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

A while ago HuppyDude posted a thread containing a link to a story about the conservative's intentions toward the BBCi. Never expecting a reply I went into a seldom used account and found a reply from the tory in question whom I left a message for using the feedback link in the story.

See next post.

--- John Whittingdale wrote: > Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> Let me be clear. It is not the policy of the
> Conservative Party to close
> down the BBC Web-site. However, I do believe that
> BBC interactive should
> be examined, along with every other aspect of the
> BBC's activities, as a
> part of the process of Charter review. It is for
> that reason that I have
> invited David Elstein, one of the most
> well-respected figures in the
> broadcasting industry, to chair a Committee of seven
> broadcasting
> experts (none of whom are declared Conservatives) to
> make
> recommendations of changes that need to be made.
>
> The BBC currently receives over £2.5 billion of
> public money, raised by
> the licence fee. I believe that despite the
> proliferation of new
> channels in recent years there remains a case for a
> state-owned
> broadcaster as long as it concentrates on public
> service broadcasting.
> This means programming that would be unlikely to be
> provided by the
> commercial broadcasters. However, it is not obvious
> that the BBC
> requires eight TV channels and ten national radio
> stations to do this.
> There is also growing concern that some of the BBC's
> activities, both
> funded by the Licence fee and carried out by its
> commercial arm, BBC
> Worldwide, are unfairly competing with commercial
> broadcasters.
>
> With regard to the BBC's On-line activities, it is
> clearly sensible that
> the BBC make available its programmes through the
> web to allow greater
> access to them. BBC News also has a deservedly high
> reputation and I
> recognise that many people rely upon it. However, it
> is only sensible to
> ask whether it is right to have a state-owned and
> funded web-site,
> whether it is a proper use of public money and
> whether it is preventing
> other commercial organisations from entering the
> market. I welcome the
> fact that, almost simultaneous to my own comments,
> the Government
> announced that it had asked Philip Graf, former
> Chief Executive of
> Trinity Mirror, to conduct a review of BBCi
> considering exactly the same
> questions.
>
> David Elstein's Committee hopes to produce its
> report by the end of the
> year. Once it has done so, we shall consider its
> recommendations
> alongside the representations we have received from
> many other outside
> bodies. We shall then bring forward our proposals
> for the changes that
> we believe are necessary at the time of renewal of
> the BBC's Charter in
> 2006. However, at this stage, we have an open mind
> and believe that
> there needs to be a genuine public debate about the
> role and function of
> the BBC in a multichannel digital age. I hope that
> you would agree that
> this is the right approach.
>
> --
>
> John Whittingdale OBE MP
> Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
> Sport
> Member of Parliament for Maldon and East Chelmsford
> e-mail: [email protected]
>
> In message
> ,
> [email protected] writes
> >This message has been sent from the House of
> Commons WebSite
> >Constituency Locata Service
> >Your email address will not be divulged unless you
> reply by email to
> >this message
> >
> >"Conservative Party's culture spokesman" is a great
> oxymoron
> >considering your intent.
> >
> >
> >The sender left the following as their name and
> address:
> >
> >never you mind
> >
> > IS NECESSARY SO THE
> >MP CAN CHECK WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE CONSTITUENCY>
> fat chance
> >
> >Message Ends.
> >
> >
> >This email has been generated from a service on the
> House of Commons
> >website and is
> >maintained by the House of Commons Information
> Office. If you have any
> >comments or
> >suggestions please contact [email protected]
>

