British films. They are not so PC.

  • Comment number 17.

    Personally I'd pay the entire license fee just to recieve Test Match Special.

    But I realise I'm probably not that representative.

  • Comment number 18.

    No of course it isn't good value for money how can a broadcaster that panders to 10% of the population while ignoring or belittling the other 90% that have to pay exactly the same amount in TV tax be value for money?.

    BBC should change it's name to the UCBC (Upper class Broadcasting Cooperation).

    If the BBC insists on taking the publics money, in this day and age they can be subscription based or PPV that why it would be value for money.



  • Comment number 19.

    bring in some commercials on television, cut down the costs, use commercials on the bbc radio networks, and why so many radio stations, reduce this to about 5 country wide reducing local radio to the commercial stations. give the workers a one year contract so no fat cats, cut the entertaining bills to tea and biscuit with no taxi fares. those who are paid to work should not have free transport as well, no clothing allowances, once a week hairdo's. Small money which makes big cuts in the long run. In all, the BBC would then offer real value for money

  • Comment number 20.

    In the past the BBC was excellant value BUT times have changed, we are overloaded with repeats on TV and the fixation of BBC radio of employing so called superstars on Radio (Chris Evans) definately proves it needs a revamp.
    A good start would be to pack in the phone in programs on BBC1 on a Staturday night.

  • Comment number 21.

    The BBC licence fee costs everyone with a television around £3.00 a week?

    Personally, our family don't know of any advertisment free channel or satellite/cable provider that offers such a diverse AND accountable broadcaster that offers anything close to £3.00 a week - do you?

    Are you without a television and only use a radio - no cost, nada, nothing at all. Perhaps that should change, but one imagines that in an emergency the gov want to ensure everyone has radio availability?

    Nevertheless: around £3.00 a week your TV license provides:

    1) Website access on thousands of issues important to everyone, plus comment on this issue alone without a barrage of exploding adverts in your face.
    2) Opportunity to easily complain about my post, and all areas of the BBC.
    3) For example, we recently complained to the BBC Trust that women being murdered and attacked were constantly being reported as prostitutes - implying these women were less worthy or that their situation, as reported, undermined their equality as murder victims. The BBC Trust stopped that happening.
    4) Consumer investigation and programing across all the BBC have improved and brought to the fore, all victims of all crimes.
    5) Crimewatch, Panorama, Newsnight, Question Time, Democracy Live etc.
    6) Comedy - diverse and under-estimated on BBC TV AND Radio.
    7) Radio 4 - something for everyone with concerns on finance, consumer issues and for business too.

    Much more to say, but we should be suspicious of Conservative/Murdoch interventions into the BBC? One suspects that certain areas of 'management' and 'outsourced' production companies have enjoyed a 'good summer'? Highly paid chiefs within the BBC need to be examined, but there are many 'informal'/self-employed chiefs' who are 'milking' the system?

    Jeremy Hunt, Conservative Minister, has yet to state publicly that for around £3.00 a week the BBC is an exceptionally 'good deal' from the BBC. One assumes he knows that, yet it would 'stick in his craw to say it?


  • Comment number 22.

    #2 - Val. I live in Italy where a TV licence fee applies (€109) for the RAI channels, and 90% of their output is mind-numbing rubbish AND there are loads of adverts.
    People in the U.K are a bunch of whingers; whether you wish to accept it or not, the BBC is the best radio and TV broadcaster by a very, very large margin. Try living elsewhere; Norway, for example, for a few months. In every country I have lived in, and there's been a few, the TV has been absolutely dire.
    The BBC may not be perfect, but you don't even begin to realise how fortunate you are. £140 a year for all that radio and TV is a snip.

  • Comment number 23.

    Yes in general terms gives Entertainment for everyone and Investigative and Independent Views and News to All. Unlike Sky that give Dumb Down Repetitive Entertainment,Adverts and the Corporate Investors view of the News and Views

  • Comment number 24.

    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.

  • Comment number 25.

    The BBC have some of the best content around, on the TV or on the web. Most importantly NO ADVERTS, I'd pay double if it meant keeping the BCC advert free.... for me it's the last thing in this country that is worth it's price.

  • Comment number 26.

    If you belong to what is called a Muslim community and subscribe to cultural supremacy, then the BBC is providing you with value for money. Don't knock it.

  • Comment number 27.

    16. At 1:31pm on 19 Jul 2010, Gillian wrote:
    No it is not good value for money. The BBC programmes are so PC that I am really put of by the poor quality of these shows bring. All dramas seem to have to have the standard woman, black man and homosexual. Now if I want to watch a period drama set in a mining village in the 1800s......you won't find that many black people. I stick to good British films. They are not so PC.


    ////

    If you want something less PC, watch Mock the Week. But I am sure you will find something to moan about that as well.

  • Comment number 28.

    At 1:37pm on 19 Jul 2010, corum-populo-2010 wrote:

    Jeremy Hunt, Conservative Minister
    Is that relevant? what relevance is it if he is Conservative just get over the fact we have a coalition government that does not include Labour.
    Im suprised Maggie Thatcher hasnt been blamed , still there is time.

  • Comment number 29.

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

  • Comment number 30.

