BBC Returns To Making Computers For Schools

Raging Bool writes According to the BBC News website, the BBC is returning to producing comparatively inexpensive computers for schools. Readers of sufficient age will remember the BBC Model B with great affection. But won't this be in competition with other pre-existing devices such as Arduino and Raspberry Pi? The BBC says not: "The BBC does not see Micro Bit as a rival to similar devices such as Raspberry Pi, Arduino, Galileo and Kano, but rather hopes it will act as a 'springboard' to these more complex machines." I hope they're at least consulting with Eben Upton.

Comments

Became ARM

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was Acorn Computers that made the BBC model B. They went on to make a RISC processor, ARM, the most successful processor sold by unit volume. The one in your smartphone and TV box and car and Raid and router and and and and ....

All possible because the BBC decided to pump money into a computer back in the 80's when the computer industry was a hobby.

Re:Became ARM

[CeasedCaring]

Before the BBC sponsorship deal, the BBC Micro was originally called the Acorn Proton. It was a successor to their previous model, the Acorn Atom.

Re:Became ARM

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the U.K. the BBC-B didn't draw that much attention though, mostly due to the price tag. Agreed, it was a solid computer, rugged enough to be placed in, say, a class room. In the Netherlands, the Philips P2000 was used for that mostly http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... . Admittingly the BBC-B was more solid and had a better keyboard, but no fancies like internal disk or cassette drive - one of the great features of those Philips computers. Hop along, put in personal cassette and within a minute (or 3) run the stuff you want or were working on.

What i did see in the hobby sphere were a casual Apple II, Acorn electron (mini-beeb), Atari VIC20, ZX80 or ZX81(Timex), and a vast majority of C64's and ZXSpectrum's. No-one i know possessed a BBC-B. We all heard of it's famous RISC processor though, as the Acorn guy could proudly tell about all it's advantages over our inferior Z80's and 6502's.

Re:Became ARM

[Raging Bool]

Yes, but the BBC Micro was licensed and heavily promoted via the BBC, and Acorn brought their demo system to a meeting with the BBC to win the manufacturing contract. The BBC controlled the specification of the computer, so they were (in the movie sense of the term) the producer. Acorn were a very gifted art department.

Acorn, followed and ARM would not be where they were and are today if they had not managed to win that BBC contract.

Re:Became ARM

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one i know possessed a BBC-B. We all heard of it's famous RISC processor though, as the Acorn guy could proudly tell about all it's advantages over our inferior Z80's and 6502's.

Just to clarify - the BBC B did not have a RISC processor. It had a 2 MHz 6502, although it did make incredible use of its power.

One of the nicest features of the BBC B was its wealth of hardware interfaces, including what was called The Tube which allowed the connection of additional processors. You could add a second 6502, or a Z80, or even in the latter days, an ARM.

Acorn were very late in moving on from the 8-bit 6502, toying for a while with the 32016/16032, but eventually deciding to design their own 32 bit processor from scratch. The first version of this - the ARM 1 - was available as a second processor for the BBC B. Then they went on to make the Acorn Archimedes, which had an ARM 2 as its standard processor, later upgradeable to an ARM 3.

ARM was spun off as a separate company from Acorn, and then eventually what was left of Acorn was absorbed by ARM. The processor is a lovely design, and it's nice to see it now has the success it always deserved.

Re:Became ARM

[LWATCDR]

And the BBC Micro was not inexpensive.
It was really cool, had lots of IO, and probably was a great system for schools but it was not inexpensive.

Re:Became ARM

[Dr_Barnowl]

Yeah, it cost £400, which is £1,400 adjusted for inflation.

The "inexpensive" version (the Acorn Electron) still cost £200. My grandparents chipped in to help my parents buy me one.

In real terms, the Raspberry Pi (which is a fair-ish comparison - not as much I/O, but still doesn't have it's own screen, like the BBC) costs less than £10 adjusted to 1981.

Price is not the issue. People found the money back then. Computing hardware is incredibly cheap now. You can get a full laptop with screen, for a small fraction of what the BBC cost.

The issue is the wealth of distractions available to youth BECAUSE computer hardware is now incredibly cheap and ubiquitous.

Re:Became ARM

[TWX]

So you're saying, they found a way to make 'em leak oil?

(the old joke being, "Why don't the British build computers? Because they haven't figured out how to make 'em leak oil yet.")

