BBC To Make Deep Cuts In Internet Services 246
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the BBC has yielded to critics of its aggressive expansion, and is planning to make sweeping cuts in spending on its Web site and other digital operations. Members of the Conservative Party, which is expected to make electoral gains at the expense of the governing Labor Party, have called for the BBC to be reined in and last year James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.' Mark Thompson, director-general of the BBC, said 'After years of expansion of our services in the UK, we are proposing some reductions.' The BBC is proposing a 25 percent reduction in its spending on the Web, as well as the closure of several digital radio stations and a reduction in outlays on US television shows. The Broadcasting Entertainment Cinematograph and Theatre Union, which represents thousands of workers at the BBC, says that instead of appeasing critics, the proposed cuts could backfire. 'The BBC will not secure the politicians' favor with these proposals and nor will the corporation appease the commercial sector, which will see what the BBC is prepared to sacrifice and will pile on the pressure for more cuts,' says Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of the union."
drop proprietary software? (Score:4, Funny)
Everyone knows that you can cut costs substantially by switching to open source. This is a good time for them to get back to using open source and open standards: get rid of your flash-based, linux-unfriendly, iPlayer and stick with open source (theora, etc). They could also stop using word/excel etc and move to open office... I bet the savings on licence costs would be large!
Re:drop proprietary software? (Score:5, Informative)
BBC have developed Dirac codec for that. It's open source and royalty free. It's a very good codec, it has reached a stable version and is soon to be standardised as VC-2, unlike theora.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:drop proprietary software? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is DRM. A lot of BBC programs are made in conjunction with other companies, etc. "Life" was made with the discovery channel (apparently Oprah Winfrey narrates the US/Discovery version.. jesus.. they replaced a paleontologist with a chat show host. What the hell was wrong with Attenborough?).
Part of the licensing therefore involves the Discovery channel enforcing DRM on the BBC, which means open-source is out. The alternative is to stop working with Discovery which would mean half the budget. Decisions, decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not any more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/iplayer_xbmc_adobe_swf_verification/ [theregister.co.uk]
Note, however, the familiar consequence of this sort of strategy:
"Ironically, third party utilities that download files (which presumably the verification is there to prevent) still work fine. It is possible that this move will actually increase the occurrence of downloading files which will not be time limited, or torrenting of copyrighted material."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Drop proprietary video? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So it can indeed happen!
News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK) (Score:5, Insightful)
James Murdoch can get bent. The BBC News service is not free. It's provided by the license fee so it is clearly not free - I've already pay for it. I like the BBC News and would rather that than have to pay for the (more) biased reporting from any of his stable of rags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You only require a license to watch live TV. If you have no TV set, and use iplayer in regular (non-live) mode, then I believe you are ok.
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/tvlicence [bbc.co.uk]
you are also free to use the radio stations, website, etc. without a license.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible for a UK resident to get the BBC in any form without any license fee, tax, etc.? --A curious guy across the Atlantic
The license fee is for TV only. I can get BBC radio & BBC online services without having to pay the license fee. The only exception is that if I want to watch live streams of events on the BBC website I'd technically need to pay the license fee. Hope that clears things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. You can get BBC Radio for free, and everything on the website except for the live video streams.
The only thing you have to pay the licence fee for is broadcast TV including broadcast TV streamed on the internet, but you also have to pay the licence to the BBC to watch broadcast TV from anyone else, such as ITV, Channel 4, Sky etc.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is it possible for a UK resident to get the BBC in any form without any license fee, tax, etc.? --A curious guy across the Atlantic
Yes. Once you reach 75 you don't need to pay. Also if you don't watch live content (i.e you use iPlayer), you don't need to pay. Nobody has ever paid for listening to the radio stations. Basically the licence is to pay for reception of live TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, although it would be very unusual. The license covers the apparatus to receive any broadcasts as they are transmitted, including commercial, but I understand that if you don't have a TV and only listen to radio or watch on iPlayer then you don't need a license.
I'm not sure how relevant that is, though. Even if it were funded through taxes that applied to everybody, I still think there's a place for public service broadcasting. It's the nature of tax that you have to pay for something that you m
Re:News on the BBC is not free (if you live in UK) (Score:4, Informative)
As other replies have already said, you only need a TV licence if you watch or record live TV on any device. If you have no TV and you only use iPlayer to watch TV after its already happened technically you don't need a TV licence.
