There can be no justification any longer for what is effectively a poll tax where you can end up in prison if you don't pay this outrageous tax of £150.
We now living a multi-platform age with not only Sky and all their channels but also new steaming services like Netflix and Amazon. That's before we start talking about the fact that Facebook is effectively becoming a TV channel with the promotion of videos and of course we have YouTube.
Survey after survey reports that young children are spending more time watching their phone screens than traditional TV and within just a few years the goggle box in the corner of the room will be extinct.
The con of course being that nothing on the BBC is free as you have already paid for it probably after receiving those increasingly aggressive letters from TV licensing! Many people are growing tired of these bully boy tactics and it was revealed last month that 3.5 million people ditched or cancelled the licence fee last year.
The facts are of course that you are only required to have a licence if you watch or record programmes as they are broadcast.
This is such an anachronism as how many people are now still slaves to the TV schedule? We have become a nation of box set binge watchers haven't we? Apart from live sport what do you actually need to watch live? Plus of course no licence is needed for Amazon, Netflix, other streaming services or the ITV hub etc. The BBC have got wise to this and now you have to input a code to watch the I player but still……?
So here is the vital question, at a cost of £150 a year, do you actually get £12.50 a month value or usage out of the BBC?
I can quite happily live without watching their biased news and their best programmes like their costume dramas or David Attenborough end up on streaming services within nano seconds any way.
If we cut the Bloated Broadcasting Corporation down to size. I might even consider paying a subscription or pay on demand for the stuff I am interested in.
I am fed up of being constantly told that the BBC produces the best programmes in the world. Really? Okay let's test that by privatising it and let the market decide.
There is a place for some public service broadcasting and I would suggest that there should be a fund set up which all broadcasters can apply to if they wish to make a programme that is not market driven, a bit like the way lefty channel four news is funded from the existing TV licence fee. But should I be funding "Strictly"?
The answer is no.
Advertisers would be falling over themselves to associate with these brands. I am not suggesting adverts but rather top and tail sponsorship messages. It already happens on sporting events. Please remind me what the football is called or the what about the plethora of adverts behind every interview on Match of The Day. This is the modern world.
Moving on to radio the multi-million-pound transfer of Chris Evans to Virgin is ample proof that the commercial sector could take over most of Radio 2. Chris's show is brilliant but it is little different to what he was doing on Radio 2 and the advert free tie up with Sky TV is pure genius. Radio 1 could go the same way.
And if I hear another nob telling me they couldn't live without the Archers or Radio Four I am going to scream at them, "well bloody well pay for it then!" If radio four is so good then surely the middle classes will happily pay to hear their propaganda and have their prejudices confirmed every morning?
The BBC's dominance of the news media has to be broken up as it does not reflect the real view of the majority.
Brexit proves this without a doubt. The BBC got it so completely wrong about the way we would vote. Again during the last few weeks they have refused to have the voices of Brexiteers on the air. Where have the UKIP voices been, let alone the voices of ordinary people, i.e. the 17.4 million who voted leave?
Where the BBC lead the other Lamestream broadcasters follow so we end up with news that does not in any way reflect the views or concerns of the UK.
Again, You tube channels and alternative websites and alt radio or podcasts are beginning to challenge this but they live or die by their popularity and donations. Perhaps this is why the BBC are always so keen to label the work of these, myself and others including Sputnik and RT, as fake news rather than an alternative? Or am I being paranoid?
The only area of the BBC that should be publically funded is local radio but again this needs drastic reform.
Local should mean local and should not be a pale imitation of radio 2 or five (more on Five Live in a minute!). These stations should be only covering local issues and should not be playing any music apart from local artists. They should be a news, phone in, local sport and community resource and dare I say it, super serve the older generation.
However, these stations have acres of middle managers that need cutting to preserve the journalists and presenters who again should be local characters.
There is still a whole swathe of predominantly white, male middle class managers in the whole of the Biased Broadcasting Corporation who would not be missed if they were culled overnight. In fact, I would hazard a guess they would not be missed until the next diversity seminar.
There are some very talented people working on this channel but I am afraid when I listen to it I think I am living in a parallel universe to their callers and presenters who are all on the lefty spectrum. Where are the right of centre voices let alone hosts?
Also, it may have moved its base to Salford but apart from Tony Livesey it sounds more metropolitan than ever. It just sounds like a sixth form version of Radio Four. Surely it should be an alternative?
Whilst we are on the subject of age where is the station for older people, the "Gammon" if you like to have their say and their interests explored?
Can I humbly suggest that there is a Broadcasting Revolution and this time it will not be televised but streamed and the first heads to roll in this revolution should be the mandarins who make us pay for the outdated BBC.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.