Re:Became ARM

[rklrkl]

The BBC Micro was the best 8-bit micro ever, but the price was very expensive (it was sort of the UK equivalent of Apple I guess, except it was *far* better than the Apple II). I'm not sure about the wisdom of internal floppy drives and cassette tape mechanisms - makes them tougher to replace if anything goes wrong with them. The BBC Micro needed a disk interface chip adding, but once that's done, any sort of external floppy drive could be used.

The BBC Micro had a 2Mhz 6502 - it wasn't until 1987 that the Acorn Archimedes had the ARM 2 processor (ARM 1 was actually part of a TUBE-based add-on for the BBC Micro). I had both machines and loved the two OS'es and their respective BASICs (with a built-in assembler, which was a touch of genius).

Re:Became ARM

[shippo]

The BBC Micro also integrated with the BBC's CEEFAX teletext service, if equipped with the relevant add-on adaptor. The Model B's mode 7 graphics were a full implementation of the then teletext graphics standard. Not only could the BBC Micro then display standard CEEFAX pages, but the BBC also broadcast other content specifically for use with this adaptor, under what was known as Telesoftware. This content was mainly BASIC applications, some of which tied in with the BBC's own TV shows for schools, but there was other content including weather maps and teacher's notes for specific TV episodes. The Telesoftware service ceased in late 1989, around the same time as the BBC's tie-up with Acorn ended. During the last year of the service the BBC also served some DOS-PC content, but take-up of the service wasn't enough to warrant keeping it going once the rest of the service ceased.

Re:Became ARM

[ihtoit]

the Model A was £235, the B £335 in 1981. I still have mine. Still works, too. (!)

Re:Became ARM

[Dr_Barnowl]

The price rapidly went up to £400 for the Model B (as the Wikipedia page states, lower down) due to supply issues.

Re:Became ARM

[ihtoit]

that's a load. It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected. For its time it was the dog's bollocks of home computers, the keyboard was definitely built to last - unlike the membrane board on the ZX81 which would short and stick if you blew on it wrong. OK so it was thrice the price of the ZX81, but hell, it was worth all those washed cars.

Re:Became ARM

[Dogtanian]

the Model A was £235, the B £335 in 1981

The price rapidly went up to £400 for the Model B (as the Wikipedia page states, lower down) due to supply issues.

It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected.

What the Wikipedia article *actually* says is that the price increase was due to "due to increased costs", same as the contemporary referenced article claims. Since UK inflation was still high by modern standards- around 11 to 12%- circa 1981/82 (albeit steeply down from the eye-watering 18% it hit in 1980), it's quite possible that the increase was at least partly legitimate.

That aside, it's also worth remembering that most people's experience and memory of the BBC Micro will have been of the more common- but also more expensive (£335/£400)- Model B which became the de facto base model. (The Model A only included 16K RAM- not even enough to use the most demanding graphics modes- and omitted many of the interfaces, and despite its cheaper price never sold as well (*))

And *that* is just the base machine- it doesn't include the disk drives and RGB monitors that many of us remember using the computer with; (**) even at my most conservative (and generous) guesstimate, both those would probably have come close to doubling the cost of a BBC B system and made it around £2000 to £2500 in today's money.

Yes, even a "bare" Model A with a tape deck and plugged into a TV was still better than the ZX81, but it was three or four times the cost. I'll always have a soft spot for the BBC Micro, but it was never cheap, and the ZX81 can be forgiven because it *was* much cheaper and affordable to people who didn't have a chance in hell of buying a BBC.

(*) Just guessing here, but since schools were a significant chunk of the BBC's sales- even the Model A was an expensive machine for home users- they may not have considered the Model A worth the saving given the loss of functionality. Especially if they were going to be adding the aforementioned expensive monitor and drives anyway.

(**) Again, often in schools.

Re:Became ARM

[Xest]

And yet the UK technology industry still manages to piss it all away and be an also-ran.

Seriously. How the fuck do we do it?

Re:Became ARM

[BasilBrush]

It's far more likely that the price was hiked because more people were buying it than expected.

Two ways of saying the same thing. Match demand to the supply. The waiting list was a couple of months or so at the time as I recall, and Acorn were having cash flow problems increasing production so dampening demand whilst upping the revenue was a sensible decision.

Surprised the contract with the BBC was flexible enough to let them do it though.

