From a personal perspective I don't watch BBC very often and don't listen to it at all on radio.

My regular programmes are This Week (which they are axing shortly - incredible as it peaks out at above 1,000,000 viewers close to midnight) and Politics Live most lunchtimes.
Even QT is becoming unbearable.

I get my news from Sky, my sport mostly from Sky, BT and ITV and documentaries and films from the internet based providers.

But I have to pay the license.

At £13 ish a month "so what?" one might ask. But that's more than Netflix, some of the NowTV packages.... and if it wasn't universal and people could opt out, I can well imagine over half would, so the real rate would be more like £25-£30 per month.
It's only so cheap because it is universal.

I would not pay the current fee if I had the option.

It's also (supposed to be) a public service broadcaster. So why has it increasingly paid a fortune to cover expensive commercially driven sports like F1, Match of the Day, London Marathon, Great North Run..... paying a fortune to outbid the commercial channels and then paying a fortune for their "star" presenters.
Lineker is often mentioned, but Shearer gets over £400K per year, which probably works out at around £10K per hour, and he isn't that good.

It also has a politically driven editorial. I'm not sure it was always thus, but it certainly seems so today.

If they have a discussion on Climate Change, they now have a policy of banning anyone with even a slight scepticism, as they consider the matter settled.

We see lots of coverage of crashing out and cliff edges around Brexit. I've yet to see one interviewer appear to take the other position, even as a devil's advocate, with only one exception and that is Andrew Neil.
I wonder why he's being cut