Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Cull the Cult TV Repository
malkavian writes "The BBC has announced that it's going to be ceasing to host it's Cult TV Repository. At a meager 700,000 users per month, it was decided that this was no longer a significantly useful public resource, as the information was also available elsewhere on the net. Many people believe this to be a grievous mistake on the part of the BBC, to allow the history of their own broadcasting highlights to fragment, and possibly be lost like so much of its other content."
It's not like they lack bandwith ? Maybe they lack the human workforce to keep it up... If they'd open it up a little like a wiki this wouldn't be much of a problem, and bandwith cost is largely covered by the affluence to other BCC pages.
\u262D = \u5350
Never heard of it. The BBC are under pressure to waste less money - there are a bunch of job cuts going through (under protest, naturally). This doesn't look like something which would make money for them, or improve their image, or whatever, and if only 700,000 people were interested then I can't really see what the problem is.
Surely this is a job for the Open Source community to step in and fix?
and whats the betting that most of those 700k users are not licence payers ?
perhaps the BBC should just cut of access off to those outside the UK and bring a subscription models in for non-licence fee payers
It is my opinion that since the BBC is publically funded they should strive to keep everything produced available to whoever wants it for as long as possible. Whilst 700,000 users may be a small number compared to other areas of the BBC site, it can hardly be called an insignificant number.
After getting an additional 700,000 hits from the /. in just a couple of hours crowd maybe that will make them reverse their decision.
Damn, it's just so hard to be funny at work on fridays. Sorry.
ACK! Now how will I find the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything?
this is like the black & white film I think where everyone bemoaned that it was no longer available but few people who complained ever use it any more. so like it's the same with many tv shows when many people say "well that one should stay on air!!!" but they dont watch it even when it is on.
700,000 hits is really not very many.
And the idea that the closure of this small part of the webpage is going to result in BBC archivists deleting the programs is just idiotic scaremongering. The BBC are more than aware of the stupid mistakes made in the past w.r.t. Not Only But Also, The Goons and so.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
This is about pressure on the what web content the BBC should have from other commericial operators such as News International (The Sun newspaper, Sky TV) and other Newspapers groups who feel that the BBC is giving away content, they could be earning revenue from.
Don.
Slashdot - The Home of the Tortured Analogy
Watch their users more than triple because of this slashdot article prompting them to change their decision.
(Hey, it could happen. All the cult-t.v. slashdot nerds link to it, they all tell their cult-t.v. friends, who tell their friends.. etc. etc.)
Does this mean no more Red Dwarf? No more Fawlty Towers? No more (gasp!) Monty Python??? I mean...if it hadn't have been for those staples of British culture, my 2 year stay in London with the Navy would have been horrible. I think that the BBC dumping their archives is wrong, not only from a cultural viewpoint, but also a historical one. Think of all the great speeches and war-time documentaries. They should at least be put in a museum somewhere. I'm sure they can find room in the British Museum or somewhere.
"I drank WHAT?!"--Socrates
I sent an offical complaint through the BBC's internal complaints and got this reply within a couple of days. I asked about the closure and the BBC's continuing lack of sci-fi and fantasy based tv as well as expressing my disbelief that they aren't following up Doctor Who with more similar content, instead removing the section of the site that deals with most of the BBC's "cult" output that isn't Doctor Who. My Reply Thank you for your e-mail.
We recognise that the Cult website has attracted a large following. However, efficiency savings are needed to pay for new projects which will ensure that the BBC continues to offer distinctive and innovative services, so it is necessary to close this site.
As Ashley Highfield, Director of New Media, explained in December "...to meet the 10% target set out by the BBC Governors, we are announcing today a further 7.5% reduction to be achieved through lowering investment in areas where we feel this will not cause a reduction in public value...These changes build on the first steps we took in July to close those websites which we felt did not offer sufficient distinctive public value for the investment required. The savings we made in July represented 2.5% of our web output."
Furthermore, the BBC outlined in November its commitment to offer more distinctive content. We felt that many areas covered by the Cult site were already being replicated on other areas of the web. This meant there was very little distinction between the BBC and the commercial sector.
The exception to this is Dr Who, the largest of our Cult sites, which has now evolved into its own website, as an extension of the hugely successful BBC ONE TV series. We hope users will continue to visit and enjoy this site.
Regards
Sophie Walpole - Head of iD&E
And
Chris Chalton - Communications Manager, MC&A
God Save The Queen!