However, it's actually pretty difficult to convince the authorities that you don't watch or record live TV. You're in for a world of harassment if you don't have a TV licence. The BBC just can't cope with the concept that there are people in the World who do not watch telly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This isn't strictly true. My flat gets zero terrestrial TV signal, though I do own a television which is used for TV-OUT, DVDs etc. I had a TV licence man knock at my door a couple of years ago, he noticed the TV and I explained the situation. I didn't hear from them again for about a year, I just have to remind them of the circumstances. They're OK with it.
Not a fan of their guilty until proven innoce
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt! If the BBC revenues were increased due to monetization of internet publishing, I doubt we'd be having this discussion today. Try another business model folks, it is the internet, deal with it!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be a case of "like father, like son": Rupert Murdoch never had any problems with the idea of saying outrageous lies in order to strengthen his political position in order to strengthen his bank balance. Never mind that what James says is absolute bollocks, concentrate on what he's actually trying to accomplish, namely weakening the BBC in favor of his own publications.
The BBC is a truly fine institution, one that shows the potential of public broadcasting. The Murdoch family's, on the other ha
Stupidest move, ever (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
See the parent post? It's this kind of dismissive attitude that all media are biased that allows some news media to crap all over everything. If everyone knows that all the media is equally biased, then it doesn't matter what they do, because obviously it can't be any worse than what the other news media do.
(For a concrete example: take a look at the BBC's reporting of scandals involving the BBC. Now compare with the Murdoch media empire's reporting of scandals involving parts of said empire - or more commo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The BBC has a pretty good web presence. I certainly prefer BBC News, Democracy Live [bbc.co.uk] and the other services they provide to anything that is tainted by Rupert Murdoch. Just because Murdoch doesn't understand the web and has no sense to realise that, quality news sources like the BBC shouldn't just provide a more shitty service to make Murdoch lose less money.
In this case, a public service is providing great service and if you can't compete with that, instead of whining maybe you should go bankrupt.
I don't disagree with anything you've said. I think what Murdoch is saying is stupid. I've seen people point out here previously, however, that Murdoch himself is not stupid. He might just be an old media dinosaur in this case but I wouldn't be so sure. He holds vast swing in UK politics and what he's basically emitting are none-too-subtly coded messages that he wants something done about the BBC. By being so noisy about how it's impossible to make money in ways he 'ought' to be able to he's also sprea
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stupidest move, ever (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps the BBC's right-wing [independent.co.uk] bias [craigmurray.org.uk]?
The BBC is everyone's scape goat; they're left wing, they're right wing, they're a government mouthpiece, they're too critical of the government, they spend too much on "high-brow elitist" programming, they're dumbing down too much, they waste too much money on sports rights, they don't have enough decent sports coverage. You name it, someone will be accusing the BBC of it.
Re:Stupidest move, ever (Score:5, Insightful)
What a dreadful report to quote in response to the two right wing examples. On the case for the right bias there was the likes of the presenter of all their Westminster coverage, the Today show presenter, the BBC's political editor, the panel of Question Time etc.
And your examples of the bias from the left: The coverage of the Bob Geldof's Live 8 concert, which didn't include a debate with the screw-the-poor side! The final episode of the Vicar of Dibley! (Does that need a panel too?) And a movie! Never mind that the report showed that there was no left wing bias in the political reporting, the BBC dared to show a dramatic movie!
That is really lame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. That's political relativity for you.
The BNP are fiscally left-wing, but socially they're way past conservative and well into the realms of fascism.
I doubt their supporters realise how left-wing they are, though - it's the racism that they find attractive.
I will happily give BBC more of my money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a different company. BBC America is not the BBC.
Also, doesn't America have some law which states programs have to finish on the hour and half hour?
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about a different company. BBC America is not the BBC.
Correct. And Top Gear (and most of the programming on BBC America) is a BBC program that is carried by BBC America. BBC needs money and I am offering them some of mine if they will sell me the same DVDs that they are selling in the UK.
Also, doesn't America have some law which states programs have to finish on the hour and half hour?