Re:Became ARM

[LWATCDR]

I have to add that I never saw a BBC computer for sale in the US at all. Sinclair's where around but the kings where the C64, the Atari, and a few Apples for the people that had the money or where really into the Computers.

Re:Became ARM

[tehcyder]

And the BBC Micro was not inexpensive. It was really cool, had lots of IO, and probably was a great system for schools but it was not inexpensive.

There weren't any inexpensive computers in the early 1980s.

Re:Became ARM

[LWATCDR]

Yes there was.
The Sinclair/Timex TS1000
Vic 20
Commodore 64.
ZX Spectrum
All where pretty inexpensive by 1984 The BBC micro was not.

Re:Became ARM

[Dogtanian]

Yeah, I heard they tried marketing it in the US, but it wasn't a major success. The BBC's main success here was in schools, and AFAIK the Apple II was one of the biggest sellers for that purpose over there; possibly it was already established by the time the BBC came out.

It should also be noted that the reverse is also true to some extent- while the Apple II was far from unknown over here (my Dad had one of the later ones at work), it was never (AFAICT) as prominent as it was in the US. Possibly because they waited a couple of years to launch it here and the PAL versions didn't have colour (Wozniak's method for generating colour was tied to NTSC timing). Also, computer markets were far more localised in the late-70s/early-80s.

More Complex?

[Gonoff]

If things like the Pi are so much more complex, just how simple is this new device?
I am thinking an abacus with a battery light...

Re: More Complex?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

They might mean 'complex' in the sense that an arduous isn't going to do much without access to a real computer with the dev tools installed; and won't do much that is visible without some basic electrical bodging to connect LEDs and switches or the like. Based on the photos, it looks like they went for something that includes some rudimentary display capabilities by default and may even be modestly programmable without hooking it up to a full PC. That would arguably make it 'less complex' in terms of integration into a classroom. In terms of onboard hardware, I'd be shocked if it isn't more complex than most arduinos. They have good reasons(maturity, code base, and tool chain count for a lot); but Arduinos have actually stuck with rather retro chips and changed only slowly, even as Cortex-M0s and such have come to offer rather more punch for about the same money.

One slightly surprising thing: if you are going to the trouble of spinning a totally new device, why not stick a thumb in TI's eye(and save money), by making that totally new device a calculator-styled system that also has some GPIO and onboard or external programmability?

Why hardware?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I can understand the desire to jump into hardware when what you want is currently unavailable(while it arguably failed, the OLPC XO was something that simply wasn't available for purchase until they showed that they were serious about being willing to build them. It was mostly eclipsed by commercial offerings not too much later; but at the time there wasn't anything quite like it, certainly not for the price); but 'relatively friendly intro dev boards' isn't really a category that currently feels neglected. If anything, it is booming. What is the incentive for the BBC to spin yet-another-slightly-different board, rather than glom on to the existing product or product family closest to their needs and focus on a combination of curriculum/documentation and tool chain polish to ensure smooth use in education, even when the teacher isn't a microcontroller geek?

Re:Why hardware?

[drinkypoo]

What is the incentive for the BBC to spin yet-another-slightly-different board,

I'm guessing it's meant to be a bit more homegrown. Nationalism is pretty much the story. After all, Arduino is Italian ;)

Re:Why hardware?

[dave420]

More British than the already-British Raspberry Pi?

Re:Why hardware?

[fche]

" What is the incentive for the BBC to spin ..."

To try to stay relevant - to try to justify their tax-income.

Re:Why hardware?

[drinkypoo]

More British than the already-British Raspberry Pi?

Manufactured by Sony and with a core with closed, foreign drivers.

Re:Why hardware?

[ihtoit]

the MOS 6502 was built in Pennsylvania.

Just sayin'.

Re:Your tax £.

[Chrisq]

Yet another pointless waste of money by the BBC.

Well - informing and educating is in it's charter and if done successfully it is a bit difficult to argue that it is more of a waste of money than many of their programs.

Re:Your tax £.

[itzly]

And when they did this with the BBC Computer it gave a big boost to Acorn Computers, which probably helped them getting into developing the ARM CPU. And ARM has repaid that initial BBC investment many times over.

Doesn't address the issue

[Dr_Barnowl]

.. and I'm not sure what will.

The reason that kids of my age were "into computers" and we had a "great generation" of bedroom programmers who subsequently became tech workers was because simple, programmable computers were one of the few forms of entertainment available to the kids who didn't want to go out and kick a ball around or ride their bike.