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
Whilst we are not commenting on the proposed closure of the cult site, could we clarify a point made in a quote from one of the users of the website? The quote is question is " I mean, 700,000 hits a month, the second most popular BBC site"
The bbc.co.uk/cult does have 700,000 unique users a month, however this does not mean it is the 2nd most popular BBC website. Indeed some bbc.co.uk sites get 700,000 hits in a few hours. The Cult site came second in the BBC's Online Audience Appreciation Survey, which was voted by users of the bbc.co.uk, which is where I believe a misunderstanding has occurred.
We appreciate the opportunity to clear up this misunderstanding and to assure you that we are listening to the feedback given to us.
..without memories like this
I suspect this has some connection with a recent review of the BBC's online content, which concluded that the BBC should not use license payers' money to replicated online services that could realistically be provided elsewhere.
Over the last few years, the BBC has built up a pretty vast online empire, going well beyond the normal news, sports and weather sections that most people use. Smaller, private enterprises complained that they were being forced to compete with what was essentially a rival taxpayer-funded enterprise. This closure, as well as the earlier closure of many of the discussion boards, was a move to counter this.
It's easy to get upset about it, particularly if you don't live in the UK and aren't forced to pay the increasingly ridiculous-looking license fee. However, spare a thought for those of us who do have to cough up around £120 per year to fund channels we don't like, mindless reality TV and makeover show trash, news services which are about as impartial as Foxnews (albeit in the opposite direction) and a draconian, downright menacing enforcement agency (which will happily send you threats of legal action on a near-daily basis if you don't own a television). The license fee was perhaps relevant in the infancy of broadcasting, when there were few other organisations with the ability to provide major services. However, in these days of hundreds of on-demand channels, the idea that everybody should have to pay a subscription for a few of them, before they're even allowed to look at any of the others, is offensive.
Hmm, us [sic] unsophisticated Americans use "its" - is this one of those British things?
Alas, there is a new organ grinder in charge and he's introduced proposals for a huge number of job cuts, thousands of people are to go. Mark Thompson became Director General following the resignation of Greg Dyke (over a highly public row between the BBC and the UK Government on the War in Iraq).
No matter what people thought of Greg Dyke - he wasn't actually Evil(TM) but he wasn't without a fair share of legitimate critics either - pretty much everybody, both the general public and BBC employees, hate Mark Thompson (something which on his announcement as new Dir. Gen. was fuelled by the media, who have plenty of material owning to his own past behaviour).
I rather suspect this is all to help make the BBC better suited to transition to a subscription based service (rather than a license fee funded one), though this won't be till after 2008-12, and would probably co-incide with a move to switch of analogue TV all together and go digital (so the government can go through with it's plan to sell of the valuable airspace to next generation mobile/wireless operators).
...auction off the web pages on e-bay. Make some cash AND save the content, which is quite sizable. That way, the BBC is happy (they profit AND don't have to maintain the pages) and the fans are happy (the BBC cult tv info is still together and still maintained).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Two of the Beeb's biggest cult shows, Who and HHGTTG, have been revived. I'm not surprised to see them shut down the cult site now. A lot of the remaining shows in the cult section are not even Brittish shows. Angel? Buffy? Firefly? The Simpsons? I can see why the BBC isn't very interested in hosting a site to promote American television.
Isn't the whole point of cult TV that its not mainstream 'masses' but a smaller number of dedicated fans? And while we are at it, the internet is not a broadcast medium, unlike TV/radio where a transmitter costs a fixed amount no matter how many people tune in, a website costs less to run with fewer visitors, sure it gets to a point where the overhead outweighs the variable cost but 700,000 people? The BBC should just start a BitTorrent tracker or something similar if the costs are too high for a full video server.
Anyway the BBC is supposed to be pushing the masses up not dumbing down. A commercial network might bow to the biggest demographic but the point of a socialist/communist/whatever corporation is that it gives the masses good intelligent programming whether they like it or not, both types are needed - commercial TV is more 'fair' in its finances, non-commercial tax-funded TV is more 'fair' in its representation of all demographics. I call on the BBC to go back to educating people so they will realise how valuable a service it is and continue to make sure its funded.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
No it isn't. This is about the BBC ceasing to host and maintain information regarding several of their "cult" programs, such as Doctor Who, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio and TV versions), and Blake's 7. They're purging the information from their website, in much the same way they have, in the past, destroyed all known recordings of programs such as Dad's Army and Top of the Pops.
This isn't about, "Oh that's a grand show. It should stay on the air." This is more akin to your local library deciding they're going to get rid of hundreds of popular books which are being checked out, on the basis that "They're available at other public libraries and bookstores."
Honestly, it's deplorable that the BBC has gone back to their long-standing tradition of willful destruction of archive material.