No such law that I am aware of. I see unusual start/end times on cable fairly often.
However that is not relevant to what I am seeking. I am offering to pay BBC directly for DVDs that they sell in the UK. If you release something on DVD there is no reason why it needs
Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money... (Score:5, Funny)
Everything but Top Gear, it seems...
Amen and (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is one of my beefs with copyright law as it is implemented today. I want to be able to see the REAL bbc channels(to watch top gear, real british news, british comedy etc.) and I want to see the real French channels (to watch their talk shows). But because I live in Denmark that is not possible. No amount of money would make it possible. It is technically feasible, because I can receive the same satellites as the UK. But they will not sell me the decoding equipment.
The reason is that they are not allowe
Re:I will happily give BBC more of my money... (Score:5, Interesting)
A Freesat decoder box costs about £50. Buy one, have it shipped to Denmark, hook it up, done. It's not encrypted, you don't need a subscription, what's the problem?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The 40 minute cuts are what's left when they remove Jeremy Clarkson's unfavourable comments about Americans.
Sound familiar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Your actions don't suit my business model-- stop it." Now where have we heard this before?
MIA.... No... CIA.... perhaps. Goddamit, it's right here on the tip of my tongue...
Fuck you Rupert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you Rupert (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck you Rupert (Score:5, Interesting)
The meat from the (non-Murdoch) link...
"Last week Mr Smith [shadow communications minister] gave qualified support to the hand-out, saying the opposition acknowledged financial support for the networks was warranted during the transition to digital television. But on Tuesday, after the meeting with Mr Murdoch, Mr Abbott [opposition leader] blasted the hand-out as ''dodgy'' and an election-year bribe to free-to-air networks."
Between my OP above and this post I watched the Larry Flint doco The right to be left alone [youtube.com] on ABC. This is the second time in the last few years I have seen the doco on state sponsred TV, it's an excellent doco that no commercial station here would play because of the way Flynt highlights their bullshit. To quote Flynt - "I watch the mainstream news to see what they leave out....The problem with the MSM is it's corporate...The models they put in front of the camera have to tow the corporate line".
Re: (Score:2)
The state sponsered TV channels in Oz are the only one's left with any real journalists, this prick won't be satisfied until he removes every last skeric of independence.
Absolutely. If I watch TV news (which I admit I rarely do) I will pick ABC news, SBS news (It's more world focused) and shy of those two, I have found the German News (DW News Hour) to be amazingly informative.
Re: (Score:2)
He's old; if we're lucky he won't be working to ruin the world in the name of whatever he stands for much longer.
Though we would have to be insanelly lucky to get better successors in his place...
Quick ! Call the waambulance for Murdoch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to argue here, I'm honestly curious. If something is "state-sponsored," as you say, how can it also be "independent"?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hackers can turn your home computer into a bomb... [geeksaresexy.net]
... & blow your family to smithereens!
My 8 cents worth (Score:4, Informative)
this has been and will continue to be done wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) I applaud the decision to reduce expenditure on US television shows. Some of them are brilliant, but it is not really the BBC's place to broadcast them.
(2) The BBC needs to go back to a principle of quality over quantity. Output from such channels as BBC Three would not pass for a mediocre school production. "Hole in the Wall" might not pretend to be anything but light entertainment, but it is not adding to the knowledge or the culture of Britain. Digital radio is in general a failure, and it is good that they have tacitly acknowledged this. Meanwhile, the BBC News Internet site is excellent, and should not be the first choice for cuts despite evident political pressure for those who do not like the balance provided by the BBC.
(3) The BBC needs to stop privatising or outsourcing its research and development, so it can go back to long-term efforts in improving the state-of-the-art in broadcasting. It needs to go back to a technical-driven culture: for example, it needs to cooperate in efforts to prevent pollution to the shortwave spectrum, and it needs to reverse all efforts to introduce Digital Restrictions Management. We've already paid for what you produce, and you are our public broadcasting service: you don't get to dictate how we enjoy your productions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like some clarification from the BBC or uk.gov on point 1 - I agree with your (implicit) argument against the BBC importing US programmes, but I worry that it'll affect joint BBC/US productions. Recently I've seen a (IMHO) positive trend for the BBC and HBO to work on co-productions - "Rome", for example, was the BBC and HBO (and an Italian broadcaster); "Five Days" was also the BBC and HBO.
