[bbctvtechop]

You only want to keep the services that you use. A lot of the stations you suggested selling of are some of the most important services the BBC has

Actually no, I have listed services which the commercial sector could easily provide, or is already doing so. R1 (minus the specialist stuff) has competitors, as does R2, as does R3 (kind of). On TV, BBC1 and BBC3 have competitors too. These services would also easily thrive on their own (except maybe R3) with adverts and sponsorship funding them rather than the license fee.

The commercial sector doesn't come anywhere close to R4, and never will, and R5L has maybe LBC News/TalkSPORT as competitors (again, kind of) but is otherwise pretty unique. No one is doing what local radio or the World Service does, and could not afford to do so, so they should continue as PSB protections under the reduced license fee. BBC News and Parliament are clear PSB entities so continue as they are, and children's programming isn't being catered for on linear TV by anyone else now really, and again is clear PSB.

You say the services I listed are some of the most important to the BBC, but that's only from an audience perspective and not (necessarily) a PSB perspective.

My proposal, to be clear, is to keep everything which has an obvious PSB purpose, and everything which the commercial can't or won't provide, inside a fairly-funded "BBC PSB" with money coming from a publicly funded source. And everything which would survive under an advertising model, or which has no clear PSB function, to stand on its own in competition with its commercial rivals.

[Steve in Pudsey]

I might be tempted to ditch Parliament from that proposal, in it's current form it does nothing that isn't available on the HoP's own website. Although by that token retransmitting the equivalent of a "world feed" isn't particularly expensive.

While I think your suggestion is both pragmatic and valid I do fear that it panders to the usual suspects who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Losing the BBC role as a talent incubator and risk taker would be a mistake.

[interestednovice]

I’d fear that the next thing would be that even the new “BBC PSB” would be called into question, and the funding would be totally withdrawn so the BBC ended up subscription-only, exclusionary and increasingly irrelevant.

I could forsee a scenario where BBC-critical voices would suggest that the commercial part of the BBC, in the proposal being discussed here, was so successful that it ought to be able to cross-subsidise the “BBC PSB” part - so funding from government would be reduced or removed, and Ofcom would instead “transfer” those responsibilities to the commercial BBC. It would be a re-run of the arguments made for reducing Foreign Office funding for the World Service. Then, that would prove unviable quite quickly so the “free” parts would be gradually cut, closed and reduced until the BBC was no longer special or unique at all.

[Technologist]

How much of the operating lincense will be expected to transfer if the alleged “can be done commercially ” channels were actually sold off?
I cannot see that anyone would want to have say 867 hours a year of news on “Radio2”
www.ofcom.org.uk 
And BBC parliament has to cover the Scottish Parliament, Senned and (When it restarts ) the Assembly …..etc …etc..
What PSB does the UK require in Content and quantity on what platforms. ?
And can I remind you of what the recitals of the BBC charter states

AND WHEREAS in view of the widespread interest which is taken by Our People in
services which provide audio and visual material by means of broadcasting, the internet or
the use of newer technologies, and of the great value of such services as means of
disseminating information, education and entertainment, We believe it to be in the interests
of Our People that there should continue to be an independent corporation and that it
should provide such services, and be permitted to engage in other compatible activities,
within a suitable legal framework.

downloads.bbc.co.uk 

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

Anyone who thinks Radio 1 and Capital are the same has obviously never listened to either. The ''commercial sector'' is only as good as it is in this country because it has to compete with the BBC. It would soon go to sh*t with a basic BBC that is forbidden from entertaining.

[DTV]

My proposal, to be clear, is to keep everything which has an obvious PSB purpose, and everything which the commercial can't or won't provide, inside a fairly-funded "BBC PSB" with money coming from a publicly funded source. And everything which would survive under an advertising model, or which has no clear PSB function, to stand on its own in competition with its commercial rivals.

This fundamentally misunderstands the PSB bargain that allows the BBC to work - which is, in order to get funding for the 'PSB stuff', we also provide you with a range of popular programming that you can enjoy and make you feel like the BBC is a worthwhile investment. BBC One is as PSB as any other part of the broadcaster (indeed, I'd argue its PSB value is greater than something like the BBC News channel). What you've outlined as 'PSB stuff' is incredibly expensive and massively reliant on this cross-subsidy, which, if that PSB bargain broke down, I'm not sure if people would be happy to fork out for.

And the thing about this BBC should do PSB stuff only logic, is where do you draw the line? A few years ago, broadcasting women's football would arguably have been 'public service' stuff as it was very much a minority interest; now it's grown in popularity, does 'BBC PSB' have to drop any women's football programming because commercial rivals can do it? When the BBC commissioned Strictly, nobody thought it would be a success; from the minute it was, should the BBC have given the rights over to ITV? Although I guess 'BBC PSB' wouldn't commission anything vaguely fun in the first place, just the Today programme, some dry documentaries and Britain's third-best news channel (out of two).

[DTV]

I might be tempted to ditch Parliament from that proposal, in it's current form it does nothing that isn't available on the HoP's own website. Although by that token retransmitting the equivalent of a "world feed" isn't particularly expensive.

BBC Parliament isn't expensive, but I do think it should be spun off from the BBC - possibly in league with the parliamentary authorities and/or with a consortium of the three news broadcasters. Might even use it as a general political events channel, covering press conferences etc. (meaning they no longer have to clog up the news channels) and be able to get some actual parliamentary review programming back. It's just, given the cuts, it remaining a BBC service arguably detracts from quality of the channel than adds anything to it.

[interestednovice]

I suppose the one thing massively in its favour as a BBC channel is that things can be put on iPlayer, so the content is more discoverable than if it was saved to an obscure parliamentary website.

Also, not often but occasionally, when the BBC NC has taken live parliamentary coverage in the past, it has broken away from it after a bit but been able to say “coverage continues on BBC Parliament”. They couldn’t really do that if they didn’t run the “shared” Parliamentary channel.

Being a BBC service also allows Parliament to piggyback on BBC Millbank staff who work for News - including programmes like Politics Live. So I imagine that this means people covering technical roles, etc, also have dual functions which means (practically speaking) being an integrated BBC service keeps cost down even further.

[i.h]

I might be tempted to ditch Parliament from that proposal, in it's current form it does nothing that isn't available on the HoP's own website. Although by that token retransmitting the equivalent of a "world feed" isn't particularly expensive.

If you have a suitable internet connection - otherwise, televising parliament is about as peak PSB as it gets & people should be able to watch their politicians at work without the internet barrier. I thought the effective end of parliamentary documentaries/explainers in a previous round of cuts was rather short sighted too.

I think the idea of making it independent / run by the wider industry (similar to how CSPAN is funded by cable companies) or by parliament is an interesting one, though.

[Steve in Pudsey]

Indeed, but the proportion of people without such a connection should be so miniscule now that not having an internet connection can be seen as a lifestyle choice like living off-grid.

The predecessor, The Parliamentary Channel was run by a consortium of cable operators, incidentally