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
I don't why this stuff always get modded as troll on slashdot, maybe it's an old post that keeps coming up or something but you do tend to see a lot of aggressive modding on BBC critical subjects here. It's a great shame.
s p
Yes the BBC has delivered some good, 'important' stuff over the years, and has been a valuable contribution to world media but the way it's funded (even if you never want to see it go) is desperately unfair and uncompetitive and out of date. And well, put it this way if in the future more and more TV is delivered over the net I won't be subsidising the BBC with a 'computer tax' that was being bandyed around by UK ministers a while back. Sorry.
Now the real question on my mind as I read slashdot today is why on earth are you not covering the 'big' story:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1833126,00.a
2. the suit responsible: Jonathan Kingsbury jonathan.kingsbury@bbc.co.uk He looks forward to hearing from you.
... then you can always express your opinions on the matter. Failing that, you can just vent spleen at them, although I wouldn't reccomend it.
s tep1.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_
Select the "Make official complaint" option, and say what you want to say.
I wrote to them suggesting they may be able to turn it into a more community-based site. IMHO it would make sense to keep a base of loyal fans than to put them out in the cold.
---
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" - Gandhi
BBC produces some bizarre programs. I remember while channel surfing once, I saw a show about border collies herding sheep. Not during a competition a la Babe, they just followed folks out with their dogs. Where do they get funding to pay for such shows? If you have a TV in England, you must pay a yearly licensing fee. The fee, at least in part, goes to the BBC. When I was there many years ago, it reminded me of some DOT projects -- "Well, we got this money and we have to spend it, so that's why we did it" Seems hard to fathom there isn't enough funding in that behemoth to keep the site up.
Ignorance is not a crime; neither should it be a way of life
Congress control $ = inmates run the asylum
I didn't know about this site until it came up in this slashdot topic. Perhaps they should have linked to other sites like TV Cream which has all the theme tunes and info on British TV programming. Although, as other comments have stated, there's no point in the BBC maintaining a web site dedicated to TV programming from the USA.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
As a licence fee payer, I have no objection to supporting a national broadcasting organisation that provides good quality TV, radio and Internet services. The price I pay is a bargain compared to the subscriptions demanded by inferior networks in many other countries, and the BBC remains one of our strongest national assets.
What I do object to is the fact that the only people who pay for it are those in the UK with TVs. Why should someone who only listens to BBC radio not contribute, for example? Simply on principle, the BBC should be funded through a flat rate tax on the entire British population. If others benefit as well, e.g., from the BBC News web site, consider it a gift in the interest of good international relations, and a service to our citizens who are abroad.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What part of the concept of ``cult'' do they not understand. If they wanted lots of hits it wouldn't been very ``cultish'' now would it? They were hoping that their viewership would have number like, say, Star Trek?
Sorry if I seem to be struggling with the problem they claim to be having over putting up content that is decidedly less than mainstream and then complaining that the number of viewers isn't what they hoped. (If it pleases the court, i'm going to plead lack of caffiene.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I don't think we can trust the inaccurately-named 'internet archive'. There are two things we need to do 1) Petition. Hard. 2) Save all the content of the site, else the BBC will let it mould.
Let's help them out.
/dev/null --mirror --no-parent http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/ &
wget -o
Get your own free personal location tracker
Currently GB PLC is demonstrating that public enterprise is often better than private, contrary to the official government line. Failed privatised railways had to be rescued; private prisons are a humanitarian disaster; privatised schools are failing. So let's get the absolute flagship of public service, the BBC, and wreck it.
The amazing thing about this is that some of the British politicians who spout the privatisation nonsense - the unlamented M Thatcher among them - don't have a clue about how much the US depends on charities, not for profits, and local government at many levels, when it comes to delivering essential services. Sorry about the rant, but this whole thread is about the Government cutting BBC funds so it cannot do its job of ensuring that minority interests are heard. I guess next they'll be bringing in Fox to do the fair and balanced reporting that the BBC is famous for (but obviously getting wrong since sometimes it opposes the government...)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
If not, then I would be contributing to the maintenance and upkeep of a 101 sites of which are of little interest to anyone.
The BBC serves the public licence-paying viewers interests and if they are not interested in something, then it should not be wasting its money on such a project.
Without trying to sound completely negative, I hope that the BBC will be sensible enough to allow someone else to host the content and continue to maintain it.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Which raises the question: do UK colonies such as the Falkland Islands pay the licence fee ("telly tax") as well? I know that "commonwealth" countries that still consider themselves subject to the Crown in some way (such as Canada) do not pay it.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They're cancelling the web sites for everything *except* for Doctor Who. What wonderful Bizarro-world-paradise have I woken up in?
So where exactly does the BBC make episodes available to download? /Misses the old H2GT2G episodes watched back in the early 80s
lost like so much of it's other content.
