XIII post_id=26487 time= user_id=894 Wrote:I don't know why CBBC being brought back to BBC One as a block is even being suggested, it doesn't rate at all and when BBC One got rid of CBBC a decade ago, the ratings doubled with the daytime programming.

TheMightyTRex post_id=26319 time= user_id=1275 Wrote:

AxiosBrit67 post_id=26317 time= user_id=1688 Wrote:

Humphrey Hacker post_id=26309 time= user_id=1128 Wrote:The BBC is a deeply flawed organisation in so many ways and many people are expressing their disgust and anger by canceling their licence fees. I was very supportive of them in the old place about how they covered the pandemic and in many ways that hasn't changed but with as we know there have been revelations that have altered people's perceptions.

It's my belief that the BBC have gone for Quantity over quality in their channels. BBC 4 does show some good programmes with "Timeshift" being one of the best but most of what they show has been available for years elsewhere and is a waste of bandwidth. I never watched much of BBC 3 when it was a. "normal" channel and with BBC News I have to ask is it value for money? I have to answer no.

So what can be done? Well I have my own ideas and they will kick up a stink but here goes.

1. Scrap BBC 3 and 4 as regular channels and make them streaming only.
2. Scrap all BBC radio stations except BBC radio 4 and reformat it as a National Network with local optouts at specific times.
3. Scrap BBC News and BBC 2 and merge them with BBC1. Create a national channel with legally imposed local blocks of programming at specific times and have "BBC Television" as the "best of British"
4. Create a "BBC Sports Network" and have it on one of the slots left by BBC 3 /4
5. Merge CBBC and Cbeebies
6. Keep the regional TV and Radio stations and place them under the control of Glasgow, Belfast and Cardiff effectively making them "independent" of London.

Entertainment, news, sports, children's and the regions would be the core elements of the " new BBC" whilst still having access to the archive.

I have a more radical vision for the BBC. one way is to turn the BBC into a commercial broadcaster and divide the network as O&O like the system that NBC, CBS, and ABC have in the US. In addition, i want to create affiliate channels for the BBC which is more akin to the US networks.

Local TV, Regional ITV... The UK is not big enough for this. Plus a lot of the smaller channels would loose a lot of advertising revenue.
Company x has £100 Million to spend on advertising on TV
Currently its
40% ITV Channels
20% Channel 4 channels
10% Channel 5
25% Main Sky Channels
5% Everything else

Who is to take the cut?

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26433 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:I don `t understand why you needed to go on an enraged rant like that

Hatton Cross post_id=26565 time= user_id=1471 Wrote:

MatijaTelevizija post_id=26433 time= user_id=1795 Wrote:I don `t understand why you needed to go on an enraged rant like that

I like how you gave me kudos, then had a dig for my rant.

Incase you haven't guessed, but I'm a passionate supporter of the BBC. I hate to see them being constantly used as a politcal football/punchbag, and we need to silence as soon as possible those that want to slowly bleed the BBC to death, because they don't toe a certain political point of view.

Get rid of the BBC if you want - but you don't know what good you have, until its destroyed or gone completely.

Hatton Cross post_id=26427 time= user_id=1471 Wrote:.Sometimes, you have to pay for things or services you don't use. Same for the BBC. Don't complain. Accept it. Shut up. Grow up.

johnnyboy post_id=26546 time= user_id=925 Wrote:Another argument in the Times this morning which, I believe, supports my argument for shedding services and investing in hit content.

The article itself is about a new erotic drama on Netflix and the disagreements over explicit content in co-productions.

"And it is the US drama community that seems to have moved the dial in what we watch here in our green and pleasant land where the sight of thrusting buttocks in Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective in 1986 prompted a parliamentary mention, but also where Tom Hiddleston’s similarly pumping bare bum in The Night Manager was front-page news 30 years later...

"So why has it changed? One answer, of course, is money. A lot of high-budget British dramas have American finance behind them. Normal People was co-financed by Hulu. I May Destroy You had input from HBO, as did Industry. All these dramas aired on the BBC, which co-produced them...

“It is now hard for broadcasters to ask for something to be toned down because the fear is obviously that the Americans with the purse strings will turn around and say, ‘That’s fine, but you can’t have the money for this,’ ” one drama source tells me in confidence."

Before anyone says this, I am not arguing against the portrayal of sex on screen - the exact opposite in fact

The BBC has a turnover of £4bn a year and Channel 4 nearly £1bn. If anyone should take ownership of Channel 4, it should be BBC Studios (although that would be politically difficult, I understand).

There is the budget there to make a piece of event television every week without having to be over-reliant on American-financed co-productions. We have a brilliant independent production sector, amazing writers, and some of the best actors and actresses in the world.

We could make a shedload of this stuff. BBC Studios is superb at selling our content around the world and, with more world-class content to sell, it could do even better and return more cash.

And and and... the British public might fall in love with and be proud of Auntie again, properly.

James Martin post_id=26681 time= user_id=872 Wrote:

Hatton Cross post_id=26427 time= user_id=1471 Wrote:.Sometimes, you have to pay for things or services you don't use. Same for the BBC. Don't complain. Accept it. Shut up. Grow up.

