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

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/34237.html

BBC wants to sell of its technology division. Does this / will this impact BBCi / HooToo / our luverly italics?

Well I hope not for one.
But after just reading up on it i doubt we will loos out lovely site.


Well heres hopeing.

If I understand what the role of this division actually is, it could potentially actually *improve* the site, since this seems to be the division responsible for the servers and such-like. So if the private company is any good, they might be able to improve that infrastructure...

Of course, if they're rubbish, they'll have to cut corners, and everything the BBC tries to do will grind to a halt

IT outsourcing of a public companies facilities. Hmmmmmm, doesn;t bode well on past exercises does it?

IT outsourcing - in fact almost all outsourcing I've seen/been involved with has ended up being a destructive structure

I used to work at a company which had outsourced it's IT (and ended up without an intranet 5 years later because both sides refused to fund it), it's security, it's catering, it's stationary, it's filing, it's payroll and was in the process of outsourcing it's HR dept - the place was a mess with every outsourced company trying to co-ordinate not only with the core company but with other outsourced companies so that eventually the entire business structure was about to fall apart (take note anyone insured/with a pension from Liverpool Victoria )

I may be being cynical but if this does go ahead then I think we shall slowly see the demise of h2g2 as we know (and love) it. I mean if the bosses are allowed to out sell a branch of the beeb off to a private company any buyer is doing so to make a profit, hence any part of the purchased outfit that does not make a profit is then in danger of being phased out .

So, apart from the obvious (the West's compulsion with having sh*tloads of money), why does the BBC need to do this?

In New Zealand the State broadcaster, TVNZ, was until recently run using a business model. i.e. it had a commercial imperative to make money to give to the government to run the country. Is it the same with the BBC?

As I understand it:

kea: the BBC has been told to get its act together efficiency/profitability wise by the government, else they'll stop giving it money (or take away its right to our TV Licence fees) - sounds like the opposite of NZ, in a way.

Flanker: the department being sold off isn't directly responsible for the *content* of the BBC websites, only the technology they run on (hardware, maintenance, etc.). Unless I'm wrong about that, the private company will have no say in whether h2g2 is continued or not, they'll just be paid by the BBC to provide the servers and so forth.

Oh, and Pencil Queen: please read F19585?thread=351723

Hi Increase Mathers, as you say its only the hardware ext that's being sold off but, then you normally find that the actual service starts to get worse and worse, and people start to leave out of frustration if for nothing else. I hope I am wrong but I doubt it. Only time will tell.

>Oh, and Pencil Queen: please read F19585?thread=351723



Deepest apologies...I'm usually quite good with my it's and my its

*blames workload and my boss who bought me a crate of smirnoff ice this morning *

There will presumably be some impact upon staff but this is about support for the computers at the BBC - AFAIK, the site won't be particularly affected...

Whoami?

You never know, maybe the new company will bring more servers with it.

I seriously wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you...

>>kea: the BBC has been told to get its act together efficiency/profitability wise by the government, else they'll stop giving it money (or take away its right to our TV Licence fees) - sounds like the opposite of NZ, in a way.<<

Still trying to get my head around this....Is there no advertising on the BBC? Otherwise I can't understand why it doesn't make lots of money. Is it fully funded by the broadcasting fee, and the government?



It would be nice if they sorted out the h2g2 access problems, but I agree that privatising the hardware is unlikely to do this

Correct, there is no advertising on the BBC (Radio or TV or even the Web as you may have noticed). Indeed, if they plug one of their own productions such as a TV Listings magazine or a magazine that accompanies a TV / Radio programme they have to put a tag line saying 'Other titles are available' so that they do not have a competitive advantage over other companies trying to do the same.
They are fully funded by the license fee and Government. It was, last time I paid, a bit over 100 UKP for a years colour license. You can also still get a black and white license which is cheaper. They also do discounts on the license for the blind and other groups.

Yes, I've always thought it just a wee bit unfair that the blind only get a *discount* on their TV licence - especially now that OAPs get it totally free... I mean, we don't have to pay a licence for radio, so why for just the sound bit of TV


Talking of which [oops, I'm going off topic. ah well, it's askh2g2: I'll carry on ] my gran was apparently hounded for some time for not having a TV licence, despite repeatedly informing them that she'd never owned a TV: "As you're over 75, you won't even have to pay for it; but if you don't get one we'll fine you £1000"

Eventually, my mum rang up and said they were welcome to come and inspect the house to prove there was no TV, but that they might want to ask for directions beforehand because it was quite a way into the country and people often got lost trying to visit. They never did.

There were a few high profile cases here of the government trying to force people who owned TVs but lived in areas where there was no reception to get the licence. That made an interesting debate. Ditto the one about radio, only the TV licence funded public radio here, so I always reckoned it was a useful thing.

They scrapped the TV licence here a few years ago (we had to pay for a licence *and* have ads! - the joys of having a small population).


The other thing I have been wondering about then, is how come the BBC took on h2g2? Obviously there is no income in it. So it must be for the considerable priviledge of being associated with such a site, yeah?

Or does the BBC/government still place such a high priority on supporting creative endeavour?

Nope, they took it because of the technology in the the forums.
They were offered / spotted the oportunity to obtain a full fledged, developed and somewhat mature forum engine, complete with expert users, developers and managers who were used to it. As the beeb was developing its online communities at that time this probably saved them many many hours /days/months/years of effort, and a lot of money.

We should just be glad they do not have a corporate culture of asset stripping!