BBC 3 does have some good programming. I've never seen "Hole in the Wall", but can imagine just how dreadful it is
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BBC3 is really a sandbox for new programmes they would have only ever previously piloted on BBC2. Hence there is a lot of rubbish, but also a few real gems that now are mostly on BBC2. I don't know if it is a worthwhile use of the license fee or not, but some of my favourite comedy programmes in years have started out on BBC3. BBC4 is the Radio4 of TV, and I guess it has a very specific target audience, but the programming is generally good. Obviously both have a lot of repeats too, which most of the time m
If they need money... (Score:2)
Now there's a Surprise (Score:2, Insightful)
So The Sun, the UK's most popular paper and owned by the Empie of Murdoch, changes its support from Labour to the Conservatives
And the BBC's board back down.
Abso-bloody-lutely marvellous. Now we can have news of the quality and independence served to the US by Fox.
Silly Brits (Score:2)
What part of "bread and circuses" do they not understand. Cutting pensions and television at the same time, well that's the bread AND the circus.
whence cometh this God-given right to make us pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
So where does Murdoch's mythical right to extract money from the public come from? Or, more to the point, Murdoch's right to prevent anyone from competing with services he might prefer we pay for?
Especially when the public have already paid for the news to be gathered, and the BBC are only making available (at modest extra cost to the BBC) the information they have already been paid to gather - to the people who paid for it (even if it is also available to non-licence payers).
Isn't it the BBC's mission to inform and entertain? And why not do that via the internet as well as the airwaves?
It could be good (Score:2)
I love the BBC. (Score:4, Insightful)
If American commercial media had anything as good as the quality of BBC News (Radio, TV or online) I would listen, watch and read it, and even put up with commercials.
I actively avoid the complete and utter crap Murdoch's medial outlets spew out.
Murdoch, if you want to make money, sell a quality product.
The BBC reflects very well on Britain. My very positive view of the country is due at least in part to the programming I've received via the BBC. Curtailing that programming would have unfortunate results far outweighing any potential benefit to Murdoch's bottom line.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know what? for Top Gear, Doctor Who, Torchwood, Primeval, etc, and the musical modernness of BBC radio (compared to German state-owned radio) alone they are a justified and good thing.
In Germany I can’t even imagine the state-owned TV stations producing something as cool.
Re:I love the BBC. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't worry too much, I don't think the cuts are due to have any effect on the main news site to be honest.
Most the stuff being cut is crap like this, which people don't even realise exists:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/ [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/switch/slink/ [bbc.co.uk]
It shouldn't harm the BBC's news operation, and despite media linking it to Murdoch and so forth I don't think it's actually anything to do with that. I think the BBC just realises there's a lot of needless sprawl, and that cash will get tight if it continues with that and it's literally just cutting away all the crap.
The news section if the BBC sites bread and butter, and it's award winning, I doubt for a minute they'd be willing to make any cuts into that, for precisely the reasons you point out- it's perhaps one of the finest elements they have in reaching out globally to show their existence and bring in further viewers.
Murdoch ain't in the news business (Score:2, Informative)
He sells advertising. The news is just bait to get people to buy.
Angles (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea that the BBC 'giving' news away is undermining 'paying' for news. So far as I am aware, no major news site charges for content, or at least not for major headline articles less than 2 days old. If News Corp truly thinks that by eliminating the BBC's presence they can begin to shape market expectations of people 'paying' for news, I think they need take a deeper look at the nature of the Web itself. Duplication and propagation are in its very nature, and the idea that alternative, free-to-view sources will not spring up (or current ones have their traffic increased), or that their 'pay for' articles won't be reposted across blogs and forums within minutes of appearing on their sites is naieve in the least. The music and movie industries have enough trouble keeping enormous amounts of music and movie files flying about the place - how on earth do they think they will stop something that can be duplicated with two keyboard shortcuts? I suppose this will begin the search for a 'copy/paste disabled browser' or somesuch tool - then I guess it really will be screenshot or it didn't happen.
