1) Much programming is very good indeed, or excellent.
2) What exactly is the competition?
3) Are ratings figures an objective test of quality?

Sorry for that spot of BBC propaganda, but whatever its faults, the BBC is a unique institution that ought to be carefully fostered, not cast aside at the first whiff of decline.

David John Marusza, Cardiff, Wales

It is quite unbelievable that these BBC "executives" pay themselves this level of salary out of the public purse. How can they be worth half-a-million pounds more than a PM? And what do they do to earn these payments? There is no particular skill to broadcasting programmes through 5 terrestrial channels and achieving ever diminishing audience figures. Much of the BBC output is imported/repeated or feature film. News24 cannot compete with Sky News in terms of immediacy..they are always behind with breaking news. Presenters are paid insane amounts of money and yet mostly achieve dismal viewing figures. The radio output is almost all commercial fluff.
The BBC will be superseded by Internet sites which offer films and other programmes to download. We will be able to watch whatever we want from all over the world before long and the TV set will not be required. The BBC is increasingly reliant on user-generated-content for News and Radio phone-ins. Privatise it !

jon, london,

The pay of top BBC Executives - together with levels of executive pay generally - will really have to come down over the next decade or so.The licence paying public and the reducing number of salaried staff below won't stand for them . While the message about top pay from Gordon Brown is ambiguous, it must be doubted if the new Government is content with these levels. The executives themselves are decent and realistic enough to know this must be so. These rates and the differentials that go with them are out of hand, far in excess of the rates and differentials in the glory days of TV in the 60s and 70s when competition was if anything more cut throat than today. In truth the Vision market is fairly limited, with experience of programming experience still at a premium. The BBC still offers unparalleled experience to top managers who anyway can switch companies and countries - and back again- if they feel the pinch at say 250k p.a.

Brian Walker, London, UK

It would be interesting to establish what proportion of BBC programming is attributable to sports, 'reality TV' and repeats as the listings appear to show a predominance of these three groups.
Surely we have gardening, DIY, antiques, house buying and bailiff/burglar beating up to eye levels and beyond regardless of celebrity dancing/cooking/singing reaching capacity.
Is there any chance of the BBC commissioning some new work such as Thirty Minute Theatre or Comedy Playhouse (giving my age away) to give up and coming talent an opportunity rather than buying in glossy rubbish from overseas?
The tendency to adopt the tired American practice of bringing guest stars into series as a substitute for poor and unimaginative writing and tired plot lines appals.
Whilst the BBC is head and shoulders above its competitors there is always room for improvement and the reversion to industry type in its programming of recent years is an indication of an organisation in decline.
Buck up boys!

Steve Earl, Hoddesdon, Herts

Can I suggest one way in which the BBC can save money they can use the air generated from Lord Reith spinning in his grave to air condition broadcasting house

Tim Dewar, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland

So, what Mark Thomspon is saying is that he lacks the ability to make the BBC more efficient despite the massive evidence of waste and excess in that notoriously wasteful organisation. It's an admission that he is not competent to fulfill his mandate as Director General so I expect that he will be handing in his resignation immediately.

Matt Winkler, London,

The BBC continues to be one of the pre-eminent broadcasters in the world. In that light, its cost in relation to its quality represents excellent value. Improvement is always possible, but the BBC provides a lead that challenges other channels in the even greater task of improving their own value. Viewers and the public in general know what they pay for in respect of the BBC. It would be good to know what they pay through the relavent component of the purchase price of goods and services for any comparable part of the broadcasting content of other typical channels. Where those other channels use BBC originated material, the BBC should receive appropriate credits.

John Tippler, Spalding, UK

The enforced purchase of a TV licence is a rip-off. The BBC spend so much time advertising what is 'coming up next on the show', presumably so that commercial breaks can be incorporated when they sell the programmes, and of future programmes in between shows, surely it would have little effect on the viewers' enjoyment if adverts were incorporated. If all this air space is wasted is it not time to use it to better effect to gain some extra revenue.

Karla Smith, Maidstone, UK

now if we can only do the same to councils & their unjustifiable tax hikes.

stephen, London, UK

I recently purchased a Flat Screen LCD TV set with integrated Digital Tuner and to be honest the extra channels have not actually provided more choice; in fact what we have is more inane pop-programming and less quality programming.

The BBC has always, in my humble opinion, led the way in innovative programmes and the news of a reduction in new material and more repeats means that I will be less enthusiastic about watching TV in the future. I would definitely consider paying for programmes as I view and perhaps that is the way the BBC could go to get more money, and get rid of a few of the executive Fat Cats such as Thompson, Byford, etc.