    Im a cheap guy - and in the past i moaned and complained about the licsense fee. Then I read a bit, looked at the bigger picture and realised that the BBC is one of the best large News and Media outlets in the world. I dont want to be bombarded with patronising, mind numbingly stupid advertisements. I dont want to witness desperate "celebrities" selling pop corn chicken for iceland. I dont want to be told my eyes are too baggy or my face is too wrinkled. We have survived for thousands and thousands of years without all that offensive junk. I applaud the BBC - and for the record, i hate murdoch, sky and everything they stand for (a gluttenous love of money)

    Please, kneejerk parade, stop, take a look at some of the mind blowing documentry series that wouldnt have been possible without the license. It is certainly one of the only things i find in britain that i am proud of.

    As i said, im a cheap guy, but really, the license fee is nothing. ( i earn 185 after tax per week..not much atall) think of the money wasted on copies of now magazine or the new Katie Price book - do yourself a service, cut the crap and embrace what we have availible to us before its too late! The fee is one of the only things left that is actually worth the money when you look at the BBC's output.

  • Comment number 31.

    I love the BBC.

    No advertisements, no stupid commercials, good drama TV, excellent news coverage, Match of the Day, brilliant informative website, a friendly organisation, limits the amount of American rubbish I see elsewhere. Infinitely better than Sky and any US network.

    Murdoch should take a lesson from BBC. Murdoch should take his Fox news and take it where the sun don't shine.

    Without the BBC, I think I'd sell my television as there'd be nothing sane worth watching.

    God bless the BBC!

    Only complaint I have is that I wish getting a job there was much easier. I wouldn't want to work anywhere else.

  • Comment number 32.

    25. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, DT1984 wrote:
    The BBC have some of the best content around, on the TV or on the web. Most importantly NO ADVERTS, I'd pay double if it meant keeping the BCC advert free.... for me it's the last thing in this country that is worth it's price.

    ----

    They could reinforce the point by cutting down on trailers for their own programmes, especially for those that are just about to start anyway....

  • Comment number 33.

    It's not bad but could be much better. Some of the better programmes are shown on BBC3 and BBC4 - why?

    They need to produce more good quality prime time programmes such as Life on Mars, Rome (I know it was joint venture with HBO) and Criminal Justice (Series 1). The 2nd Criminal Justice was awful in comparison.

    Originality,creativity and innovation is key.

    Actually invest in young new talent.

    Good to see that BBC have got rid of overrated, overpaid presenters such Adrian Chiles and Jonathan Ross.

  • Comment number 34.

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

  • Comment number 35.

    Just to balance things out, i am more than happy to pay the licence fee in place of advert’s every 10 minutes or so, people be careful what you wish for - you may just get it. Personally I’d be happy to pay more for the licence to enable HD etc. But balk at some of the obscene Jonathon Ross-esque salaries being handed out.
    I do NOT want adverts ruining my TV viewing, the beeb is a wonderful institution and i say let's keep it that way people.

  • Comment number 36.

    The BBC is worth far more to me than I pay for it. I would pay 10 times as much just for Radio 4.
    We are lucky to have such a broadcaster.

  • Comment number 37.

    At present it doesn't represent value for money albeit I like what the BBC stands for - or used to stand for.

    Since then it became myred in Government shenanigans and used as a propaganda weapon - something I am not willing to pay for.

    I also have to question the commercial arm of the BBC - how much does it make and how much of the BBC license fund was/is used in the commercial arm?

    And why isn't the profits of the commercial arm not ploughed back to reduce the fee?

    C'mon BBC, time to stop thinking you are a God like organisation and start thinking about the people that keep you in the lifestyle that you have become accustomed.

  • Comment number 38.

    The BBC output is excellent value for money. Local and national radio and TV and world service. 24/7 for 365 days per annum.I have been watching the Tour de France on itv4.20 minutes per hour advertising! My capital investment(TV) plus the cost of electricity used for those adverts.

    If I were to have Sky the yearly cost would on subscriptions alone be much more than the BBC plus I would have to pay as mentioned above the cost of accepting the adverts as well!!

    Current affair programs are almost non existent on commercial output. However the BBC do a fine job in keeping us all informed about what's going on. Yes! Great value for money and I am pleased they are getting to grips over levels or renumeration and expenses.

  • Comment number 39.

    Is it really necessary to have 2 people reading the news on the News Channel or presenting programmes such as the One Show/Breakfast when there are guests and other presenters on the programme. There are many other savings the BBC could make - how about selling Broadcasting House and moving to the Midlands/South Yorkshire (mid England/Great Britain) with smaller premises in London!

    Having said that what other entertainment could you get for 39p per household per day?

  • Comment number 40.

    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.


    You do appreciate irony, after all!

  • Comment number 41.

    I'd rather pay the fee than have more commercial TV where ad breaks are getting longer and more frequent.....

  • Comment number 42.

    How can the BBC call itself value for money - there is no value in sensationalist journolism. The BBC has clearly taken over from SKY news from nonsical reporting. I watched with horror this morning, the low second grade questioning of David Cameron by Susanna Reed on Breakfast, she couldnt elicit the jumped up answer to her tabloid questions, so she just continued to interupt him trying to goad him into her style of Daily Sport style reporting.