It begs the question, how many people pay for news now? As an example, quick google search will show in 2005 the NYT had 1.1 million subscribers, the Sunday paper 1.7 in 2005. By charging for online access, do we really expect a significant increase in the new combined digital/paper subscribers total? I would submit if you're not paying for news now, and you didn't when paper was the only format, you're unlikely to start now.
It also belies something a little more sinister. Does this mean that all 'government corporations' (a type of entity in growing popularity, seemingly) are subject to supervision of Corporate interests? The BBC was and has always been free to its many listeners and, later, readers - it was a public institution set up to provide a service, a World Service even. Could you imagine telling someone in Britain in the mid-20th Century that, unfortunately, the BBC was going to have to curtail its activities because some multinational corporation was finding it too hard to charge you for listening to its private media on your own radio set? Of course, we can argue that the BBC is government media just like News Corp is private media, but any discerning reader understands that bias is part of reporting intentionally or not. In any case, I'd like my bias free, as in beer, thank you, and goodnight.
I doubt it will do much (Score:2)
It is not sea of content I usually like to see in BBC website (it's nice touch though), it is the news - unspoiled, objective, rich with context news with additional references where to look for more information. I rather doubt that -25% will do wonders like making suddenly BBC to loose their integrity and turning all BBC readership to commercial news feeds.
In overall, someone (or some forces) seems like want to gain more control over BBC - or make it so that it feels vulnerable, so it doesn't get into the
smoke and mirrors (Score:2)
However, in doing so they are completely missing the point of their remit. They are supposed to produce high-quality programming, and that includes minority programming that commercial broadcasters wouldn't, or couldn't, touch. Radio 6 completely falls within this remit -- Radio 1 however, most surely does not. Radio 1 is a commercial channel, in everything bu
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I work as a boom operator. It's almost none existent to work as a boom op for the BBC, unless it is drama, they have made huge cuts in production costs. They have also got rid of sound recordists for many productions, it is now done by the camera operator. We call this a "one man band", a jack of all trades, a master of none.
The BBC have almost stopped all technical training. The masters of the trade are disappearing, many have no technological know how or engineering skills, they just know how to switch a
The BBC is NOT "free news". (Score:2)
People pay for it trough their taxes. It’s the nation’s homegrown/self-owned news service.
Murdoch is just a greedy dick who “invests” in political party sock puppets.
Re: (Score:2)
People pay for it trough their taxes.
No we do not, we pay for it through the TV licence fee. That may well have every appearance of being a tax, but it is not.
Good (Score:4, Funny)
it's not hard to ask (Score:3, Insightful)
"incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news."
it's not hard to ask i just don't want your news.
i want to pay my tv license and have an organisation that tells me what's going on and not what they think sells papers.
I cant wait for a reduction ... (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait for a reduction in our TV licenses, due to all this money the BBC will now be saving!
Ditch the super-stars (Score:3)
I vaguelly remember an article in the newspaper that listed the BBC employee costs. A significant part of those was in paying "super-stars" (those entertainers that get payed millions of pounds per-year).
In a country like the UK with a long tradition of great humourists, paying a single comedian like Johnathan Ross 18 million pounds a year to host a couple of talk-shows is incredibly bad value for money.
Just for comparisson sake, the budget of BBC Radio 6 Music (which they're also planning on closing) is half as much. That's 24h/day, 7 days a weak, 52 weeks a year of music for half the price of maybe 10h/week of programming with Johnathan Ross. Measured in in hours-of-entertainment/pound terms that means that Johnathan Ross costs almost 34x more than BBC Radio 6 Music (and he's definetly not 34 times better).
Ditch that guy and couple more like him and replace them with new blood and you'll probably be able to cover the 110 million pounds that the BBC Internet operations cost. It will even have the nice side effect of enhancing even more the BBC's work in developing and promoting new talents in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
He's already indicated he's not asking for a contract renewal this year.
Re:Ditch the super-stars (Score:4, Insightful)
To make it fair you have to look at man-hours of entertainment. Sure the radio may be cheaper in absolute terms, but how many people listen to it vs watch that guy's show?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you cant provide free services is that it. (Score:2)
i thought the 'free market' capitalism was a system which let individuals and organizations charge whatever they want for their products and services.
turns out, it isnt so, everyone has to charge high enough so that private interests can make profits to satisfy themselves. it seems so, because some prick is able to come up and say that, like people are born to this world to to be profited from. reminds me of the middle ages and serf system.