This was an era when

* Things were more expensive (the toys cost.. about what they do, in numbers, these days. Only inflation means that £30 is not even 10 pints of beer for dad these days when it was more like 60 pints of beer back then.) A £200 home computer was a MAJOR expense rather than an impulse buy.
* There was an hour of kids TV on weekdays

And of course

* NO INTERNET - no personal portable devices of bottomless instant gratification

I saw a great article that explained that the no.1 quality a programmer needs is persistence - in the face of ridiculous odds of getting even simple things to work.

Back then you persevered with things because the only other thing to do was go and watch Coronation Street with mother, or re-read one of the few books you could afford this month. Even deciding to start playing a game wasn't exactly an impulse choice because to load it took about 5 minutes (from audio cassette tape).

Producing more simple, programmable computers these days is missing the point, although they are greatly appreciated by folks from that great generation of bedroom programmers who like a new toy to tinker with.

What's probably needed is better software. Better like A Young Lady's Illustrated Primer better.

Re:Doesn't address the issue

[Dr_Barnowl]

This is true, but you had to go somewhere to obtain them.

I very fondly remember my trips to the public library with Mum (a lot of the time I would bring back these excellent Usborne programming books).

But you had a 3 book limit (and Mum was usually kind enough to let me get something on her card as well). I'd go through that very quickly. When the library is a 40-minute round trip on foot (and you're not allowed to ride on main roads on your bike by your parents), that's a major investment of time. Faced with that, the kids of today (and despite things being much safer... they're allowed out on their own much less..) are going to plump for instant gratification every time - visit the App Store for a new pesterware game, or YouTube.

this is what the BBC is all about?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

"This is exactly what the BBC is all about - bringing the industry together on an unprecedented scale and making a difference to millions,"

Really? It's the job of a public broadcasting organization financed largely by mandatory TV and Internet license fees to give away a million embedded systems, most of which will simply gather dust or blink a few times, on the theory that programming will continue to be a lucrative profession 20 years down the road?

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm aside, yes it is.

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[BasilBrush]

The BBC Micro was a phenomenal success in the 1980s. And I don't mean just in terms of sales, I mean in terms of priming the pumps for computer literacy. The BBC Micro, in combination with the TV programmes, and it's classroom ruggedness was vital. The ZX Spectrum was seldom used for anything but playing poor quality games in kids bedrooms.

Why the BBC now? Because it'll combine with educational TV programmes.

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The BBC Micro was a phenomenal success in the 1980s. And I don't mean just in terms of sales, I mean in terms of priming the pumps for computer literacy.

Relative to what?

Why the BBC now? Because it'll combine with educational TV programmes.

So what?

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[BasilBrush]

Relative to what?

To computer illiteracy.

So what?

Is this grumpy pointless question time?

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

To computer illiteracy.

Well, that's not a good relative measure. After all, plenty of countries managed to avoid computer illiteracy without the BBC, television license fees, or subsidies. The question is: what did the BBC subsidy demonstrably accomplish relative to simply letting the market take care of computer literacy?

Is this grumpy pointless question time?

No, I simply do not understand your justification. Should the BBC send out free cooking spoons for its cooking shows? Free musical instruments for music shows? Why?

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[BasilBrush]

I'm sorry I'm not the slightest bit interested in the BBC having to justify their actions. I lived through it, and it was a wonderful thing. That's good enough for me. Actually more than good enough for me, that BBC Micro started me off into my career.

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Ah, privilege justifying itself and its tax subsidies

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[BasilBrush]

Stick your UKIP nonsense up your jacksie.

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Again, look who's talking: white upper middle class, university educated twit.

And the reason for your left wing positions is because you're too lazy and self-important to help other people yourself; so much easier to just take a superior political position and vote that other people's money take care of problems, real or imagined.

Re:this is what the BBC is all about?

[BasilBrush]

You're quite the fantasist.

Re:Your tax £.

[CodeArtisan]

Part of the BBC's brief is to educate. I'd much rather have this than another series of Strictly Come Dance With My Great Sewing Bee Cup Cakes.

What are the Specs?

[nukenerd]

FTFA :-

"The BBC does not see Micro Bit as a rival to ... Raspberry Pi, Arduino, Galileo and Kano, but rather hopes it will act as a "springboard" to these more complex machines ....it will be compatible with three coding languages - Touch Develop, Python and C++.

