Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-20 Thread Greg McCarroll

* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 
 ObLon.pm:  A buffy DW crossover would be cool...  In fact:
 http://members.iglou.com/scarfman/dwxst.htm
 

Buffy as the Doctor's assistant, now that would rock. Picture it
some shambling monster is coming down the corridor, Buffy and the
Doctor are stopped a large metal door.

D One second my dear, i'll have this open.
*The doctor hunts around in many pockets for his sonic screwdriver,
 taking out bits of string and packets of jellybabies as he does.*
B Hurry Doctor!
D Yes yes, one moment here it is!
M g, *shamble*
*the doctor starts to examine the lock and mutters all the time*
B Hurry!
D Please quiet, this is very delicate, hmmm ... aha i think i know
*Buffy loses it, pulls down the doctor aside, kicks the door down and goes to run
 with the doctor out, but suddenly stops, turns around and proceeds to
 beat up the shambling mound*
D What? What?
B Don't mention it, you can make it up to me by taking me
   shopping - there is simply oodles of closet space to fill
   in the tardis.



-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net



BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread Steve Mynott


Neil Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

 Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
 announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
 services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.

Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee.  There was
some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher
but its been off the political agenda since then.  The election of
Labour must have been a relief for them.

As for the "Beeb" carrying ads, well it has done this for several
years on its web site which was setup with ICL

http://www.beeb.net/

(this is the "Beeb" in the sense of "beeb Ventures Ltd", a subsidiary
of BBC Worldwide, the commercial arm of the BBC.)  Of course few
outside the corporation itself realise that "Beeb" is actually the
brandname of a profit making company with online shopping.

The BBC proper of course actually carries adverts on television for
its own commercial products like "Radio Times" and even political
adverts supporting the way its financed ("its the unique way .. blah
blah").  

But it doesn't carry adverts for anyone else.
 
 The BBC are definitely working towards the licence fee being withdrawn at some
 point by some government (hence all the curfuffle over ads on bbc.com), so
 alternative forms of financing will need to be sort.

The BBC is pragmatic enough to realise that long-term the licence fee
will probably go.

It's the how and when that are interesting!

-- 
1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED]

mary had a little key - she kept it in escrow, and every thing that
mary said, the feds were sure to know.  -- sam simpson



Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread Robin Szemeti

On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, you wrote:
 Neil Ford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
  Don't be suprised if by then the abolishment of the licence fee hasn't been
  announced and that the BBC hasn't announced subscription charges for it's
  services. Better that than the Beeb starts carrying ads.
 
 Politically the BBC has been lucky with its licence fee.  There was
 some discussion about abolishing it in the early 1980s under Thatcher
 but its been off the political agenda since then.  The election of
 Labour must have been a relief for them.

umm ... thats not quite true. The BBC has had quite a hard time of it
over the last  few years. In order to have its charter renewed in 199X it
had to undergo a series of reforms that basically tore the guts out of
it.  The sale of it transmision facilities and the moving of all its
'hardware' to BBC Resources Ltd are all as a result of that process. Over
the last 10 years its been a constant battle to try and maintain the
service. Every licence fee review (and they happen more often than
you might think) seems to involve more reforms being demanded from
government in order to approve this years fees.  

The licence fee has been subject to modest rises basically either in line
or slightly behind inflation. In an arena where the cost of broadcasting
is actually increasing at a rate somewhat above inflation this leaves an
ever increasing gap in the finances. This, coupled with a legal
requirement to have 25% of its programmes produced by external companies
(who typically cost 20% more than producing the same programme in house)
place further stresses on the budgets, leaving little money for in house
productions.

I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular
move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year
on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its
licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world.
The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking
adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the
50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV
advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are
now. 

Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely)
independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial
station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major
advertiser. YMMV

Several areas of the BBC have been split off into 'wholly owned, self
financing subsidiaries' that can compete against other players in the
market. this is not hugely popular with other players in the market, but
you can expect to see it start to flex its muscles a little more over the
next few years.

-- 
Robin Szemeti

The box said "requires windows 95 or better"
So I installed Linux!



Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread Piers Cawley

Robin Szemeti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 I think it likely that the licence fee will go. It would be a popular
 move with the Great Unwashed. ( who seem happy to spend 400 quid a year
 on a Sky subscription ), so I can see the BBC being released from its
 licence fee. This would have huge knock-ons in the commercial TV world.
 The advertising cake is only so big, if the BBC suddenly started taking
 adverts then I doubt many of the commercial stations would appreciate the
 50% drop in revenue. Assuming the BBC could decure 50% of the current TV
 advertising cake they would be significantly better off than they are
 now. 
 
 Personally I would rather pay a licence fee and have a (largely)
 independent public service broadcaster than yet another commercial
 station that can't say various things in case it upsets a major
 advertiser. YMMV

I'd be happy to pay a 400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no
adverts during programs. I'd probably be prepared to put up with
adverts between programs a la FilmFour. But if they ever start running
ads on Radio 4 then they can whistle for my money.

But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I
want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and
less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap
shit. 

-- 
Piers, who can't remember the last time he watched anything on ITV.




Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread David H. Adler

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 03:42:48PM +0100, Piers Cawley wrote:
 
 I'd be happy to pay a 400/year voluntary sub for a BBC with no
 adverts during programs. 

...

 But for that they're going to have to stop producing so much crap. I
 want more stuff of the quality of Clocking Off and Walk On By, and
 less of the vets in kitchens making your home look horrible cheap
 shit. 

Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
My theory is that his ignorance clouded his poor judgement.
- Alice, in Dilbert's office



Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread Greg McCarroll

* David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 
 Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...
 

If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?

-- 
Greg McCarroll  http://www.mccarroll.uklinux.net



Re: BBC was Re: Beginners Guide

2001-04-19 Thread David H. Adler

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 07:31:59PM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
 * David H. Adler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
  
  Make them start producing Doctor Who again, while you're at it...
  
 
 If they do start doing Doctor Who again it will have a finite lifespan,
 is he not near the maximum number or lives a timelord can regenerate?

Nah.  He's only up to his 8th incarnation.  he's got 13.  Also,
depending on how you look at things, he may be a special case.

[note: this does not take the comic relief special as canon...]

dha
-- 
David H. Adler - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Well (s)he is only a type of deer after all so its particularly
spectacular to have learnt English from only 'A Stranger in a Strange
Land' and 'A Clockwork Orange'  - Jonathan Stowe in c.l.p.misc
(It was even better *in* context... :-)