<<But not everyone has the resources to publish and distribute - unless you consider YouTube to be an acceptable delivery system. Neither does every consumer have the ability to watch video delivered over the internet. You forget that not everyone is a geek - a common problem on this list of late. >>
Were well along the road to every consumer having the ability to watch video over the net thats what were talking about here: the future, not the past. My 88 year old neighbour got his first PC a few weeks ago and he s already choosing to view things over the net rather than from the TV. <<The BBC is a public service, producing and showing content that is (in theory, and usually, in practice) fair, objective and free from bias. The unique way it's funded also means that it's free of the "everything must make money!" constraint that commercial broadcasters are tied by - which means it can produce and/or show minority interest content, and get that content out to a potentially huge audience. >> I dont think the above holds water. Saying that all licence fee payers should pay to produce minority interest content is ridiculous. It is just short of theft to take money off an old lady and use it to make programmes that the BBC wants to make. If people want minority programming, they should be able to subscribe to a specialist broadcaster. Its all part of the paternal view of programming that were stuck with from the 1950s the world has moved on and it is time the BBC/broadcasting in general actually caught up. The BBC think they know what is good for people and try to serve it up the way they want to serve it .. in the past people couldn't go elsewhere, but today they have choices and they choose in their millions to watch other channels, use the net, etc. People try to say the BBC is the benchmark for broadcasting. I think it is as well, but only in the sense that is the standard of mediocrity that all other channels know that can match the BBC hasnt pushed the boundaries of broadcasting for years. We may in fact have far higher standards if we just got rid of the all pervading self-satisfied and delusional smugness of the BBC. <<Now that just sounds like sour grapes. Has your personal web project not managed to get venture capital funding or something?>> Dont have an unfunded web project, so no sour grapes just feel on the widest possible canvas that having a great dinosaur like the BBC just isnt any good for innovation, creativity, multicultural diversity, ingenuity, etc <<Additionally, you're complaining about the BBC not providing everything online for free - and then complain that it's funding the web activities and services it does provide. Make your mind up.>> Im not complaining that the BBC doesnt provide everything online for free and Im not complaining about the web activities it does provide: Im just pointing out that the BBC cannot control how broadcast material is used after it has been broadcast (far better for the BBC to deal with realities rather than fantasies) and that its funding is unjustifiable in a modern and diverse multimedia age. If the BBCs services and output are as great as the people at the BBC think it are, then why do so many people choose not to watch the BBC? If the programmes are so fantastic and appealing, why do people choose to watch American imports, telephone game shows, other channels, the net, etc. The BBC is in a big naval gazing bubble. It thinks it knows what is best for people and it ignores the evidence before its eyes when it sees people switching off. It ridicules other programming and yet it cant keep its audience. Bizarre, to me. Cheers Josh
