The BBC
* has 8 TV channels
* has BBC interactive channels (so you can choose which Wimbledon tennis
match you watch, or which snooker game you watch, for example).
* has BBC online - the largest and most successful website in the UK (and I think, maybe the World - will check on that),
* has 11
radio channels
* has a comprehensive network of local radio stations covering the entire UK
* has the largest network of news journalists, on-site, throughout the world
* has a 24 hour news service
* broadcasts live and recorded debates from Parliament, on BBC Parliament
* has an internationally acclaimed BBC World TV service
* is a major provider of English and foreign language radio broadcasting throughout the world
* has educational broadcasting for schools and universities free, throughout the night;
* is a major producer of TV worldwide....(one could cite many examples, but in Australia, for example, where public service TV is funded through advertising, their best shows are BBC imports - ask your average Australian!)
You can't do all (or much at all) of the above based on advertising revenue. If there were more places to advertise the total revenue may possibly increase slightly, but would be spread even more thinly, hurting all broadcasters.
Plus advertising is entirely dependent on ratings. Dependency on ratings means all but the most popular (and consequently lightweight, dumbed down) programmes won't go to air. Hence the BBC could offer little more than is currently on BBC1.
Now,
you may not have a minority music or cultural interest
you may not be from an ethnic minority
you may not need schools programmes or be studying at the OU
you may not care if your news provider has a reporter in the field
you may not listen to radio, or be interested in local issues
you may not be a resident in a country with an oppressive regime that controls all media and news output, and where the BBC World Service represents the only window to the world you are likely to have
you may not give a
about anyone but yourself....
BUT.... that does not mean these things are not valuable to others.
Nor does it mean that society as a whole cannot benefit by having these needs met, even if a given individual doesn't benefit personally.
If we choose to fund the service through advertising or subscription, we will do away with everything other than what the majority want. In a fair society we should want to respond to significant minority interests as well as the needs of the majority.
Channel 4:
It IS good, for what it does, I like it very much BUT it is (and it's costs are) hardly comparable. It is a mere fraction of the size of the BBC's operation. It does not have ANY obligation to provide loss-making / non-revenue generating output at all. Neither does it have any obligation to provide output for minority interests.
Evidence of C4's struggle with the business model came with the sad demise of Channel 4 films, which did produce some excellent British films, but the economics do not allow C4 to be any bigger or better than it is. In my opinion it puts out about 3 hours per day of potentially quality programming. A lot of the remainder is cheap, cheerful (and sometimes entertaining - we can all enjoy a bit of titillation) dross. Thats fine, for what it is.
The free market philosophy of the eighties (if it doesn't make profit for shareholders, it dies) is now largely discredited, we lost a great deal through the excesses and greed that went with this. Fortunately we are now (generally) more mature about such dogma, and realise that public service, along side free enterprise, is valid and needed in a well balanced society.