Slashdot Mirror

Personally I think there's a huge difference between handing out money to corporations responsible to their shareholders and an the BBC who's responsibility is to fulfill a charter established by the people who are stumping up the cash (albeit via government).

no, it is not a government agency, not even effectively. It is funded by laws passed by the government, and that's as far as it goes. Its not sponsored by the govmt, the licence fee was defined ages ago and now they cannot change it (the next review is in 2013). It has a charter describing the reason for its existence, and the restrictions that apply to it. It is run by a Trust that is charged with maintaining its independance.

Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semina rs_licfee06.html

There are plenty of cases where the price is set or restricted by the government for services that are definitely private companies (eg the post, the utilities). The only difference is that the BBC bills you on expected usage and not actual usage, but that's only because they cannot meter you picking up the tv signals. Maybe things will be different in 2012 and then we'll see the licence fee (and therefore the internet downloads) change to a subscriber basis.

http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/gp_responses/G/ Gardner_C.pdf "our christian bbc has been hijacked by other religions and by pagans with immoral lifestyles" wow! there really are people like that out there. scary. i am an acidhead.

The "BBC Charter Review" consultation closed in May 2005. The consultation was far wider reaching than the methods of funding, never mind proposed taxes on computers.

The changes to the license fee will not be needed until 2017.

Who would dare to predict what a "computer" will look like in 10 years time?

The up-to-date news is the Government Response to the Lords Committee Report on Charter Review, published on the 31 January 2006.

This document states:

132. We recommend that the system of funding the BBC until 2017 should be through a licence fee. We support the Government's decision to conduct an interim review of methods of funding but this should not be conducted until after the completion of analogue switch-off.

The Government welcomes the Committee's support for the licence fee. It is currently conducting a detailed review to establish the future level of the licence fee. Since technology is advancing rapidly, there will be a further review of methods of funding during the lifetime of the next Charter.

As stated in the Green Paper, this review is currently envisaged to take place towards the end of switchover to ensure that there is adequate time for planning and implementation should it be decided that changes are desirable. The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation that this review should await completion of digital switchover. It is worth noting that there have also been arguments that the review should happen earlier during the switchover process. The Green Paper makes clear, in any case, that the Government will retain the flexibility to alter this timing if the need arises.

Also remember this - I once had to take a foreign friend (an American living in Switzerland) who was visiting me to the Accident and Emergency department of the local hospital. All they asked for was her name and my name and address: they never asked for any payment. It's just as strange for someone in the UK to hear that you might be asked to pay in advance for emergency hospital treatment as for an American to hear that you need to pay a tax on televisions.

Sure I'm listening to their radio station, and watching their website - but so are thousands of other people in foreign countries (with things like the BBC World Service) who don't have to pay this tax.

The World Service is actually paid for by a grant from the UK Foreign & Commomwealth Office, and is therefore not paid for by licence-fee payers. There are lots of people in continental Europe who are able to enjoy MW & LW broadcasts eminating from the UK, but there is little that can be done about this broadcast overspill. I'd certainly agree that these people should pay something towards the fee. If the BBC have any sense, they will be trying to set up an international payment system now. A fee to allow people use of the TV Player, for example. I wonder if international access is something being discussed during the current charter review?

"They have paid for them in their tax dollars, which their elected representatives chose to spend, via the BBC, on their creation via recording."

• we still use Sterling, not Dollars or Euros
• the money is collected through a licence fee, not a direct tax,
• our elected representatives have no direct say in BBC funding because it works under a Royal Charter, this keeps it independent of the government, and thus, free to report the government's business without bias.

They are also taking a lot of stick for their online work. Many see the quality of it to be unfair competition to private companies and in conflict with their charter, which is soon up for review. Those in the government such as Tory Blair that consider themselves above criticism may present this as proof that the BBC has willfully failed to fulfill its obligations. They could then change the charter to suit their own ends, ruining the BBC in the process. The BBC knows this, but it has to do online work or it will fall behind the competition. Hence it is attempting to demonstrate that their online presence is largely an extension of broadcasting, as befits the charter - hence things like this and the creative archive.

It looks like you need one. The BBC are funded entirely through tax money, just like any division of government organization. It is also controlled by a government board.... just like any other division of government.

Nevertheless, the BBC is independant of the government and posts whatever news it wants to. It frequently posts bad things about the government without fear of being shut down.

The BBC has a charter to say what it can and can't do, the government doesn't get a say in how it is run outside of that charter. The charter is reviewed every few years, see http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/

Steve.

however, their html-based player just uses rpm (real) files. view-source, find the rpm file and use that in realplayer and you can rewind to your heart's content.

Yeah I do that sometimes but if I do I use Real Alternative an er... alternative to RealPlayer (Win).

I just really object to jumping through hoops to listen to output that was paid for by the public. Also it's ridiculous that an organisation as large as the Beeb can't sort out their rights management. Practically, they're the only stations with national coverage and (last time I listened) they were rigidly adhering to set playlists on Radio 1, promoting the same ten or so songs throughout most of the day. Given this, if they can't negotiate useful terms then they should really stop taxing the great British Public.

I'll believe the value of dirac when I see it in use. Cynics might say that projects such as dirac and the talk of access to the archives is directly linked to the expiry of the charter in 2006 and they've just woken up and realised they need to win public support.