--- John Whittingdale wrote: > Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> Let me be clear. It is not the policy of the
> Conservative Party to close
> down the BBC Web-site. However, I do believe that
> BBC interactive should
> be examined, along with every other aspect of the
> BBC's activities, as a
> part of the process of Charter review. It is for
> that reason that I have
> invited David Elstein, one of the most
> well-respected figures in the
> broadcasting industry, to chair a Committee of seven
> broadcasting
> experts (none of whom are declared Conservatives) to
> make
> recommendations of changes that need to be made.
>
> The BBC currently receives over £2.5 billion of
> public money, raised by
> the licence fee. I believe that despite the
> proliferation of new
> channels in recent years there remains a case for a
> state-owned
> broadcaster as long as it concentrates on public
> service broadcasting.
> This means programming that would be unlikely to be
> provided by the
> commercial broadcasters. However, it is not obvious
> that the BBC
> requires eight TV channels and ten national radio
> stations to do this.
> There is also growing concern that some of the BBC's
> activities, both
> funded by the Licence fee and carried out by its
> commercial arm, BBC
> Worldwide, are unfairly competing with commercial
> broadcasters.
>
> With regard to the BBC's On-line activities, it is
> clearly sensible that
> the BBC make available its programmes through the
> web to allow greater
> access to them. BBC News also has a deservedly high
> reputation and I
> recognise that many people rely upon it. However, it
> is only sensible to
> ask whether it is right to have a state-owned and
> funded web-site,
> whether it is a proper use of public money and
> whether it is preventing
> other commercial organisations from entering the
> market. I welcome the
> fact that, almost simultaneous to my own comments,
> the Government
> announced that it had asked Philip Graf, former
> Chief Executive of
> Trinity Mirror, to conduct a review of BBCi
> considering exactly the same
> questions.
>
> David Elstein's Committee hopes to produce its
> report by the end of the
> year. Once it has done so, we shall consider its
> recommendations
> alongside the representations we have received from
> many other outside
> bodies. We shall then bring forward our proposals
> for the changes that
> we believe are necessary at the time of renewal of
> the BBC's Charter in
> 2006. However, at this stage, we have an open mind
> and believe that
> there needs to be a genuine public debate about the
> role and function of
> the BBC in a multichannel digital age. I hope that
> you would agree that
> this is the right approach.
>
> --
>
> John Whittingdale OBE MP
> Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and
> Sport
> Member of Parliament for Maldon and East Chelmsford
> e-mail: [email protected]
>
> In message
> ,
> [email protected] writes
> >This message has been sent from the House of
> Commons WebSite
> >Constituency Locata Service
> >Your email address will not be divulged unless you
> reply by email to
> >this message
> >
> >"Conservative Party's culture spokesman" is a great
> oxymoron
> >considering your intent.
> >
> >
> >The sender left the following as their name and
> address:
> >
> >never you mind
> >
> > IS NECESSARY SO THE
> >MP CAN CHECK WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE CONSTITUENCY>
> fat chance
> >
> >Message Ends.
> >
> >
> >This email has been generated from a service on the
> House of Commons
> >website and is
> >maintained by the House of Commons Information
> Office. If you have any
> >comments or
> >suggestions please contact [email protected]
>

Are we to infer from the annoyed remarks that the previous poster disagrees with the MP, and supports the status quo of the BBC? That is to say, overfunded, arrogant in its monopolistic status, and politically correct to a degree annoying to most people.

Consider:

1. BBC TV and radio now spend far too much time on advertising - not a joke, I'm referring to the self-advertising they seem to be obsessed with at the moment, including inducements to watch its digital channels, "helpful" information about what is on later on other channels and the radio, and simple filler (which, under closer scrutiny, is really just time-wasting). All these are generally annoying to have to wait through, and I certainly would be pleased if they were privatised, and all the above replaced with commercials.

2. Does anybody here genuinely believe that output is as good today as ever? I contend that compared with the past, a huge amount of rubbish is put out by the BBC, largely, I would say, because of a lack of competition. If the BBC was a private company, the trash would be eliminated to raise viewing figures, and replaced with better programmes, or, if they've lost the knack for them (seems plausible to me), repeats - at the moment UK Gold is giving BBC TV a good run for its money.

3. Most people would prefer a small number of good channels, of both TV and radio. I'm fairly sure this would also hold true among many subscribers to digital services. Most people also gain nothing from their money being spent on things like Asian Network, the red dancers between programmes, and so on. But as a monopoly, acting as though it had a divine right, the BBC can largely ignore what people think of it.

4. BBCi, happily, at the moment is different, and is a good internet site. But I think competition would keep this intact - the hits are high enough; remember that H2G2 was once private. It is both good and popular, and perfectly capable of being run more like any other commercial site.

5. Finally, compare the BBC with Microsoft (the mainstream programming being like its major software and OSs). Monopolistic arrogance in both cases is the cause of the offence against quality that is perpetrated, and although only one is a company, they obtain their funds in very similar ways - nearly everyone in the target market coughs up largely by default.

Regards,

1 GLFM

You seem to condradict yourself in your statement. You seem to be trying to argue for the BBC to become a private company, but then contend that the past BBC output was much better - this was when the BBC was as it is now, except that it had a greater monopoly - fewer companies were broadcasting.