Ah, now this is where I don't completely agree with you.

That said, I would stop short of not paying for the NHS if I could afford private medical insurance, because you never know when you might need the NHS, particularly in an emergency.

The reason I say all this is because the NHS is what I'd consider an essential public service. The BBC, ultimately, isn't.

johnnyboy post_id=26546 time= user_id=925 Wrote:Another argument in the Times this morning which, I believe, supports my argument for shedding services and investing in hit content.

The article itself is about a new erotic drama on Netflix and the disagreements over explicit content in co-productions.

"And it is the US drama community that seems to have moved the dial in what we watch here in our green and pleasant land where the sight of thrusting buttocks in Dennis Potter’s The Singing Detective in 1986 prompted a parliamentary mention, but also where Tom Hiddleston’s similarly pumping bare bum in The Night Manager was front-page news 30 years later...

"So why has it changed? One answer, of course, is money. A lot of high-budget British dramas have American finance behind them. Normal People was co-financed by Hulu. I May Destroy You had input from HBO, as did Industry. All these dramas aired on the BBC, which co-produced them...

“It is now hard for broadcasters to ask for something to be toned down because the fear is obviously that the Americans with the purse strings will turn around and say, ‘That’s fine, but you can’t have the money for this,’ ” one drama source tells me in confidence."

Before anyone says this, I am not arguing against the portrayal of sex on screen - the exact opposite in fact

The BBC has a turnover of £4bn a year and Channel 4 nearly £1bn. If anyone should take ownership of Channel 4, it should be BBC Studios (although that would be politically difficult, I understand).

There is the budget there to make a piece of event television every week without having to be over-reliant on American-financed co-productions. We have a brilliant independent production sector, amazing writers, and some of the best actors and actresses in the world.

We could make a shedload of this stuff. BBC Studios is superb at selling our content around the world and, with more world-class content to sell, it could do even better and return more cash.

And and and... the British public might fall in love with and be proud of Auntie again, properly.

Toby brown post_id=26713 time= user_id=1251 Wrote:But the worse thing the bbc could do is cut most of services your suggesting it should cut are the services who connect with normal people. The services you want kept are the services upper class Londoners like who are already oversearved by the bbcs offering. I'm not saying your upper class by the way as I don't know you personally but channels like radio 4 are mostly listened to by rich people why should the poor pay for something only the rich will use

johnnyboy post_id=26714 time= user_id=925 Wrote:

Toby brown post_id=26713 time= user_id=1251 Wrote:But the worse thing the bbc could do is cut most of services your suggesting it should cut are the services who connect with normal people. The services you want kept are the services upper class Londoners like who are already oversearved by the bbcs offering. I'm not saying your upper class by the way as I don't know you personally but channels like radio 4 are mostly listened to by rich people why should the poor pay for something only the rich will use

I'm a working class Geordie, Toby - I certainly don't consider myself as an upper class Londoner. :-)

I'm not sure how you interpret from what I said that having one appointment-to-view show per week that gets the nation excited would mean that normal people weren't served by the Beeb.

I have also suggested retaining BBC1, BBC2, CBeebies, and CBBC, the Beeb's most popular services.

The radio services I have suggest shedding could easily be filled by the private sector with the exception of Radio 4 - C4 had ambitions to launch a competitor over 10 years ago but couldn't attract the advertising iirc.

I want the BBC to focus its funding on providing most of the public service stuff it does now but looking for more hits like Fleabag, Killing Eve, Life on Mars, Line of Duty, Planet Earth, and so on - content the British public loves and would bring in monster sales from abroad for either the shows themselves or the formats.

johnnyboy post_id=26714 time= user_id=925 Wrote:The radio services I have suggest shedding could easily be filled by the private sector with the exception of Radio 4

Blobs post_id=26722 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

johnnyboy post_id=26714 time= user_id=925 Wrote:The radio services I have suggest shedding could easily be filled by the private sector with the exception of Radio 4

And what about the millions who do listen to those radio services? Anyone who thinks Radio 1 and Capital are the same has obviously never listened to either. And let's not even pretend the likes of Radio X are the private sector equivalent of 6 Music.

johnnyboy post_id=26729 time= user_id=925 Wrote:

Blobs post_id=26722 time= user_id=758 Wrote:

johnnyboy post_id=26714 time= user_id=925 Wrote:The radio services I have suggest shedding could easily be filled by the private sector with the exception of Radio 4

And what about the millions who do listen to those radio services? Anyone who thinks Radio 1 and Capital are the same has obviously never listened to either. And let's not even pretend the likes of Radio X are the private sector equivalent of 6 Music.

The services would still exist but in the private sector.

Capital and Radio X were set up to serve specific audiences, as was Radio 1 and 6 Music.

Are you seriously telling me that no private sector operators would absolutely jump at the opportunity to bid for a licence for these stations, even if the licences come with heavy conditions?

There would be feeding frenzy to inherit those audiences.