h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

By BBC I refer to the entire entity. I'm seeking to segment it here. I'm sure we'd have to tie up the efforts of a few poor individuals from the Finance/Accounts department for a while for them to prove that the licence fee, or interest accrued upon it, has not crept into every part of the BBC entity over the years.

The h2g2 site is not allowed to be commercial, one of the reasons for the dead links/URLs. The BBC can't be seen to show any inclination of bias - any product placement or advertising. So, the money comes from within... and the licence fee is part of that income, guided towards the creation of the BBC's many channels of public communication.

By BBC I refer to the entire entity. I'm not seeking to segment it here. I'm sure we'd have to tie up the efforts of a few poor individuals from the Finance/Accounts department for a while for them to prove that the licence fee, or interest accrued upon it, has not crept into every part of the BBC entity over the years.

The h2g2 site is not allowed to be commercial, one of the reasons for the dead links/URLs. The BBC can't be seen to show any inclination of bias - any product placement or advertising. So, the money comes from within... and the licence fee is part of that income, guided towards the creation of the BBC's many channels of public communication.

The second version is correct. Please ignore the first one!

We wouldn't tie up anyone's time - except possibly some Customer Relations person's.

The BBC is already split up into accounting and operating sectors. Read their annual report. The World Service is largely funded by the Foreign Office (independant - yeah, right). The books and such are run by BBC Enterprises which is a commercial organisation.

The licence fee is a substantial part of the income from the BBC but only a part of the income.

Other income comes from licencing programmes to be shown abroad, profit from Enterprises, (hushh - advertising, have you read the Gardening Magazine?) the foreign office, and so on.

The different operations, including BBC Online, are run as separate organisations with separate funding, and separate profit and loss accounts, and separate cost and profit centres.

What I don't know is whether BBC Online receives funding from the licence fee - but I suspect it doesn't.

If you dont have experience of the corporate world, this may seem like nit-picking. But these divisions ARE real.

The BBC is just a brand... that is all...

a corporate creature called Ben

Ben, the BBC's online operations come under two different root URLs - bbc.co.uk, which is public-service oriented and licence-fee supported, and beeb.com, which is commercially motivated and independent of the licence fee. H2G2 is a part of the former, and hence receives at least some of its backing from the TV licence.

(Wouldn't it be ironic if the BBC feel forcced to moderate out their own "commercial" URL from this explaination on the grounds of it being "commercial"...)

Thats interesting Peet, thanks. The point that I was making was do not assume that the licence pays for H2G2. I'd still like some clarification from the Italics. I'll go ask.

I think I've added my thrupennies worth, so I shall return to my self-enforced exile from this mutated interesting encyclopedia community/BBC public access internet requirement. I just couldn't help commenting when someone proposed that the BBC, or just about anything it does, might be free. Too funny. Especially as I, in a household without cable, satellite dish or aerial, am still hounded by the licencing authority with occasional letters asking why I haven't paid my fee. Probably because attaching a Nintendo to a TV really doesn't constitute watching television and I'm not paying £109 (I checked the amount... I was £2 out last time... slapped wrists) for the privilege of watching my own video collection or Mario 64.

Thanks for a moment of diversion. And a hollow chuckle.

See you at an American based online location that may be on the boreders.

Or possibly dubble-yuh dubble-yuh dubble-yuh boreders in America, not related to car advertising.

B is for beautiful,
O is for outrageous,
R is for relentless,
E is for erroneous,
D is for decisive,
E is probably for excellent,
R is still for relentless,
S is for seriously not to be taken seriously...

Oooooooooo-Oooooooooo-OOOOOOOOOOO! D.I.S.C.O.! D.I.S.C.O.!

Bye

Well, the recommendation to visit that site really demonstrates what a good thing we have going here. I think, despite concerns about moderation, the blissful lack of advertising and community spirit are something that just isn't replicated anywhere else.

And of course, the people are better.

I'd also like to add that if it appears the funding is getting short, you could just not make anymore episodes of the Pauline Quirk drama about a family moving to the country. Should save a few bob.

I would agree with Smiley Ben that BBC is not violating UK or international law in its Moderation treatment of h2g2. Whether licensing fees are involved or not, both corporations and non-profit organizations are allowed to set ground rules that are stricter than the broad axioms of free speech.

However, the existence of these laws point to a broad cultural ethic favoring free exchange of information and opinions wherever feasible. I feel that BBC Online's Moderation scheme violates these cultural ethics, since h2g2's previous incarnation shows that a more open model of communication was feasible in this community before.

Enough said.

I like that last part, 'nuff said.

Here is the gen on the licence fee: Not what I expected, I admit. agcB http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F647?thread=108534

Yup, Ben, that's pretty much what I thought...

