You have a choice with Sky. You don't get fined or put in prison for not subscribing to Sky. There's nothing stopping the BBC from producing quality shows if financed some other way, and as I said it shouldn't be competing with mass-market commercial TV. They have to make their money from the market, not from public money. Fans of Eastenders wouldn't stop watching if it carried a few minutes of ads, like Corrie.

As for its news and current affairs, it's nothing more than a news production agency. If you want real journalism, real investigative reporting you have to look elsewhere. The BBC won't rock the boat, it's an establishment channel which needs to please all the people all the time to ensure its licence fee. If it pisses off the powers that be then the phone calls will come and it'll lose its privileges.

When the switch from analogue to Freeview digital came in, there was thought of making everyone buy a box with encoding built it so it could receive encoded subscription-only channels. The BBC saw the threat: it might be forced to offer some of its channels on a private subscription basis. It opposed the idea, and the govt gave in to its lobbying.

Its remit is wrong, it's too big and should be restructured. This is not about value for money but rather what should a public service broadcaster do and what's the fairest, most efficient way to finance it.

What do you get from Sky? Many more channels than on the BBC.