But how is that nay different to choosing what newspaper you read. You admit that under the present system the TV news media is not impartial and you make allowances for that when you watch it - so what would change if we removed the public service impartiality requirement?.
You say it makes politics more divisive but I'm not sure how - currently we have the Government refusing interviews on Ch4 due to their biased stance and Ch4 having a real good sulk about it. So I'm not sure what would change.
Having an entertainment/propaganda channel like Fox News either parroting the President, or in many cases, actually dictating his policies for him in the first place, hardly justifies it being called a “news” channel so it’s a difficult comparison.
And what about an impartial internet? You trust Google et all to be serving you unbiased content? Pffft!
For all its flaws, the BBC is still one of the most respected news organisations in the world, and a large part of that is down to its attempts at impartiality. Just because an institution strives for a particular standard and sometimes comes up short, that is not a reason to scrap that standard completely. Doing that would only serve to lower the bar further in terms of the overall quality of our media.
The BBC impartial? 
I said attempts at impartiality.
And fails miserably 
I don't think it matters with the internet, anyone can watch a lecture from lets say the London School of Economics or The Hoover institution or Lindsaybeg road.
Any media is bias, this is a given, however, media especially tax payed for media should be pragmatic representing both opinions for a better balance in information presentation.
How is that any different from some newspapers?.
I didn’t say it was? I’m just pointing out that Fox “News” isn’t a news channel.