    The BBC has become a series of re-runs, old style out dated programs, which has no place in this current media entertainment arena. Why the BBC created so many spin off channels, just to try and compete with excellent satellite and cable producers, we will never know. Al we do know is that this licence fee is costing us more and more for less and less( would the terms Licence Fee stand up in court - I think not )

    IS there a way out - yes there is. Stop the dinosaurs who are in charge of the BBC holding you back, get some new blood and ideas in the board room, and get rid of the fossels in the front line.....

  • Comment number 43.

    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.

    ----

    You are joking aren't you? Either that or you must lack intelligence in knowing what 'impartial' is. You consider a news network that does nothing but scream at their guests if they dare disagree with their hardcore right-wing conservative ways, cutting off their mic as 'impartial'?

    If you want that then go to the USA. The people there enjoy being brainwashed by such mindless junk. We, the UK, have higher standards of news broadcasting.

  • Comment number 44.

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

  • Comment number 45.

    Please please keep adverts off the BBC. It is a pleasure to be able to watch a decent programme without being subjected to the increasingly banal pap which the advertising industry throw at us every ten minutes. I'm also concerned that any reduction in the licence fee would open the door for the likes of News International to take over some of the services. Rupert Murdoch has too much input into the British media at present without allowing him access to the BBC.
    The BBC is well worth the licence fee, although, like many people, I reckon economies can be made. Get rid of ridiculous salaries for nonenities, cut back on the size of the teams sent to sporting events like the world cup, but keep producing high quality programmes and do not pander to the lowest common denominator amongst the viewing public.
    Some things are worth paying for.

  • Comment number 46.

    2. At 12:58pm on 19 Jul 2010, Val wrote:
    I've lived in a number of countries, and this is the ONLY one in which I have had to pay a fee just for the privilege of having a television in my home.


    I suggest you check out this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

    A license fee is common in many countries. Whether it's good value is another matter but claiming the UK is somehow unique is wrong.

  • Comment number 47.

    Just a question, if you watch cable/satelite TV, you will notice that many of the programs are made by the BBC ("made by the BBC and Chosen by Dave" springs to mind) surely the BBC could cut the License fee and then they could put up the prices for the programs they are selling to recoup the cut?

  • Comment number 48.

    In relative terms it's probably not bad but could be better: I can't see why all those six-figure management salaries are needed. It's not like running European Air Traffic control, is it?

    As I've said before, any averagely bright person could make a reasonable job of, say controller of BBC1 (deciding what would be a fair range of viewing for the average Joe, as far as I can see).

    I think they should get out of non-news though, and leave it to those with more easily recognised agendas.

  • Comment number 49.

    To those complaining about paying a license fee, we all pay a tax we can't avoid on our food and daily essentials its called the cost of advertising. Thinks about it - some of what you pay to put food on your family's table funds ITV and all the other advertising funded stations. I bet it is not a small amount either.

  • Comment number 50.

    Like the majority of the public sector - absolutely no value for money whatsoever. The fact that there is the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment for non payment is an utter disgrace in the 21st century. I am more than happy for Sky to remove the BBC channels from my subscription to save £145 per year. Given the impending switch to digital, it should be that those that want to have access to BBC programming pay for the privelege and those that don't want access don't pay.

    I am also slightly confused about the quality argument with regard to the BBC. Why was Al-Jazeera English news channel voted above BBC News 24? Where is the BBC's answer to TV series such as 'The Wire', 'Breaking Bad', 'The Sopranos', 'In Treatment', 'The Pacific' etc. etc.

    I could just imagine David Simon pitching his concept for The Wire to BBC executives - black drug dealers. The BBC executives would have wet themselves at that politically incorrect stereotype!

  • Comment number 51.

    Put the British National Party in charge of the British Broadcasting company. I would pay triple the license fee to see that happen.

  • Comment number 52.

    27. At 1:51pm on 19 Jul 2010, Reverend Norton Neat wrote:
    16. At 1:31pm on 19 Jul 2010, Gillian wrote:
    No it is not good value for money. The BBC programmes are so PC that I am really put of by the poor quality of these shows bring.

    ---

    Of course the irony is that the BBC has been forced into PC blandness by tabloid witch hunts against the likes of Jonathan Ross & Frankie Boyle.

    And now the same tabloids (who are far from disinterested in putting down the beeb) are encouraging exactly the same people who were offended by the likes of Boyle & Ross/Brand gate to now complain about the BBCs 'PC Blandness'.

  • Comment number 53.

    At 1:56pm on 19 Jul 2010, Average-UK-Male

    "...have a coalition government that does not include Labour.
    Im suprised Maggie Thatcher hasnt been blamed , still there is time."

    A coalition government = a government NOBODY in the UK voted for.
    Thatcher should still be blamed. believe it or not the lower classes she shafted still suffer the consequencies today.
    And conservative sympathy doesnt give you a moral high ground. I cant believe Cameron is even entertained.

    Oh, i need to tie this in - maybe our fee could go towards a decent documentry looking into our new prime ministers career - warts an all

  • Comment number 54.

    Sorry no, the BBC is not good value for money; recent prime example of this is the updating of this website last week.

    How much money did that cost on consultants and outsourcing? There was nothing wrong with the old website that was in place and it was much easier to use.

    This new site is overcomplicated and too fussy, but hey what’s a few million amongst friends.

