[Omnipresent]

One idea that has been mooted a couple of times is merging Five Live with BBC Local Radio.

Given how thin and generic some of the merged output on local radio sounds (Sunday morning programming really should be more ambitious than what people on social media said about last night's Strictly) this wouldn't be a bad idea. It would also give Five Live a USP against LBC, Times Radio etc.

Jake Kanter did suggest on X/Twitter that the last licence fee deal didn't include how inflation would be measured, which if true seems poor negotiating on the part of the BBC.

With a likely change in government soon, I don't see what the BBC has to lose in taking legal action and seeking a judicial review of the government's decision.

twitter.com 

[Milkshake]

Prior to 2010 the World Service was funded by a grant from the foreign office. Then the 2010 election happened.
The international side of the news channel is a commercial operation.
If you think the World Service is 'wasted money', then you don't understand the concept of soft power, along with how valued the BBC's impartial journalism is in many parts of the world, even in the US.

Your completely missing the point...

[all new phil]

Well first of all I’d say I know first hand that the BBC remains incredibly well-resourced, regardless of how ‘cut to the bone’ they are made out to be.

I think it’s unfair to characterise its critics as all being Tories who want to abolish it. There are plenty on all sides of the political spectrum, myself included, who want it to exist but get frustrated at just how resistant to change it is.

It doesn’t need to be all things to all men. It should exist to provide what isn’t viable elsewhere but it seems to want to compete. Why so many podcasts? The private sector provides plenty already. Why does it need to show Match of the Day? Plenty of other outlets could do this just as well. It’s also typical of them that the recent BBC News reforms actually lead to an increased headcount.

I’d much rather they did fewer things better. It needs rethinking from scratch.

(And FWIW I’d go back to the news channel being called BBC World News and making that the focus - the home of the best international news. Plenty of other outlets - both BBC and elsewhere - providing domestic news)

[Keith]

Jake Kanter did suggest on X/Twitter that the last licence fee deal didn't include how inflation would be measured, which if true seems poor negotiating on the part of the BBC.

With a likely change in government soon, I don't see what the BBC has to lose in taking legal action and seeking a judicial review of the government's decision.

twitter.com 

Potentially this could in part be a negotiating tactic of the BBCs. They know the government will likely was want to be seen to give the BBC a bit of a kicking, from certain parts of the press. 

Therefore for the BBC it makes sense to say it should increase by the higher 12 month average inflation. That then allows the government to be seen to be tough by opting for September's inflation value, which is what was used in the autumn statement.

Better than the BBC asking for the September inflation percentage, and then having the government undercut the figure to please certain parts of the press.

[Technologist]

But what is the saving of turning off a mux which has 10 years to run on its carriage contract which was 25 years long to amortise the costs ….. the capex will need to be repaid .
What is out if the BBC hands is the modulation used in PSB 2 …. It is like PSB 3 software encoding so it is easy to increase the emitted bitrate..
but the real saving only can be seen when the Vaizey plan is carried out …..
But I cannot see the current government doing anything to help the BBC…..
.

[Rdd]

Why does it need to show Match of the Day? Plenty of other outlets could do this just as well. 

If media reports are to be believed, nobody else bid for the rights, which means that those plenty of other outlets have no interest in showing Match of the Day. Is that not reason enough?

ITV last tried it two decades ago and made a mess of it.

[all new phil]

If media reports are to be believed, nobody else bid for the rights, which means that those plenty of other outlets have no interest in showing Match of the Day. Is that not reason enough?

ITV last tried it two decades ago and made a mess of it.

Not sure referencing something 20 years ago is a particularly compelling argument. 

If MOTD has so little interest, why does it command so much money for both the rights and the talent involved?

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

Well first of all I’d say I know first hand that the BBC remains incredibly well-resourced, regardless of how ‘cut to the bone’ they are made out to be.
I think it’s unfair to characterise its critics as all being Tories who want to abolish it. There are plenty on all sides of the political spectrum, myself included, who want it to exist but get frustrated at just how resistant to change it is.
It doesn’t need to be all things to all men. It should exist to provide what isn’t viable elsewhere but it seems to want to compete. Why so many podcasts? The private sector provides plenty already. Why does it need to show Match of the Day? Plenty of other outlets could do this just as well. It’s also typical of them that the recent BBC News reforms actually lead to an increased headcount.
I’d much rather they did fewer things better. It needs rethinking from scratch.
(And FWIW I’d go back to the news channel being called BBC World News and making that the focus - the home of the best international news. Plenty of other outlets - both BBC and elsewhere - providing domestic news)

''Fewer things better'' sounds like pure Tory bollocks though A meaningless and misleading slogan for a solution to a problem they caused.

Previous charter reviews found the public overwhelmingly considered the BBC to be value for money. Presumably because it was all things to all men?. Populist services and worthy services, It’s supposed to be for everyone. If everyone pays for it why would you not not offer something for everyone?

[JAS84]

I got a feeling some TV and radio shows shown on the BBC may end up on commercial/subscription/streaming stations, just to make up for saving on rising production cost.

You mean like selling Doctor Who to Disney+ in the UK as well? And Strictly - the US version airs on the Disney-owned ABC.

[TheGregmeister]

So if the BBC is in such a dire financial situation, then what the heck is it doing with £3.5+Billion it gets from the TVL, plus the additional £1.5billion from commercial activities?

The TV Licence is an anachronistic, regressive (and increasingly unenforceable) yearly charge that has no place in this multiple choice streaming era we are now in. Especially when even the BBC itself seems to promote what's on iPlayer more than its traditional linear channels. It may have been a viable way of funding the BBC when we only had a handful of channels to choose from, and most homes had just one television set that was a big heavy chunky appliance installed in the corner of the living room. A time when the BBC ran TV Licensing, not outsourced to a third party like Capita, the enforcement officers were exactly that, and not glorified door-to-door salespeople.

I don't want the BBC to no longer exist, but the TV Licence fee needs to go away and the BBC needs to find a different method of funding before the Charter renewal in 2027.