Perhaps now is the time for the BBC to really examine its own output and settle on producing a cut down number of high quality channels instead of spreading itself far too thinly for a limited audience. Leave the specialist channels to Satellite subscribers.

R. Liversidge, Ripon, North Yorkshire

How on earth can an organistion in this day and age still intimidate me and my family with the threat of an extortionate fine- or 'worse' if i don't pay them almost £140.00 a year for something i don't watch hardly.

Hasn't anyone sat down, watched the majority of the BBC's poor efforts at producing even second rate programmes- with OUR money and thought; -This is a massive con?!

You suck BBC.

Jez W, Leeds,

£200million for BBC3 and 4! That's only 11 Jonathan Wosses isn't it?

There's no need for a rolling news channel. There's no need for funding rubbish on BBC3 that hardly anyone watches. Stop paying obscene salaries.(They aren't what 'the market' can stand - all too often The BBC IS the market) Too much cronyism and freebies make it one hell of a gravy train. Is there really any need for so many reporters? Is there really any need for the news organs to interview their own experts? Is there really any need for the main newsreaders to descend on areas to do live outside broadcasts? Reading the news from infront of a Police cordon - why? Nice work if you can get it.

Gareth, Leeds,

BBC 4 is the only BBC channel I watch regularly and quit frankly the only one that does not treat us like morons. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!

Liz, London,

A good piece of management consultancy - get back to core competencies. And who can disagree. I have huge affection and respect for the BBC, it's a national treasure and all that. The problem, of course, is the lack of clarity about what the core competency is to be. I have a liberal, middle-class uneasiness with defining quality public interest broadcasting to be a lot of things (opera, analysis, authoritative factual programming, etc) as public interest because they seem to be exactly the sort of things that the liberal middle class value over the sort of thing that the majority of the license-payers seem to prefer. Democracy versus quality. And I detect the same bias in Ms Cavendish' modest proposal. I would subscribe to the BBC if I had to - but, as a factual observation the market does NOT supply similar breadth and depth in the absence of a public broadcaster (and I have lived in France, USA, Ireland, Switzerland.) It's a poser, and no mistake.

Paul, zurich,

Since I "discovered" BBC4 a year or so ago, I've quite often turned to it for intelligent and enjoyable programmes. During the Proms season, for instance, it allows us to watch more concerts than previously. I don't resent the small share of my licence fee it costs. My suggestions for BBC economies include abandoning the race to keep up with all the celebrities who (apparently) demand huge fees, using only one person at a time to present the news, and ceasing to send radio and tv presenters out to cover news with which locally based reporters could easily cope.

Barry, Wallington, UK

I'm 25, not particularly intellectual or snobbish and smack in the middle of BBC 3's target, and cringe at every F off I'm Fat, or Me and my Big/Small Boobs/Penis, BBC 4 on the other hand is a joy, as it has quality new and repeated programmes (the repeat of Yes, Minister 10 days back was timely and enjoyable) and takes some of the burden from BBC 2. In addition, it also provides programmes, such as Ian Hislop's Scouting doc and The Thick of It, plus most evenings after Newsnight - I wonder if this was accounted for?
On radio, the public service of Radio 2 I could query, but not Radio 1, almost every notable act Britain has produced since 1967 has benefitted from its unique ability to support and nurture music from accross the spectrum of popular taste - for example look at the grief at the death of John Peel - I would find it hard to say that it does not provide a service to British art and culture, and the economy.

Kenneth, Glasgow,

About half the workforce in this country have literacy and numeracy skills that are equivalent to those of 11-year olds and younger.

This is why a channel such as BBC Four will never get a huge audience. But does that mean it should be closed? No.

We are told that, in the future, our British culture will be one of the ways we stay afloat. If we target everything at a level that is suitable for eleven year olds we have no future...

Robert , Manchester, UK

This article really gets to the meat of the problem. Too many egotistical self servers who are unaware of the need for the BBC to compete in a very competitive market place. However, competition means recognizing your product, its strengths and weaknesses and then pitching it to the appropriate end user. This the BBC are not doing. They are trying to be all things to all men. The costs of BBC3 and BBC4 are corrosive to the overall competitive effort and should be quietly put out of their misery.

Brian Whorrall, Southport, England

Much of the programming on BBC4 is worthy of subsidy by a public service broadcaster. Little of that on BBC1 or BBC3 is.

Rory Harden, London,

BBC3 is a channel for viewers on ASBOs, and should be flushed down the toilet where it belongs. These ASBO viewers can then watch similar content on E4 and ITV2 which are not funded by the licence payer.

Ted Farley , Manchester, England

Its the advertising, stupid!

There's a whiff of intellectual elitism about this whole article and a whole bunch of similar arguments that have been cropping up for as long as I can remember. Somehow its OK for people to have to put up with the advertising if their interests are not seen as intellectual. Popular music - can have advertising. Highbrow discussions on Arts, Politics and Science? Oh no, can't have advertising on that, so degrading!

Public service broadcasting should 'inform and entertain' ... everybody! If you like 'reality tv' you should be able to see some that isn't dependant on some sponsor with his own agenda. If you are interested in whatever kind of music you should be able to listen to it outside the narrow confines of commercial interests and the top 20.

I love the BBC because of the quality and diversity of its output. Something for everyone, when they get it right (and its hard!)

The price you pay is worth it for the commercial independence alone.

Lawrence, Stockport, UK

Who gives a toss about the cost per viewer? The BBC should be at least as concerned about generating quality archive material that it can publish (at a fair price for BBC licence-payers - beyond the soon-to-enacted 30 days+7 "download" iPlayer viewability) to provide long term on-line income streams, as well as flog abroad.