    And why should we in this country pay so the BBC can broadcast to everyone else in the world for free?.

    Just like every other public funded organisation the BBC thinks money grows on trees and it does not how much they waste because the pot will always be refilled next year, sorry auntie the writings on the wall.

  • Comment number 55.

    I'm afraid my answer is "yes and no".
    Yes, because the BBC does make programs and has services that I like and use, and by forcing everyone with a TV to pay, the cost is spread out.
    No, because I consider it a public service and I already pay taxes. Just like the council tax, if more money is needed then why invent a new (flat-fee) tax? Add a percentage to the income tax instead. I find it much more acceptable as it's in proportion to earnings. It should be entertainment and news paid by the goverment from taxation for the enjoyment of the nation.
    The fee should be cut indeed and perhaps have some link to minimum wage or come from income tax.
    As for making changes:
    A certain employee's £18 million salary over 3 years would take me 900 years to collect at my current salary. I'm not jealous, but it's excessive.
    BBC talent should appreciate that the BBC is a public service and pays relatively low salaries. Use the BBC instead to grow new talent and give people a chance if they have a great idea and the drive to make it happen. Consider it a training ground. A public service for and by the public. It should not compete with the private industry. This may even drive down salaries across the industry, leaving more funds for all channels to put into programs. Do the seamingly unlimited funds the BBC has access to (need some more, get the govermnent to approve funding increases) create an unfair bidding war with the private channels? Or reversed, does bidding cause unnecessary expense to the BBC?
    That said, I have no idea of how the BBC works, this is an outsider's perspective.

  • Comment number 56.

    I'm reminded of an interesting quote :-

    "The idea of a tax on the ownership of a television belongs in the 1950s. Why not tax people for owning a washing machine to fund the manufacture of Persil?"

    Jeremy Paxman

    James MacTaggart Memorial Lecture, Aug 24th, 2007

  • Comment number 57.

    I agree with the principle of the BBC, i.e. to make non-commercial programmes without adverts.

    However the current obsession with 'reality' TV shows (which are actually an example of contrived situations that couldn't be further from reality) sadly extends to the BBC. As for adverts, having to sit through 3 or trailers for the latetst version of "Britain's got the celebrity academy on ice" is more boring than your average commercial break on ITV.

  • Comment number 58.

    We don't have Sky and are unlikely to get Freeview until 2012 (Hexham) so I still have a loyalty to the Beeb. I'll always happily pay for a service of quality and (almost) impartiality with out bias to wards advertisers and promoters.
    Is it value for money? Not always. Glad your getting rid of Ross for a start. Cut down on the (sometimes) uneccesary outside broadcasts. Cut the exodus to Manchester/Salford and just utilise the resources you have.
    The new website is fine, though was probably not needed.
    If nothing else, keep the radio advert free.

  • Comment number 59.

    The government's problem is that the BBC is too good value for money and has too much public support.

    This makes it very difficult for private competitors to compete and make as much money as they feel they ought to.

    Naturally, the Con Dems do not want to lose the support of private media interests. They have the example of what happened to New Labour and Gordon Brown when they did so, to worry about. Their solution is to reduce the BBC's income in the hope that this will reduce the quality of the BBC's output and force the public to make do with the inferior output of the competitors.

    Many people, who watched all three of the so called election debates, which, whatever else they failed to do, gave us the opportunity to directly compare the production skills of the BBC and two private companies on a level playing field, were struck by the fact that the BBC's production was far superior to the others.

    Forcing the BBC to lay off staff and reduce the remuneration and conditions of service of others, will also make it easier for competitors to poach BBC staff.

  • Comment number 60.

    BBC is rubbish for money!

  • Comment number 61.

    No ,especially BBC Scotland. The number of times there is utter drivel pawned off on the Scottish viewer is unbelievable. Too many over paid ,See Questiontime, unfortunates who cant do the job ,don't know how to keep control or when to keep his mouth shut.

  • Comment number 62.

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

  • Comment number 63.

    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.

    ----

    Or you could just call up Rupert Murdoch, ask him what he wants you to believe on that particular day, and cut out the middle man.

  • Comment number 64.

    46. At 2:12pm on 19 Jul 2010, Sat_Tyre wrote:
    2. At 12:58pm on 19 Jul 2010, Val wrote:
    I've lived in a number of countries, and this is the ONLY one in which I have had to pay a fee just for the privilege of having a television in my home.

    I suggest you check out this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

    A license fee is common in many countries. Whether it's good value is another matter but claiming the UK is somehow unique is wrong.

    ---

    But it is a statement that gets repeated in various other media.

    Quite a lot.

    Its no suprise that people believe its true.

  • Comment number 65.

