They had a decent three parter on Afghanistan recently. The people being interviewed where actual experts and Government guys including the PM, Taleban people and so on. The BBC are respected throughout the world and people trust them. In saying that, they are becoming few and far between lately in what can only be a chase for rating with the dancing shows and what not. BBC4 has some decent shows on now and again in between series about the national electric grid ffs. I might be one of the only ones who think the licence fee is value for money still. Just.
The Now Show did a great impression of Brian Cox, where 'Everything is amaaaazing'. He spends most of his time sitting in the sand recreating star systems with pebbles.
And of all the examples I gave most of it (bar sports and Sky Atlantic) is available on Sky's minimum package at 18 quid a month. I know what I would certainly choose if I had to pick either the Sky minimum package or the more expensive BBC.
I get my Sky for free, one of my mates works as a Sky Sports News video-editor there, he gave me his Sky-online ID <****youmurdoch>
The law should be two choices; 1) Pay TV Licence and receive BBC Channels. 2) Don't pay TV Licence and don't receive BBC Channels, have other media. BBC need to find other ways of funding the organisation. I know what I would chose and I'm sure the vast majority would choose the same: 2
You still have to pay the licence fee if you have Sky though Mick. If there was no licence fee most of the decent stuff made by the BBC wouldn't be made as there isn't some old celebrity trying to dance round a room and boost her profile.
I have one Sky card shared among about 10 people, and 4 boxes in my own house running it... and I swap it to get Sky Italia, Sky Germany, Polsat, Art Sport etc etc etc at no extra cost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_sharing