Just a couple of notes for the Apprentice, who probably won't read this as they've got Bored... (and Note this is only how I see the law - I may be wrong - and don't mind being told so)

Apprentice said:

"Why? Because I don't need to pay cash to someone for the privilege of attaching my television to an aerial and watching stuff that'll be out on video in a couple of months and I don't need to prop up an institution like the BBC who frankly don't deserve all the support."

They followed this with: "Especially as I, in a household without cable, satellite dish or aerial, am still hounded by the licencing authority with occasional letters asking why I haven't paid my fee. Probably because attaching a Nintendo to a TV really doesn't constitute watching television and I'm not paying £109 (I checked the amount... I was £2 out last time... slapped wrists) for the privilege of watching my own video collection or Mario 64." In a later post.


So you'd like the News (for instance) available on a Video Cassette? There is plenty of TV which doesn't find its way onto Video which is, in its own way, the best TV the Beeb produces - The News, Documentaries, Factual programs which the Beeb only produces because of the way it is funded (how many worthwhile documentaries do you see on SKY1 for instance?).

Oh and the only way you could watch a Video Legally in the UK without paying the licence fee would be to not have a receiver in the Video recorder OR the TV (all Video recorders have this as standard, its how you record programs off the TV). Even if you only use your TV to play Nintendo, it is still "possible" to receive TV signal - by plugging in a set-top aerial - and the word Possible is the important one - in LAW if you CAN receive a signal you have to pay the fee - even if you have a computer with a TV card you must.

In fact the only way of watching programs legally in the UK without the licence fee (short of buying a pair of binoculars) is to have a DVD device and wait 'til they come out on DVD.

Just on the point of Channels and free speech (I may be getting confused thread wise): Smiley Ben is (slightly) right on his/her point about Channels. TPTB ARE infringing on our "right" to Free Speech - but they haven't taken it ALL away - we still have alternative means of communication available to us. The Point (as I see it) is that this form of communication was previously much more "Free" and we have had restrictions "imposed" on us, if we wish to continue to communicate using this medium.

The point about having the Beeb broadcast our Rants on TV (or Radio) is a complete misnomer - the Web is SO different to TV - The Web is a two way "Broadband" interface - I can spout complete and utter Bllocks (see above) - and expect some feedback (even if it is only abuse), while others are doing the same. TV is (mostly) a one way narrowband interface - i.e. you can only send messages one way, one at a time (per channel) - it is not a medium for "free speech" it is a medium for Program Makers to get across their own "message" THAT IS ALL. The sooner the Beeb (and everybody else) realises this basic difference the better.

OK. ENOUGH. I hope I've got my thoughts down in a, vaguely, readable matter. Rant and Bllocks over for now.

Peet,

Thanks for the points (oh yes, I'm still listening... I'm just not cntributing constructively to the increasing size of the Edited Guide).

Re. News, etc. The Internet is a marvellous thing. I get all the news I need by reading stuff off the Net. If I need documentary type information I'll read a book... or labour through the months until the video IS released.

Re. Licence Fee. I am not paying for a licence if I'm not in receipt of a signal. Yes, a video can be plugged into an aerial and I could happily record the incoming transmissions without involving my TV, THEN later watch the video - but, I don't have an aerial, internal or external, nor cable or satellite connections. My TV is an island. I have no intention in paying £109 for that.

Regards,

TA

Oops... Argon0... not Peet. Still sitting here with sleep filled eyes.

Sorry, Apprentice, but the law is a Bad about this - it doesn't matter if you actually don't have an aerial - what matters is that you could pop down to Curry's or whatever and buy an aerial and plug it in - thus receiving a signal (doesn't matter if its Beeb or not).

The only way around this is if you live in an area that simply cannot receive TV signal!!

It is a Tax on TV ownership!!!

Argon0, it's far worse than you suggest... The TV licence says you merely have to be able to *receive* a signal, *not* display it in any way; technically this means that anyone with a metal object in their possession is liable for the Black-and-White licence, at least...

Read it again; you don't have to be as great a pedant as I to see this...

There was a test case about this. Some inhabitants of off-shore islands, I think they were in the Hebrides, lived in an area where there simply were no terrestial TV transmitters, and no terestial TV signals.

When video and satellite came out, they got TVs, 40 years after the rest of the UK.

They were then charged licence fees on the basis that their TVs could receive signals, even if no signals were being transmitted in their area....

agcB

PS - Smiley Ben is a bloke, and I'm not!

One thing that most people are missing is that the licence fee pays for far more than just BBC1 and 2. There are also the national and local radio stations, BBC online (wot we are using now), events such as Music Live, exhibitions, shows, concerts and awareness campaigns on subjects such as health and education.

We get a lot of for our money and the alternative is Sky and ITV. Sure the former has The Simpsons, Buffy and Angel, but I pay 18 quid a month to watch those three programs. The BBC costs about half that and provides about 15 times more entertainment. Good deal.