    #21
    Nevertheless: around £3.00 a week your TV license provides:

    1) Website access on thousands of issues important to everyone, plus comment on this issue alone without a barrage of exploding adverts in your face.
    actually all it does is pays for the bbc's hosting,if i didnt have an isp i wouldnt be able to comment.the bbc currently as far as i know offer any internet packages..and if it did i doubt it would be free
    2) Opportunity to easily complain about my post, and all areas of the BBC.
    as all posts are pre moderated no it doesnt only the posts deemed appropriate are allowed thru
    3) For example, we recently complained to the BBC Trust that women being murdered and attacked were constantly being reported as prostitutes - implying these women were less worthy or that their situation, as reported, undermined their equality as murder victims. The BBC Trust stopped that happening.
    is that the royal"we"? otherwise please name the orginisation/group your referring to
    no it altered storylines as they closely mirrored REAL events
    they did not address the morality of it at all

    4) Consumer investigation and programing across all the BBC have improved and brought to the fore, all victims of all crimes.
    but they have done nothing to resolve these issues,
    and in fact have given people new ideas for crimes
    5) Crimewatch, Panorama, Newsnight, Question Time, Democracy Live etc.
    your point? democracy live is a web only feature so is irrelivant
    as not everyone has/wants the internet
    6) Comedy - diverse and under-estimated on BBC TV AND Radio.
    you are joking yeah? recycled programmes from years gone by
    old fomats made over to look new? i.e 2.5 children turned into my wife and kids turned into outnumbered... i could go on but i hope you see my point.
    7) Radio 4 - something for everyone with concerns on finance, consumer issues and for business too
    Almost 90% of the station's 9.98 million weekly listeners are 35 or older....a fairly safe demographic but of no intrest to the younger person (hence their "uni roadshows" to prove their "hip")
    -
    i have to say i rarely watch the bbc,it has nothing that intrests me
    which is why i object to paying £140+ for a service i neither want or use but under a "jobs for the boys" scheme i have to

  • Comment number 66.

    It isn't the case whether the BBC is value for money or not considering we now have varying amounts of channels on Cable and Satellite all with excellent programming. It's whether we should actually be paying for a licence in todays fast moving new media world.

    I would like to see the BBC fall into line with every other broadcaster. And the argument that good programming or quality would be lost, is quite frankly an out-of-date argument.

  • Comment number 67.

    The licence fee works out at £12.13 a month, and for that me, my wife and my two kids, (at a cost of about £3.03 each), get so much quality entertainment in the form of TV, radio and online that I can't believe anyone isn't happy paying it.

  • Comment number 68.

    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    "I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News"

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

    I agree. An example of BBC's right-wing bias is the 10 o'clock news Friday re release of Lockerbie bomber.
    This was the decision of Scottish Justice minister but he wasn't interviewed. Many Scottish parents of victims AGREED with the decision. None were mentioned. Al Megrahi was released on medical grounds. No doctors were interviewed.
    American politicians (It had nothing to do with them) were interviewed, and an English right-wing MP was given air time.
    No attempt at balance.
    I'm sure "Fox News" could do much better.

    Are you aware of irony by the way?

  • Comment number 69.

    Given the dross that's on most other channels, the BBC is good value for money. However, with programmes like "101 Ways to Leaves a Gameshow" the BBC seems to be doing its best to emulate that dross.

    The BBC could do a lot to economise. Just take the News Department; it does tend to go into overkill. Did we really need so many repporters on the Roaul Moat story or the Cumbrian floods? Is it really necessary to send armies of reporters to America for their elections, or the Oscars or random shootings at universities. And why do there have to be separate reporters for the same event shown on the local and National News? These are blatant examples of BBC waste. There must be more below the surface, and not just in the News Department.

  • Comment number 70.

    I think the BBC IS good value for money, BUT the fee should be cut....with an increase in VAT on the horizon, and many peoples wages being cut as a result of the economic downturn, the BBC should reduce costs too. The problem with the license fee is that it is a tax on televison regardless of whether you use the BBC's services....or can afford to pay the amount charged. For many people, TV is their only real entertainment and a lifeline to the outside world- but these people are often the people who cannot afford to pay.

  • Comment number 71.

    NO it is NOT value for money. How can a PUBLIC institution pay a £4 MILLION pension for an employee, pay £5000 for a director to fly to the world cup in South Africa be 'value for money'. The BBC, like many public bodies' has it head up its own posterior and is fuelled by its narcissus, it loves it own reflection. I see an institution that is too big and has lost its purpose. It needs to be slimmed down and make more accountable to the general public, not a bunch of champagne socialists who now seem to have too much say. This WILL happen as the BBC now has to pay the piper for all its lack of impartiality and balance and its waste of public money. I for one think a good clear out has been required for the last 10 years as the BBC seems to have become a bastion of the Labour Party and left in general.

  • Comment number 72.

    There's no better way of deflecting attention from anything than to blame the BBC

  • Comment number 73.

    The value for money argument is a red herring. I think the Sun is great value for 25p, but how would Guardian readers feel if the Law required themt to buy a copy of the Sun before they could purchase their paper of choice? It amazes me that some people think that their tastes are so superior that they have to have others who have different tastes subjected to legalised extortion to pay for them.

  • Comment number 74.

    Yes the BBC is value for money, I can see that the Dirty Digger cozying up to Dave and his pals through his media outlets such as Papers and Sky seems to have done the trick, a threat to cut the fee, why not just sell the BEEB off cheap to Rupert and be done with.
    For the dim amongst us we aren't actually paying to have a TV, thats just the method of collecting money for all the programmes and services that the BBC provide. Compare this to Sky, or the dross that ITV turns out and I'd say we get a good deal !! The increasingly annoying banal adverts on ITV are getting longer and louder. If the BBC started advertising the overall value of advertising income would fall leading to a poorer service all round, whereas The Dirty digger can just continue to buy up decent programmes and charge us more for it.