As an afterthought, my daughter lives in the USA and sadly one only has to watch an hour or two of the stuff broadcast over there, 20% of which is advertising, to see where we are going…

Alan Boycott, Norwich, Norfolk, United Kingdom

The BBC could save a fortune in its news output. Instead of having to presenters in the studio, have one. Instead of having two complete news teams covering a story (one for the national news and one for the regional news) have one, local, news team, who can present on both national and regional programmes. Instead of pointlessly sending news teams to report outside, such as all political stories from No 10, all Royal stories from outside Buckinham Palace, have them report from a studio. Stop paying ridiculous sums of money to the likes of Jonathon Ross. If they want to go to ITV let them, ITV haven't got any money either.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Does anyone think it is a little ridiculous that the top executive at the BBC earns almost £800,000 at the taxpayer's expense?

Mike, London,

Wait, the BBC isn't all repeats? There's some original stuff? *shock*

I renewed my licence 'just in case', despite the fact I haven't actually turned on my TV since December.

Steph, London,

What a mess the 'once best service in the world' has become. It has tried to compete with the commercial stations where it should not have, let them churn out their garbage. Get rid of the overpaid idiots and the likes of J Ross who simply reduce everything to the gutter level. Like many of the previous comments say, bring in new talent, preferably ones who speak the Queens english, who needs 'Faces' to read the news, why indeed are news programs so intensive? a pleasant face with an understandable voice reading the news with minimal film 'production' is fine. Just get back to quality programs that the BBC was once the model for, no more 'make overs' and fly on the wall drivel, just good drama, comedy and documentaries, oh and bring back the BBC quality sports commentaries again.

John Korn, North Bay, Canada

I have been concerned for some time that the BBC News programmes are becoming lightweight and the reductions in staffing of some areas as resulted in rushed reports and graphics - especially since the influx of ex ITN personnel. BBC News has long been renowned for its serious reporting and excellent presentations but, of late, with emphasis on "trivia" such as Paris Hilton in lieu of more substantial stories from overseas there is a sense of "dumbing down". When overseas, BBC World provides good coverage but regrettably that is not translated to the 10 o'clock News. Is it not time that the BBC Executive look at their own output with the eyes of established and loyal BBC viewers to get back on track by putting excellence to the forefront without having to sacrifice staff who seem to have been unduly influenced by those from the commercial channels? It is time to extend the 10 o'clock bulletin and try to emulate Channel4 News - come on BBC.

Michael Rich, Chislehurst, UK

Why not cut waste which is obvious to all viewers. The BBC appears to have an massive array of news and other reporters and presenters, too many of dubious quality, whilst ITV and Sky seem to manage perfectly well on a fraction of the number.

Bina, Worcester Park,

Absolutely splendid, I would welcome the chance to see the entire Flying Doctor series for the third time. Roll on.

Mauripur, Aberdeen, UK

Bwa ha ha ha... The civil service has played this game for years, it's called "The Beggar's Wounds". The BBC could, of course, cut unecessary spending, perhaps revisit the £16 million deal it signed with Jonafan Woss or the rather suspect production contracts it signs with production companies (many of which seem to have links to senior executives). That, however, would be a productive response. Instead, it will blackmail viewers by reducing its service and claiming it cannot improve without lavish spending. All good and well, but if Mr Thompson and his executive cannot improve the service while reducing cost, then surely we should find somebody who can to operate this public business.

Eric Norton, London,

Where do the profits from selling license funded programming to other countries go?

David Matthews, Bucks, UK

Scrap Eastenders. Simple as that!

Cww, Ipswich,

The only repeat should be of last years pay checks i.e. no bonuses or annual increments, for the senior management, who are overpaid. If they are not happy with the salaries, they should find employment elsewhere. These amounts are ridiculous for what are essentially civil servants, funded by a tax i.e. the licence fee.

J. Taylor, London,

You pay over £100 for a TV licence and they go and do this!

Mark, Nottingham, UK

Forgive me - the BBC have for years been fighting against adverts. And yet, we are subjected to a vast array of adverts between each programme, just as commercial stations do - the only difference being that they are self serving self publicising ones, aimed at justifying the disgraceful waste and excesses of the Corporation.
It only takes the merest sniff of the public taking an interest in something for the BBC to design and produce series after series on the same theme, but worse, to saturation point - pick from any reality phone in talent show, cookery programming, and anything with the talentless, offensive mediocre man that is Jonathon Ross.

Given that half the programmes are now sourced from outside production companies, is it not time that the BBC were denationalised, and forced to become economically accountable, with these so called stars having their contracts realistically re-assessed and renogiated based on (a) their talent and (b) viewing figures.

Roll on ads!

Nige, Lancs,

start getting advertisers and stop charging us the license fee. I dont watch BBC. I dont listen to BBC radio. Why am I paying 11£ odd per month. This is definitely the biggest waste of my 11£.

Dr P Mulay, Wadebridge Cornwall,

If the BBC is so very short of money how can they afford to pay Jonathan Ross £18M (I think £6m x 3 years) ?. It is ridiculous that they pay such high amounts for just 1 show a week.