BBC4 is not "Channel of the Year" for nothing: it contains some of the most thoughtful programming out there - deny the discerning BBC viewer at your peril!

Having said that, the BBC can be as puerile as the next broadcaster when it wants to be: see its propaganda-rich machinations over Climate Change of the last 18 months - happily about to be denied it (finally) by a "Wagon Wheel" approach to Impartiality, courtesy of the BBC Trust.

Apart from the fact that none of them are experts on the topic, why can't we have a revived BBC4/"After Dark" about Climate Change with the likes of David Bellamy, Lord Winston, Prof Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough?

Andrew Robinson, Norwich, UK

I have always seen the value of the BBC , but for the first time , I am irritated by the License fee as it now represents money thrown down the drain . BBC doesn't get watched anymore and I don't see why I should contribute if I don't watch anything on any of their channels .
I feel like I am being totally ripped off !!! I wouldn't pay well over £100 for a gym membership if i never went to the gym ... why should I be forced to pay for services that i do not use ? It's a feature of modern Britain I'm afraid ... paying through the nose for substandard services !

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

If you want to buy a BBC show on DVD it costs the same as any other DVD, despite the fact you've already paid for the thing to be made. If you want to see classic BBC repeats you can watch UK gold, which is a pay channel. Personally I'd welcome more repeats, in fact, I demand repeats. Everybody should have free access to all BBC programmes -we own them. I think the BBC programme archives should be treated like any other national collection and curated accordingly. Why not use BBC 3 and 4 for this? I suspect the recent over-ambition stems from some discreet long-term strategy they have for when the license fee is finally scrapped -which will be all the sooner if they don't start thinking like a public service broadcaster again.

smith, london,

Despite the dumbing-down, BBC Four, together with Radio 3, is what makes the BBC different and paying the licence tax worthwhile.

Clive, Essex, UK

Here here! Some weeks ago many people were upset that the BBC edited out a gay reference on Porridge, - I was annoyed that they felt it was OK to put on a 30 year old repeat in the first place.

John Webster, Aylesbury, Bucks

"BBC Four however is a treasure of intellectual programmes formerly seen on BBC2. Leave it alone for us more civilised apes."

Hear hear! The only problem is that those of us, offshore, who receive BBC terrestrial channels but do not have satellite, cannot now watch these programmes. Perhaps put them back onto BBC2?

Martin, St Helier, Jersey

I dislike the BBC intensly and resent paying a license fee, but watch BBC4 fairly often, 3 or 4 times a week. In fact its the only BBC channel I watch as the others are either geared for 14 year old morons or 60 year old morons.

Peggy Webb, Blyth, Northumberland

There I was agreeing with Camilla Cavendish until she wrote, "And excellent as they are, the public service value of Radio 1 and 2 must be questionable."
Radio One, uniquely in the world, encourages downward aspiration, offering its young audience foul language, rap culture, moronic grammar, loose morals and impertinence to authority. Aside from that ...
Radio Two? Doh,

steve h, cardiff,

Radios 1 & 2 perform the same public service that BBC1 & BBC2 perform - ie provide mainstream entertainment for the general population without having to endure the endless ads for double glazing and Bulgarian property seminars that commercial radio inflicts.

It may not please the guys at commercial radio, but the Beeb does a sterling job of keeping the population sane. Surely that is a public service??

I agree they should shut down BBC3 & 4 though - spend the money on the main channels instead

Mark, Preston, UK

The need for most people to continue working will delay any post-industrial requirement for greatly increased additional choice of broadcasting for a while. Given the limited viewing hours of everyone, even 24/7 would leave a need for repeats.

Recycling old work (so long as it has merit) has sustainability. There might be logic in different channels seeming to have separate identities for possible future educational use for those to whom junk entertainment currently has an appeal.

The irony of tuning in for what may be thought of as lowest common denominator stuff, but participating in some mass group therapy might be lost on some fixed channel number aficionados, but it could be an inexpensive way of spreading parenting knowledge, social and cultural awareness and other information.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

It's always seemed to me that by stripping BBC 2 of repeats, room could be made for all of BBC Four's content. People with DVRs wouldn't miss out through the scheduling changes, and people still with analogue sets would get new content.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

All true. The BBC has traditionally been determined to compete (or monopolise) every area of broadcasting. This results in even its vast resources being spread too thinly. There is, for example, no valid reason for the BBC to be involved in local radio - an ideal medium for area businesses to advertise. Radios 1 and 2 are more suited to the commercial arena too. Radios 3 and 4 are of genuine value and should be nurtured as a national asset. BBC3
and BBC4 seem to be aired more to pre-empt some other body from taking the slots than from any genuinely constructive purpose : scrap them and reallocate the channels. News 24
is good overall although the gee-whiz graphics are overdone.
News is news, not entertainment.

Lewis Thomas, Slough, UK

The BBC should continue to offer its quality news service and fine education or information programs that would not necessarily soar in the ratings. Beyond that they are encroaching unnecessarily on the private sector and on my pocketbook. I am near abandoning my tv license and just watching everything online. How many others are thinking the same?

James Lachowsky, Swindon, Wiltshire

BBC Three is a disgrace of an attempt by the Beeb to attract the mouth-breathers from ITV. Waste of time really as they won't evolve to use their opposable thumbs on the remote control for years to come.
BBC Four however is a treasure of intellectual programmes formely seen on BBC2. Leave it alone for us more civilised apes.

Adam, Eastcote, middx, uk