  • Comment number 75.

    Sat_Tyre wrote:
    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.

    You do appreciate irony, after all!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    We DO need balance and I am sad to say the days when we DID get it from the BBC are gone. Although I do not agree with the reporting of Fox News it does balance out the left wing bias of the BBC. There are some matters which are so important to OUR country that the BBC do not report or under report (ie the ONS report that the actual debt of the UK is £4 (FOUR) TRILLION not the £1 trillion that had been previously reported).

  • Comment number 76.

    Basically BBC you need taking in hand.
    Your numerous executives get paid far too much, you send too many people to events, you threaten the private sector news media and you pay the likes of Ros, Forsyth & others obscene amounts of dosh.
    And yet you are the best broadcaster ... In The World.
    Or were ... before you dumped your previous website.

  • Comment number 77.

    The days of requiring everyone who has a tele to pay are long gone. The BBC has done well to string it out for as long as it has. Pay per view is now well established; most TVs now have slots which will unscramble encoded signals. People who want the BBC should pay for it and be able to selectively unscramble it; those that don't want BBC programmes shouldn't be forced to pay for what they don' watch.

  • Comment number 78.

    When this comes up, I always feel for companies like ITV. How hard must it be to compete against the BBC with its special funding? The licence fee should be scrapped just to make an even playing field for the other broadcasters.

  • Comment number 79.

    No, not value for money. The licence fee is far too high, and an outdated concept. BBC went wrong when they went digital; these channels were never needed. Then they tried to compete for viewers with independent broadcasters, and we got seriously rubbish TV programmes. Then they started paying bloated salaries to management and presenters. And we got Radio 4 completely so submerged in left wing metropolitan political correctness that the spiteful inverted snobbery that is broadcast as comedy would not be allowed if it were Right, rather than Left wing. In short - very badly managed over the last 10 years. Cut it back down to size, and get back to informing and entertaining over 2 TV and 5 radio channels. That should be achievable on a licence fee of about £20 per household.

  • Comment number 80.

    //6. At 1:10pm on 19 Jul 2010, colin991 wrote:
    To me the BBC is the best TV Radio and on-line media group in the world. Its world class and leads other media groups. It faces issues for minority groups and tackles issues that other media groups would be too scared to tackle due to shareholders and their controls. Fine like all organisations it may from time to time need some controls changed or refined but please do not cut the fee. Encourage new less expensive talent. Travel around the world and see what a world service the BBC is and everyone in this country would be proud to here the feedback. //

    I do travel widely, and I speak several languages, so I understand the broadcasting I watch and listen to.

    That's why I can tell you you're wrong, or living in the past, when you say that we would be 'proud of the feedback' about the BBC.

    The BBC is ok-ish. It's better than some, not as good as others. It used to be a source of pride, now it's distinctly ordinary.

    It is highly wasteful, never using one presenter one two or more would do nicely. Its news output is childish and parochial, peppered by pointless live contributions from reporters standing in a school/park/field/by a river...

    And its drama just seems to get duller. Seeing the Swedish Wallander compared to the BBC one has shown people just how easily outclassed the BBC is. I suspect one reason the BBC is so crap at showing foreign films and programmes (unless American) is that so many people would discover what you should - that the BBC is pretty mediocre.

    But as your 'please do not cut the fee' remark shows, you probably work for the BBC anyway.

  • Comment number 81.

    Yes. Generally I'm satisfied with the quality of dramas, sport and documentries that the BBC produces, and I think £150 a year is quite good value for money, especially when you factor in the webpages and on-demand services (iplayer etc). Yes, the BBC does produce SOME programmes that are not to my taste, but I accept that the BBC does have to cater for all tastes, and that may include people who like watch reality tv. I know we're going to get the usual whingers in here saying 'the bbc is rubbish as it only produces rubbish reality tv' etc, but when you actually count the number of decent programmes produced in comparison to a few reality tv programmes, you can see decent programmes are in the majority.

  • Comment number 82.

    57. At 2:23pm on 19 Jul 2010, Billy wrote:
    "I agree with the principle of the BBC, i.e. to make non-commercial programmes without adverts.

    However the current obsession with 'reality' TV shows (which are actually an example of contrived situations that couldn't be further from reality) sadly extends to the BBC."

    I knew such comments would appear - please tell me how many reality tv programmes the BBC produces in comparison to all the great dramas, documentries and comedies? Please name all the reality tv programmes that are on the bbc NOW, as in currently airing??

  • Comment number 83.

    Simplify, Simplify, Simplify.
    The BBC should inform and entertain, not become the Tesco's of broadcasting.
    Turn off digital radio, fm works, is more reliable, sounds better and uses less energy.
    Reduce the number of BBC digital tv stations, concentrating on BBC 1, 2 and perhaps a third.
    Digital broadcasting is over expansive and consequently quality and content are dilute, any one sat through an hour of content on alternate commercial stations except ITV and 4, what a nightmare, adverts,adverts,adverts.
    (I gave up watching the Tour de France on ITV27 simply because of the adverts)
    Slim down your internet presence, the BBC is not the only source of information and is in danger
    of becoming a one stop shop.
    If reducing the BBC in size saves a few quid as well, then I will be chuffed.
    I love the BBC, but not the obese air waves grabber it has become.