It has a C++ compiler but is not complex? Seriously, intoducing kids to coding using C++? Things like the RPi don't need a springboard to reach them anyway. All these things can be used as simple as you like or as complex as you like. What OS is this thing using anyway?

the BBC is being careful not to repeat the mistakes of the BBC Microcomputer launch, which angered rivals such as Sinclair

Why was "angering" Sinclair a "mistake"? He was just another micro manufacturer so was hardly to be expected to welcome a new rival. Couldn't they have told him to f#@k off?

the BBC is working with several partners, including chip-designer Arm, Microsoft and Samsung, to get the end product right.

Microsoft? Now they are angering me.

Re:bring back JC

[amalcolm]

The guy's a prat and desreves what's coming

Arduino-alike

[evilandi]

>just how simple is this new device?

I reckon an Arduino-alike. Possibly something as simple as other low-end ATMega or ATTiny werables like Adafruit Trinket, Flora or even Adafruit Gemma, only with a 5x5 LED array and two switches built-in.

https://www.adafruit.com/produ...

In some respects, these things are even less powerful than the original BBC Model B; 8k of flash & 0.5k of RAM on the Trinket compared to 32k of RAM on the Beeb. In other respects, they're a little bit more powerful; 8MHz or 16MHz RISC on the Trinket compared to 2MHz 6502 on the Been (compare that to 900MHz quad-core RISC on the latest $35 Raspberry Pi).

Either way, they're not going to be running a graphical desktop and almost certainly will need to be programmed bare-metal (i.e. pre-compiled programs only, no interpreted languages, no operating system). You'll probably need another "proper" computer (such as a PC, Raspberry Pi or mid-range tablet) to program it with. TCP/IP stack (internet connection) is almost certainly out too, but a Bluetooth serial connection is a goer.

Really what we are talking about, in modern terms, is a microcontroller, not a computer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'd guess the BBC Bit would have a retail value somewhere between five and ten quid (US$8-15).

A News Agency is making Computers?

[wisnoskij]

What? Shouldn't we get competent people within their area of expertise do that? Isn't the BBS owned by the British government? Don't they have to explain their expenses and stay within their charter? AKA We give you X million a year to produce good British programming, not run amusement parts or build condominiums.

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[dave420]

The BBC is not a news agency, it is a public broadcaster which has a charter it must abide by. It is not owned by the British Government. According to its charter, it has 6 public purposes:

1. 1. Sustaining citizenship and civil society
2. 2. Promoting education and learning
3. 3. Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence
4. 4. Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities
5. 5. Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK
6. 6. Delivering to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services

This initiative falls squarely under #2 (and arguably under #6), similar to how the BBC helped popularise home computers in the 1980s, which as a nice side-benefit created the ARM processor and raked in all sorts of money for the UK government.

You might want to understand what's being discussed before getting all internet-outrage-y and demonstrating your ignorance on the topic ;)

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[serviscope_minor]

You might want to understand what's being discussed before getting all internet-outrage-y and demonstrating your ignorance on the topic ;)

Frankly, I think you misunderstand the entire purpose of the internet :)

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[ihtoit]

the BBC is a Central Government agency.

http://www.publications.parlia... page 11:

24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to
the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also
affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[ihtoit]

they're not a public service broadcaster, they're the Propaganda Arm of the State.

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[HornWumpus]

All 'public service broadcasters' are 'Propaganda Arms of the State'. Duh.

Re:A News Agency is making Computers?

[Xest]

Yeah, we'd never have held onto the Falklands if it weren't for old Attenborough telling those Argies all about their parrots.

Re:Raspberry Pi and Ardueno are ARM chips

[ArhcAngel]

Also Jeremy Clarkson for Prime Minister!

My first thought when I saw the headline was that the BBC is throwing this out there to distract from the Jeremy Clarkson fracas.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Raumkraut]

Go home Sir Clive, you're drunk.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[nukenerd]

The BBC, a profoundly well-known tax-funded State organization

Not tax funded. It is funded by the TV licence fee, a different thing.

then shafted every other business in that home computing field by adding their name to the product and taking a cut of the profits ... thus decimating the choice of computers available to them by reducing competition by heavily favouring one particular computer.