Hey, Murdoch (Score:2)
Get bent, Murdoch. Stop trying to monetise me. I give my money and time to who I want to give it to, and that's not you.
Nor will it ever be.
The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump (Score:2)
The BBC should tell Murdoch and others to go jump. Unless something has changed recently, the BBC is funded largely by the license holders and has no obligation to Murdoch/News or any other "news" organization.
Hat's off to the Beeb! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:5, Informative)
James Murdoch criticized the BBC for providing 'free news' on the internet, making it 'incredibly hard for private news organizations to ask people to pay for their news.'
Little James Murdoch recently also said that the BBC is killing Democracy [google.com]. Funny, here I was thinking that the BBC is the only big media organization with the balls to stand up and support the democratic process, while the scholarly literature into corporate controlled media [google.com] showing exact opposite. Little Dr James Murdoch must be confused... or not?
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr Murdoch slammed Radio 2's effort to woo younger listeners by hiring presenters on "salaries no commercial competitor could afford".
Bollocks. If a private company had half the country listening, it's advertising revenue would MORE THAN cover the salaries of a bunch of presenters.
"There is general agreement that the natural operation of the market is inadequate, and that a better outcome can be achieved through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators."
"This creationist approach is similar to the industrial planning which went out of fashion in other sectors in the 1970s. It failed then. It's failing now."
Come again? I read: The natural operation of the market is inadequate, and a better outcome has been reached through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators.
While the approach may not have worked in the 1970s, they clearly have a winning strategy right now, and it's leaving other private enterprises out in the cold.
Sorry, but when private enterprise can't do a good enough job, and a publically funded organisation start showing them up, it's time for them to reel back? Piss off mate. That's the EXACT opposite of market freedom. The guy is just annoyed that HIS company doesn't have half of Britain listening, and that the BBC are providing an excellent service from public funds for free to the public that pay for it - along with ALL THE ADVERTISERS.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think the days that the BBC wasn't in the black from it's own revenue are long history. Amazingly popular shows on it's TV side (Nature docos, popular shows like Top Gear) and their now massive DVD sales sure must line the bottom line of BBC quite well.
You are utterly, utterly wrong. The BBC takes a £3.5 billion/year subsidy from the British taxpayer, collected from a £142.50/year per-household 'television license'. (Figures source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org] ).
If you watch TV (or own a working TV) without a license, there is a £1000 fine and the possibility of jail.
That's why some people here in the UK occasionally get pissed off with the BBC's spending and operations; we're all directly funding them, by law.
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure that you thought that through really well. I've lived in the UK and the US. In the US people pay for all kinds of programming they don't want just to get a few channels they do want, and they pay much more than 142.50 pounds sterling per year for the privilege of watching the A team in Spanish and hearing the holy rollers who want to save you... for a price. I know it's not the same, but the fact remains the British public is actually getting good value for the money. If the BBC were scrapped altogether, the British public would be MUCH worse off. That it operates in the black is a good thing, even if you have quibbles about what black actually means in this case. It appears that no matter what you pick, the viewers end up paying for stuff they don't want, don't need, and can truly live better without. Complaining does not get you perfection. Replacing the BBC on the basis that it's not a free market enterprise ignores the fact that the free market has not shown a desire to bring you programming of the same quality. Baby and bathwater as they say. If other broadcasting firms were to provide the same quality or better, it would be silly to argue, but that is not the case. Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact of the matter is that while the BBC *does* produce some damn fine programming, every good program is accompanied with a torrent of pointless shit. It's funny how people like yourself use the 5% good programming too justify 100% (or more) of the compulsory taxation that funds the remaining 95%.
I'd personally be happy if they cut the crap and concentrated on the distinctive and valuable stuff that people seem to assume is all they do.
You talk about (presumably) people in the USA and elsewhere choosing to pay for cable, satellite or whichever other TV service. That happens here too. The point is that here we *HAVE* to pay the tax to watch anything at all, even 'free to air' TV.