  • Comment number 84.

    Yes. It is far better value for money than Sky, times.co.uk, in fact anything that Murdoch does.

  • Comment number 85.

    I've got hundreds of TV Channels to choose from yet the BBC still makes up the majority of my TV viewing time.

    The BBC website is by far the best media owned website on the net, and I'd include foreign media networks in that too, and the iPlayer is worth the price of the license fee alone (in my opinion).

    There are lots of programs on the BBC that I neither like nor watch but I'm willing to accept this on the basis that there are many other people who don't like the shows that I enjoy watching.
    There are also many areas where I feel the BBC could save money without impacting on the quality of the programs that they produce.

    I'd have to say that I think the BBC is the best media network in the world and I would hate to see it become another commercial network as I feel that this would reduce the variety and quality of the programs being produced but at the same time there are obvious savings that could and should be made to ensure that all licence payers are getting good value for money.

    I’d therefore support any effort to make the BBC a more efficient company but I would oppose any efforts to turn it into a commercial company.

  • Comment number 86.

    Is the BBC good value HAHAHAHAHAHA no and hasnt been for years scrap the license fee most people pay already for tv through sky or cable

  • Comment number 87.

    Overall I think that the BBC does produce a lot of quality programmes hoqwever I do object to the fact that JUNIOR newsreaders earn £67,000 as was admitted on air by a newsreader last year. Thsi is unwarranted and excessive for reading from an autocue - this does not require taht much talent and certainly they do not have more responsibility than say a headteacher or senior manager in the Public sector. The excessive salary paid to Chrsitine BLakely was unwarranted too I'm sure there are other young attractive females who could sit on a sofa and talk for less money. The BBC should look at how it spends my/our money - personally I would prefer it to be used for more quality programmes rather than paying individuals big money - they are not so special the BBC can always find cheaper, talented replacements. Excessive salaries are NOT justified.

  • Comment number 88.

    My answer is no. We all pay a TV licence but I have no use for the BBC, I watch sky. The BBC has nothing I want to watch and if it did it wont be worth the TV license to watch it.

    Maybe BBC should do a deal where their channel is a subscriber one while those who dont watch it dont pay for it?

  • Comment number 89.

    Crocodile tears of BBC Trust Chairman do not impress me at all. They have been getting a pot of nearly 5 Billions £s annually without having to earn it. Despite that the country is on austerity notice BBC seem to be oblivious of any impact on them. Executive salaries have gone up from £4.6 millions to £4.7 and staff numbers have gone up from 17078 to 17238. The likes of Byford, Yantoub and many others have been given millions of £s pension pots whereas even the basic pensions of other public servants is under heavy strain.

    TV licence fee is a forced tax appropriated from the public who have no say or choice in the in the matter. BBC and the people running it regard themselves GOD chosen to pay themselves as much as they like. Let us test their worth by abolishing the licence fee, sell of BBC and offer all those overpaid self opinionated hierarchy to the open market.

  • Comment number 90.

    I completely agree with post number 2, This is the only country where you have to pay for the privilege of owning a tv set.
    Especially when you consider the fact that anyone from anywhere on the planet today can watch all the bbc channels through web based freeview services such as tvcatchup.com for free. Also bbc programs are shown none stop on cable channels, such as dave . Scrap the licence fee and the bbc should accept that its a service that is long past its sell by date and treats us the british people with contempt, HOW DARE YOU MAKE US PAY BY LAW FOR A SERVICE I DO NOT USE. I never watch terrestrial tv all programs i watch i watch on my laptop and i dont see why i should pay a fee when i know my brother in law in virginia who watches the same online services for free.

  • Comment number 91.

    Of course I don't agree with all I hear on BBC, most of us find this but I suspect that how you view the news you hear actually says far more about your political view of life than a bias in the programme. It's great not to have constant interuptions by adverts. In the States this is much worse as the commercial breaks are so merged with the programme that it's hard to tell which is which. This is very undesirable with children's TV. At least someone commenting here has a sense of humour saying Fox news is impartial. This has to be joke of the week
    Dave has had it in for BBC and this is all part of his plan to reduce it's power and influence. Thus giving a boost to his pals in the commercial, right wing media. His donors and backers amongst the media magnates will demand pay back
    Every action of this PM has a devious motive he's beginning to make Brown look straight forward and open. He's in a mad rush to change as much as he can quickly before the Lib Dem's ditch him and he's forced into an election. He knows that many Tories are mad because he's sold them out in his desire for power and LD's will get even fewer votes next time round

  • Comment number 92.

    The political knives are out for the BBC again. A Tory led coalition, rumours of a backdoor deal by Cameron with Murdoch. Now a coalition minister threatening a cut in the licence fee. The coalition and the media are attacking the BBC for crowding out private sector suppliers of TV and radio.
    The commercial TV channels gave up on documentaries, orginal drama and current affairs years ago. Sky TV carries no original programming at all. most of its shows are US imports, its documentary channels would be empty but for original BBC natural history, science and history programmes.
    Those who want TV paid by advertising just have to watch US TV for a week to see what dross that will give you. Most of the hit US shows shown in the UK are from the subscription channels.
    £3 a week is better than £10 a week for Sky recycled output.
    Murdoch did a deal with the Tories in the '80s to get his Sky TV off the ground. They changed the broadcasting rules in his favour(we are the only country to allow foreign ownership of our media), in return his papers slavishly promoted the Tories, ignored the Lib-Dems and traduced the Labour Party.
    This coalition seems determined to destroy any public service.