What BS - sounds like you are airing a pet issue . Were you in the UK at that time? I was, and the BBC micro cetainly did not "shaft" every or any other business. Amstrad and Sinclair computers were much more popular. I only knew one person who bought a BBC micro, he was middle-aged and bought it second-hand. The BBC micros had the image of being geared to education and wee thus rather boring.

A quick visit to Wikipedia confirms that only 1.5 million BBCs were sold. Amstrad sold 3 million CPCs around that time and 8 million PCWs. Meanwhile Sinclair sold 5 million Spectrums.

These days, so many "respected" organisations sell their name to be attached to commercial products (my Alma Mater even rents its name to be put on credit cards) that surely people realise it means nothing anymore.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[serviscope_minor]

It wasn't just that they were geared towards education, they were geared specifically to schools.

Firstly they were built like a brick shithouse. 8mm thick ABS casing and a monitor that came in 3mm steel plate. Proper key switches (none of that rubber nastiness) with individual, replacable keys. Those things were nearly indestructable.

Lots of I/O options so they could be hooked up to other hardware. My school had a BBC with not only a LOGO ROM, but a real LOGO turtle which trundled around the floor and drew what you typed, connected over one of the hardware interfaces.

They also came with a wealth of optional hardware, such as tapes, floppies and network interfaces, with ROM expansion ports to support them. My school had a network of BBCs with some central fileserver, and so only a limited number of restricted machines had the expensive and fragile floppy drives.

And so on.

Generally they were rather on the expensive side compared to the competition for home use.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[ihtoit]

the TV Licence is in fact a tax. From http://www.publications.parlia... :

Page 11:

The licence fee as a tax

22. Since our last report there has been a significant change in the position of the licence fee. In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax. Previously, this payment had been classified in the National Accounts as a service charge. Explaining the change the Office of National Statistics (ONS) says “in line with the definition of a tax, the licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite, cable”.

23. We are not convinced by this argument not least because it has been the case that a licence has been required to view any television channel in the UK for
many decades. Nevertheless the decision means that from now on the licence fee will be recognised as a form of hypothecated taxation.

24. Reclassification of the licence fee as a tax also has the consequence that the BBC is reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sub-sector to
the central government sector. The status of the BBC is thus also affected by this decision and it becomes a central government body. This change also
affects the Welsh broadcaster S4C.

25. When announcing its decision the ONS tried to offer some reassurance that “These classifications are solely for the purpose of producing National
Accounts and the statistical products based on them. This has no implication for the independence of these broadcasters”.

The upshot is that enforcement is now in the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, rather than the civil system. In an attempt to remove any further doubt, the Government are attempting to legislate to reflect this position but sneakily: by abolishing the TV Licence and reintroducing it as an all-households tax (call it an "Air tax"?), so you have to pay it whether you have a TV or not, to also remove the requirement and burden of proof that a TV is in fact present.

Boooooo...

[wonkey_monkey]

...beep!

Is the noise it had better make on boot.

Re:Your tax £.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes, obviously the BBC totally anticipated that didn't they.

I'm sure they anticipated that investing in technology and education would pay off in some way for the UK economy, absolutely.

Re:Gee... blacks, perhaps?

[ihtoit]

This is why I've only ever bought two computer systems in my entire life. First one was a BBC Model B back in the 80's, the second one was a laptop in 2011. All my other systems are parts cobbled together with spit and hair. All of them get used until they catch fire.

Re:Your tax £.

[dave420]

Then I should read the bible and come to the conclusion that all Christians are slave-owning monsters killing people to sate the desires of a perverted God who loves to force people into horrific situations for his own vanity? See how that works?

You are pathetic.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Xest]

"The upshot is that enforcement is now in the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system, rather than the civil system."

No it's not. License fee evasion is still dealt with entirely in the civil justice system. I doubt the BBC would even want it reclassified because it'd require a higher standard of evidence for a criminal trial than for a civil trial and that'd massively increase the cost to them of enforcement. Right now they can win trials by knocking up shoddy, and frankly unacceptably poor standards of evidence, if it went criminal they'd probably never win a case again.

"by abolishing the TV Licence and reintroducing it as an all-households tax (call it an "Air tax"?), so you have to pay it whether you have a TV or not, to also remove the requirement and burden of proof that a TV is in fact present."

Right but that actually makes an awful lot of sense. The license fee doesn't just pay for the BBC, it helps fund ITV, Channel 4, and Channel 5. It pays for all our broadcast infrastructure including for both TV and radio. It pays for iPlayer and the BBC website.