Would you throw away a great painting because it was commissioned by the King? Or worse, jail the painter?
No, but if the King is spending billions on paintings every year, 95% of which are artless garbage, by raising a massively regressive tax that becomes a sizeable burden on the poorest in society; then I have the right to be pissed off.
Complaining does not get you perfection.
Oh, I'm sorry; how dare I give a toss where my taxes go.
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shit, man, I would pay ~$200 a year to guarantee that they'll keep on making Dr. Who and shows like Life on Mars. I don't think you realize how horrible television is in the States; I pay $60 a month for absolute shit with a couple of good shows mixed in. $200 a year is peanuts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if the show is THAT popular then they would have no trouble whatsoever attracting advertisers to pay for it instead of taxation
And how do the advertisers afford to pay for the show? They add it to the cost of their goods. Eventually you end up paying for shows that you don't watch. At least with the BBC model you have a chance that something uncommercial, but revolutionary will get made.
It can't be said that programming like Eastenders etc. "could not be provided by commercial broadcasters" so why the hell do I have to subsidise what already exists?
So if it is popular then the Beeb shouldn't do it, and yet if they only did unpopular stuff then I can't imagine that you would be happy with that. If it helps, just assume that all your money went to some show that you really like and ignore the ot
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are utterly, utterly wrong. The BBC takes a £3.5 billion/year subsidy from the British taxpayer, collected from a £142.50/year per-household 'television license'.
In America we have something called the "Public Broadcasting Service" which receives public funds. Of course, PBS gets less than 1/5th of what the BBC receives and the end result is that PBS stations are something of a TV sideshow instead of sitting in center stage like the BBC.
/PBS is where I first started watching Dr. Who & Red Dwarf
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, Mr. Sleedwidge Numbscull of Oxygen Bottling Inc. criticised farmers and the forestry commission for providing free oxygen in the atmosphere, making it 'incredibly hard for private oxygen bottlers to ask people to pay for their oxygen.'
There was always free news available in some form or another. Newspapers were able to make money by providing more value than the news that was freely available. If the quality of the free news increases, if you still want to make money, you have to find a new or at least improved business model.
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:4, Insightful)
So:
Basically the ONLY thing they can add additional value is *quality* in reporting. Ironically, the BBCs quality is much higher than Mr. Murdochs quality in my opinion.
Probably *because* their priority can be the quality, not the immediate revenue.
Re:Profit... or Democracy? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, let's clarify this...
IT IS NOT FREE!!! I pay a yearly license fee that gets paid into the BBC to provide me with these programs...I PAY. I should receive...Murdoch just wants to make everyone else but him poor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Would you prefer to pay less and have BBC make these cuts?
FWIW, the BBC is still one of the most respected media organizations in the world.
Unfortunately it's not very capitalistic or "free market"-ish to force everyone with a TV (or equivalent) to pay for the BBC. But if the alternative is more Rupert Murdoch and Friends...
Re: (Score:2)
It is labours election strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Labours election strategy is roughly: "What choice do you have?"
Anyone who can remember back to Major and Thatcher... well... all of sudden Blair ain't all that bad. France had the same problem. Elect the crook or the extremist.
Democracy: "Choose me, because I am not as bad as the others".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no "politicians' favor" either. If you're going to lift a quote out of a UK newspaper, at least have the decency to leave the spelling as it is, thanks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Labour Party (Score:5, Insightful)
The word is the same, it's just a variant spelling.
You don't apply variant spelling to proper nouns.
Re: (Score:2)
Not true :-)
In Australia, the Labor Party is there to (supposedly) advocate for the labour workforce. ie. In Aust, the political party is "Labor" even though the word is spelt "labour." At the time of the founding of the party, they viewed this spelling as progressive and throwing off old conventions.
That was before people started talking of US imperialism (the Brits were the imperialists then ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you do. Someone called "William/Bill" in English is called "Guillaume" in French. Someone called "Lucian" in English is called "Lucien" in France and "Luciano" in Italy. And so on.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're muddling usage between general and specific cases.
Someone called "Bill" in Engish still has the name "Bill" if he travels to France. The French equivalent of his name might well be "Guillame", but doesn't mean that the correct way to spell the name of this particular Bill is anything other than B-I-L-L.
It