We are paying you and happy with the set up,if you can do all this for the annual fee who needs the Australian bandit,stand up and be counted BBC

And what are they going to use our licence fees for instead? Better celebrities on Strictly? I've paid for this, but it's going so that someone else can try and sell me something.

The BBC news page speaks of "£600m available for higher quality programming". So lots more celebrity filled dross and adverts for Eastenders masquerading as programmes then.

Since losing Chill down here (Sussex) the only music I listen to on DAB is 6music. If that goes too there'll be no point in DAB for me. World service isn't that important and the rest are on FM.

Regarding the web, that's really poor, as another reader said the reason the BBC have a market share is because they do it right. If you want to compete with that then do it better, don't just moan about a so-called lack of funds.

"Big Media companies have been claiming that it has only been able to do this because of its licence fee revenues and its success is having a negative affect on their own chances to make money online."

Or the fact that they're shite.

Take Sky News for example, full of 'sports'. As far as I am concerned, 'sport' is not news.

But it's worse than that, the 'sports news' they carry is about the sports on their premium channels, no coverage of sports they don't sell subscriptions to watch.

I hope the BBC don't cut their children's sites; it's good to have something that my kids can use that (a) has British content, and (b) isn't plastered in advertising.

Personally I think it's a pretty sad announcement.

'Rivals' may also wish to consider that a lot of the success is down to the fact that the BBC have done it well!

Just don't take away my Clarkson, Hamster and Captain Slow show!