I doubt there's a person in the UK that can't honestly say they haven't consumed a service at least in part paid for by the license fee. If you've ever read an article on the BBC website, or using their numerous apps you've done it. If you've watched iPlayer you've done it, if you've watched any of the hundred odd Terrestrial freeview channels you've done it, if you've ever listened to the radio you've done it.

The license fee isn't even close to fit for purpose anymore, because the range of things it covers is necessarily expanding as technology improves and habits change. It makes sense to keep our tax system uptodate to represent reality, rather than have it outdated and nonsensical.

Why should people who own TVs subsidise everyone else? It makes far more sense to spread the cost and have everyone pay for something that everyone uses. We can finally get rid of free TV licenses for elderly millionaires and other such idiocy at the same time.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[ihtoit]

no, the licence fee funds the BBC only. The others are funded by advertising revenue. Licence fee evasion has been a criminal matter since April 2007. iPlayer and the BBC website are both funded by the commercial arm of the BBC (BBC Worldwide).

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Xest]

So why are the BBC listing online in their license fee expenditure?

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c...

Stop making shit up.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[ihtoit]

because all the content on iplayer is fee funded, as is all the content on youview and on the red button. The infrastructure is maintained by BBC Worldwide.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Xest]

That doesn't even make any sense, all BBC funded content is funded under the TV break down (~£2.2bn) because there's next to no iPlayer only content, it's just content already shown on TV. The online break down of ~£170m is for the BBC websites. Also, not all iPlayer content is fee funded, a number of iPlayer programs are supplied by BBC Worldwide and produced for foreign commercial sale, sometimes alongside other foreign organisations like America's Discovery Channel.

I'm also still not entirely sure how you think the UK's broadcast infrastructure is funded by ads. The people manning the infrastructure have no process for displaying ads themselves or gaining money from it. The BBC Trust has in the past stated that around 6% (~£200m) of the license fee goes on transmission costs which is the lion's share of the costs. Why do you think that has changed? how do you proclaim the companies running the transmitters are injecting ads into things and gaining revenue from it when as far as the broadcasters are aware they greenlight the ads and pocket the profits with the commercial channels simply paying a token amount for access and usage?

Re:State-funded Businesses

[ihtoit]

what the fuck are you on about? ITV and the Sky channels are ALL commercial channels funded SOLELY BY ADVERTISING. THEY RECEIVE NOT ONE SOLITARY PENNY FROM THE BBC LICENCE FEE.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Xest]

Erm, why are you even having this discussion if you believe that ITV has it's own private terrestrial broadcast infrastructure? You're completely out of your depth here. ITV, Channel 5, and Channel 4 are broadcast on the public service multiplexes, along with a bunch of radio stations, the funding for which is provided from the license fee under the transmission costs.

If the license fee has nothing to do with public infrastructure costs, why do you think hundreds of millions of pounds of license fee money have been diverted to the BDUK broadband rollout? The license fee has always been about funding more than just the BBC itself. That's why it's called the TV license, not the BBC license, and that's why it's a license you must pay if you use the UK's broadcast infrastructure even if you never watch BBC channels or use BBC content. That's also why there is now an argument to make it a tax that's simply paid by everyone given that everyone uses it - you could get FTTC in your home because of license fee money and never ever watch or have anything to do with the BBC but you're still benefiting from license fee money.

Sky has it's own satellite infrastructure, but we haven't been talking about satellite channels, we've been talking about terrestrial. That's why I said terrestrial from the outset.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[ihtoit]

I won't argue with you not because you are wrong (which you are and I have succinctly explained why you are wrong), I won't argue with you because you're an idiot.

Re:State-funded Businesses

[Xest]

Well at least you have the courage to admit you were wrong in a roundabout way involving trying to pretend someone else was wrong. I guess it was the old BDUK point that was the killer right? I mean it's kind of hard to argue that the license fee isn't used for infrastructure when, er, it clearly and indisputably is.

I know what you really mean is "I wont argue with you because you've proven me wrong, but I'm too much of a child to admit it so fuck you!".

It's okay, you don't have to pretend with me - I'm smart enough to see what people like you really mean, the old idiot insult is usually the first giveaway, but at least if nothing else you were man enough to know when it's time to shut up and stop making a bigger fool of yourself, so well done on that.