Malkavian, read this important announcement!
It's not that tough!
The fact is that the BBC is a state broadcaster. It is funded by the license fee, (read: television tax) paid for by the general public, and maintained by government charter. Every so often this charter comes up for renewal. This gives the government of the day a chance to push its own agenda and influence the future of the BBC to its own advantage. If the BBC doesn't play along, the government can ensure that the threat of charter non-renewal hangs over the organization (effectively the end of the BBC as we know it).
The current government (the Blair administration as our American cousins may call it) is blatantly in love with private industry and wishes to ensure that the BBC does nothing to infringe on areas in which the private-sector could otherwise profit. The Blair government believes that the BBC has an unfair advantage in that it has guaranteed funding via the license fee and does not need to compete with other private-sector companies to maintain its profitability. Therefore the government has decreed that in order for the BBC to receive charter renewal, it has to relinquish anything that is not a "core public service function".
In a nutshell, the government argument to the BBC is: "If you're providing something that the private sector could do, it doesn't matter how useful, beneficial, or loved by the public it is... Kill it... We want our friends in big business to line their pockets with some half-assed imitation of what you do so well".
Sadly this has resulted in a severe over-reaction on the part of BBC management, who have subsquently decided to close down anything which doesn't fit this "core public service function" and have a demonstrable benefit to the license payer. Cult TV just doesn't cut it as far as they're concerned.
Well I know I tend not to bother looking at much mainstream media but I didn't even know this existed.
So now I take a look, it looks interesting, and they're shutting it down. Bloody typical.
Oh well I'd best get emailing the BBC to compain then eh ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
OK, who's going to mirror the site? Then torrent it?
The beeb has it's balls in a vice that is controlled by Tessa Jowell. After Hutton the BBC survived it's Charter Renewal with the licence fee intact on the condition that it reformed and spent less money.
The BBC had to sell off a bunch of it's departments in order to please our privatisation loving government.
Whilst I have no problem spending 120quid or so a year on the BBC a lot of other people do.
I expect the licence fee wont survive the next charter renewal and the BBC needs to reposition itself so that it has a chance of surviving once it's not being publicly funded.
IMO this will be a terrible loss to our country and perhaps the world.
Well I didn't even know there WAS a Cult TV repository ... never seen it advertised on BBC television programming or when looking through some BBC websites. I'm not surprised they've used the "reduction in public value" spiel because if I'm a typical member of the public, no-one would have known about this site. Sigh.
If you want it to be possessive, it's just 'I T S', but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's 'I T apostrophe S', scallawag!"
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Easy solution. Send it to Google Video. They're actively looking for content to host.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I actually always thought that the "TV license" model made a lot of sense. Better than how PBS/NPR is funded in the U.S. Public TV and radio stations get a certain percentage of their funding through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is in turn funded from tax dollars), with the rest of their funding coming from viewers/listeners who care enough to pay the stations to keep their programming on the air. Ever heard of a "fund drive"? Most proponents of public broadcasting put up with these drives 4 times a year, because they know it's the only way their local station can make enough money to stay on the air.
But then again, there is plenty of controversy now over how much money the CPB should get and whether or not NPR/PBS programs have an innate "liberal bias". (I'm pretty conservative, and the programs that I hear/see are always very balanced. If it looks like they have a liberal bias, it's only because the corporate media have a very conservative bent.)
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
"If it ain't broken, break it."
Adult prime-time cartoons? I know I can search google but I have no idea what I'm looking for or if it even exists.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
How on *earth* is this off topic?
I'm starting to think anyone who moderates off topic should be denied all further moderator points.
Why is this a troll? (I'm not the same A/C, btw)
Post a correction to an obvious grammatical error and you're a "grammar nazi". Post here something anti-Microsoft and you're not a "Linux nazi".
Grow up people. This stuff isn't complicated. Pronouns don't have apostrophes when they're possessive. If you think it doesn't matter then "he's" has to mean "belonging to him". It's doesn't. It's wrong. So is "it's" when "its" is meant.
At the very least, why can't they just leave the archive online without updating it? That wouldn't cost much money surely?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Attention, visitors of bbc.co.uk/cult. I regret to inform you that in order to make way for the new hyperspace express route to our new repository of commercial brainwashing dumbing bullshit, your website has been scheduled for demolition. Have a nice day.
I would gladly pay the equivalent price of a U.S. cable TV subscription ($35-$45 per month) for the ability to download and view BBC TV programs. If they threw in streaming of BBC Radio as well, that would seal the deal.
Too bad that I see so little chance of that happening.
Perhaps if the BBC did more to promote the resource more people would use it. I for one didn't know it existed.