You also seem to argue for BBCi to become a commercial website. Arguing that H2G2 was a private site once. www.h2g2.com went belly up and it was good fortune that the BBC stepped in, with its overfunded, monopolistic arrogance and kept it alive. You are only posting here because the BBC can put money into unprofitable ventures.

You mention that the BBC is not competitive, however, it is. It has to keep it's viewing figures up, it competes directly with ITV, and has larger viewing figures than your precious private company - which is in big, big trouble and has the BBC arguing to allow the merger between the largest ITV companies which will allow ITV to continue. It is competitive with it's website with one of the largest and most visitied sites in the world. Exactly how privatising BBCi would make it better is beyond me - maybe more adverts, more popups, maybe even a fee to use BBCi - yeah that would make it better!

You seem to think that the BBC is unresponsive, however all the new start stations it is launching were to allow greater inclusiveness, the Asian Network may not be my cup of tea (I do not know, I haven't seen or heard it), but I would think that people who do listen to it would feel under-represented on BBC1 and Radio1. This allows the BBC to give them what they want. Of course it isn't your cup of tea either, but Radio1 and BBC1 are probably skewed more towards your tastes as it is.

Once you have worked out whether you think the BBC should go back to the good old days or be privatised then be sure to let us know here Until later....
BCNU - Crescent

Whether or not the BBC is as good as it used to be, in a high volume low quality TV world, the BBC is still a beacon of quality.

The BBC has similar revenues to Sky, who do very little original programming and none of any quality.

The digital BBC channels are actually pretty good. Not as good as BBC1 or 2, obviously - good programs should be broadcast where more people can see them. News 24 and Parliament are excellent, and Parliament is dirt cheap. Cbeebies and CBBC are excellent - we can fit TV around what we do with the children instead of the other way round. BBC 3 and 4 are OK, which is better than most satellite channels.

Yes UK Gold and the other UK channels are better than most of the satellite channels too. And UK Gold is partly owned by the BBC, broadcasting BBC archive material commercially. And why not.

And as for comparison with Microsoft: No BBC programme has ever made my TV stop working

"No BBC programme has ever made my TV stop working "

Although fame academy came very close

Please take my conmments with a pinch of salt, everyone else does.

> At the moment UK Gold is giving BBC TV a good run for its money.

UK Gold and the other UKTV channels are jointly owned by the BBC and Flextech Television (part of Telewest), so technically UK Gold is a Beeb channel.

> Most people would prefer a small number of good channels, of both TV and radio.

Do you have some statistics to back up this comment?

> Compare the BBC with Microsoft.

I did and I can't see the connection. The BBC is a public service, accountable to both the public and the UK Government. Microsoft on the other hand is only accountable to its shareholders.

Before I read through this thread I should mention that these was more to my reply but I was having a great deal of trouble posting yesterday.

"I appreciate your reply. My concern about the BBCi is
simple. Commercial interests have a motivation of
profit whereas a state broadcaster is there to provide
content, unhindered by the concern over profitability."

That was the reply I gave.

I had difficulty yeaterday seeing the funny side in that I was having trouble posting about suport of the BBCi

" If the BBC was a private company, the trash would be eliminated to raise viewing figures, and replaced with better programmes"

There's a smelly load. Complete commercial programming yeilds mostly rubbish. It's easy to see that if commercial programmers are putting out quality in the UK then it is *only* because they have the BBC to compete with and the BBC has a mandate toward content and not profit.

<footstep .

I havwe to say that the contention that the BBC would produce better quality television if it was a private company is so much cobblers I can't even begin to believe that I've actually read it.

Have you seen the output of the privately funded Channel 5 recently? Or indeed Sky One?

One thing- it's a bit disingenuous to say 'technically UK Gold is a Beeb channel", when it's BBC Worldwide that owns a stake in the channel- BBC Worldwide is the Beeb's commercial arm, doesn't have anything to do with programme making, and isn't in anyway funded by the Government.

I do not believe Sky television would ever produce or transmit a programe like an all male cast of Richard II live, as BBC4 did over the weekend, even if the BBCi part was rubish.

I do not believe Sky television would ever produce or transmit a programe like an all male cast of Richard II live, as BBC4 did over the weekend, even if the BBCi part was rubish.

deviating from the privatisation theories for a moment, is anyone else worried about the larger intakes of new researchers and the less staff to handle it issues here. and more common researchers would also be aware of the poor servers performance over the last few months especially in the last two weeks. i am wondering with this level of service and interruption whether any company will have anything left to buy if BBCi did go private. i know i am getting annoyed with the constant server problems.