  • Comment number 93.

    67. At 2:37pm on 19 Jul 2010, TottonFox wrote:

    The licence fee works out at £12.13 a month, and for that me, my wife and my two kids, (at a cost of about £3.03 each), get so much quality entertainment in the form of TV, radio and online that I can't believe anyone isn't happy paying it.

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

    I dont watch BBC TV as I watch various sky channels (nothing of interest on the BBC), I dont listen to the radio and I have to check the news here against other sites to get the vast amount of information which is ignored.

    So I pay through tax and license for these HYS boards. Glad there isnt a comment limit

  • Comment number 94.

    73. At 2:42pm on 19 Jul 2010, JoeSentMe wrote:
    "The value for money argument is a red herring. I think the Sun is great value for 25p, but how would Guardian readers feel if the Law required themt to buy a copy of the Sun before they could purchase their paper of choice?"

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

    The BBC is not trying hard enough to reach the colossal intellectual heights of the Sun reader. Must try harder BBC.

  • Comment number 95.

    In general the BBC is pretty good but there's room for improvement. During the recent Jonathan Ross debacle we had a Prime Minister (£140k) talking to the DG of the BBC (£850k) talking to Mr Ross (£6m). Mr Ross has now left for ITV for (allegedly) £1.8m - but the BBC had to pay him £6m "to be competitive". Value for money??

    Please don't tell me the BBC doesn't advertise - it advertises itself incessantly.

  • Comment number 96.

    It isn't just the quality of TV or Radio we must take into account when deciding if it is good value for money, there are certain other aspects too.

    I have read quite a few opinions on here -both from people born in Britain and others from overseas who now live here- suggesting that the BBC drop the license fee and become commercial along with the other UK and international media groups.

    I would like to point out a few things which makes the BBC stand out from any other media and broadcasting corporations:

    1) Television and Radio Channel's do not advertise

    2) Any big decisions regarding marketing, production or funding, goes through a governing body first, influenced by ordinary members of the public.

    3) The BBC cover/organise more festivals, concerts, film and Television than any media company in the world.

    4) It generates the most unique television/radio channels dedicated to particular areas of interest.

    5) It has helped to develop talent in music from various backgrounds and genres.

    6) It is always open to new opinions and areas of exploration.

    7) It funds a multiple number of charitable causes, generating 10's of millions each year.

    8) It produces some of the most fascinating and rare historical, cultural and Nature footages and documentaries the planet has ever seen.

    Now granted there is a lot of room for improvement, and the BBC is constantly looking into new ways, some useful, others controversial. Whether the BBC is good value for money is subjective; it all depends on the individual in counts of taste and recreation.

    Personally I do believe the BBC is worth the fee, and if this new ConDem coalition decide in the future to change the parameters of the corporation, it would no longer be the BBC and will no longer stand out from any other channel. I personally think that would be a mistake.

  • Comment number 97.

    For just under 40p per day it's the best value for money these days.

    If the BBC introduces advertising it will drive my other half nuts as he huffs and puffs through the adverts on the other channels.

    If the Government opt to cut the fee its OK with me as long as they don't cut the quality.

  • Comment number 98.

    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    "I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News."

    I completely disagree with the above comment - the BBC are one of the most impartial and well respected news networks in the world...just see how many people listen to the BBC world service. You're mistaking bias for reporting BOTH sides of the story, which is what the bbc do very well.

    Look the fact is, if you watch enough news eventually you're going to come across something that you don't agree with, but to say this makes the broadcaster 'biased' is just cherry-picking to suit your own agenda.

  • Comment number 99.

    Clearly the Tory Govt would like to weaken the BBC because of it's unbias reporting they prefer to keep limks with Murdoch and his powerful empire after all they know he has the real power in this country.

    Despite disagreeing with some of the excessive salaries at the BBC I would pay more to keep the BBC (mostly good quality programmes) and the thought of being subject constantly to advertising and repeated brainwashing is beyond contemplation. Also the Murdoch influence is powerful enough in brainwashing the masses he would love to destroy the BBC and the voice of reason and people who think for themselves rather than being told what to think by his media.

  • Comment number 100.

    75. At 2:47pm on 19 Jul 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
    Sat_Tyre wrote:
    24. At 1:49pm on 19 Jul 2010, John Adair wrote:
    I find the BBC news is very bias, I would like to see it more impartial, like for example Fox News.

    You do appreciate irony, after all!

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    "We DO need balance and I am sad to say the days when we DID get it from the BBC are gone. Although I do not agree with the reporting of Fox News it does balance out the left wing bias of the BBC"

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


    There is no left-wing bias in the BBC that I'm aware of, but I posted a previous specific example of imbalance, which is certainly right wing in tone.
    To cite Fox News as balancing out anything is a clear example of your failure to comprehend the meaning of balance

 

Page 1 of 6

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.