Simon, London, UK

Maybe the BBC should ask itself if it really needs a 24/7 Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps channel. Couldn't BBC3 be handed over to a more inventive and interesting broadcaster?

John Ledbury, Kings Lynn, England

Or they could save £18 million by giving Jonathan Ross a year off?

Mikey, Bromley, Kent

I'd rather see repeats than some of the DIY rubbish they show currently. If they're short of money, why not just curtail 24-hour tv and daytime tv and return to the sensible boradcasting hours of the 1970's?

John Tomlinson, Brentwood, Essex

I totally agree with Keith Harrison. Only last week the BBC had several news crews at Glasgow airport as the Scottish news team competed with the National news. Why this duplication of costs and expenses?

John Lawrence, Stirling, Uk

The BBC is not perfect, far from it and their once objective news reporting leaves much to be desired. But compared with the opposition, they are still are leagues ahead in all departments and the "knockers" should look at their own criteria before trying to destroy one of the few institutions worth preserving. Even if the licence fee was doubled it would still represent the best value around that money could buy.

M Fishman, London UK,

the iicence fee has nearly doubled in the last 10 years with masive over inflation rises when the inflation rate has been the lowest in living history, and i think it is time to get rid of this friend of a friend
job system, and allow the bbc to find it's own position we would see how much these people are really worth, we are the laffing stock of the world for operating a system that puts people in jail for the sake of a tv licence

cliff williamson, great steeping lincolnshire, england

Exactly what contribution does a chairman make to the quality or the running of the corporation? Or is just another "jobs for the boys" for an out-of-work politico?

Lezli Taubler, London, UK

The BBC should concentrate on it's core offerings and not attempt to be all things to everyone.

£130 miliion for the iPlayer to watch TV on your PC after it has been shown live. This could have been offered to other companies to develop.

Radio channels such as 1 extra, Radio 6, Radio 7, Asian Network, Five Live Extra don't provide a public service, they target a minority at the expense of the majority. They are expensive experiments that are covered by other commercial broadcasters

The organisation has tried to be too diverse and the overall quality has suffered. £3bn of license payers money and it is struggling to produce new programmes!

Something is not quite right.

Si, Reading,

The BBC need to realise good programmes will be watched by viewers whether they have well known people or not,as long as the programme is entertainable so be it.
By the way there is not enough music programmes/documentaries on the box.
I also believe that extorionate salaries are being paid to people who cannot look after the BBC.

Menai, Plymouth, UK

Damn cheeky of them
BBC has more radio stations and local TV than their rivals
Are they all really necessary ? About time BBC got a reality check ! If there were a referendum they mind find themselves getting a shock ! With todays choice many people watch a lot more than the BBC, news flash , its not a captive audience anymore !!

Audience viewing figures are only ESTIMATES , they dont really know how many watch , its all a guesstimate.

BBC needs a radical rethink in this digital age and I personally think they should be limited to basics because £3 billion for a bloated autocracy is way over the top , it has to stop , we are taxed enough because that is what it is , a viewing tax !!!

Iain Gore, Wirral,

Get rid of the licence fee. Allow the BBC to advertise and thus earn and manage revenue.

Gid rid of yet another stealth taxation.

JH, Berkshire,

To say Jonathan Ross or any of the other big stars aren't worth the money isn't to be carping, the point is these people get in the way of fresh talent coming up. We have to start seeing the BBC as the crest of a wave organisation, you head up to the crest, the BBC hires you while you are cresting and ditches you soon after. Would Lenny Henry really still be on TV, long after he had ceased to be funny, if he wasn't married to Dawn French and if he wasn't black? The BBC should take risks and leave commercial TV to pay these people daft salaries if they want. Of course the same thing could be said for all British businesses, why are they spending a fortune on salaries for the mediocre? The Times is a case in point as you know with all the weekend hacks who are only there because they are someone's son, daughter or what have you. Mediocrity is destroying this country in every walk of life in the name of safety for the very few at the top. Time for a major clearout and not only in the BBC.

John, Dundee, UK

Dear Sir/Madam,
Viewers should not accept the laments of the BBC management about their budget whilst they continue with the regular practice on much of the news programme coverage of sending a reporter (sorry, a correspondent they pay them more), a camera team and presumably several other expensive staff to stand in front of 10 Downing St., a hospital and numerous other sites in order to make a report (presumably to comply with the BBC PR staff policy requirements to add 'reality' to the reporting). Much of it is a pointless waste of money when viewers would happily trade a background photograph of the site and have the BBC devote the £millions that could be saved to the creation of some new programmes.
Significant sums could also be saved by removing expensive 'faces' that read the news and substituting lower cost and perfectly serviceable newsreaders.
Yours sincerely

Keith Harrison, Sheffield, UK