Mark Kent wrote:
> William Poaster <wp@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Mark Kent wrote:
<snip>
>>> How anyone, even Kier, could possibly argue that passing £280 Millions
>>> of our licence-fee cash would not result in layoffs in an environment of
>>> capped licence-fee increases is quite beyond me.
>>
>> Quite amazing isn't it.
>
> Perhaps he has a view that there are just millions sloshing around in
> bank accounts at the BBC, and the layoffs which have been going on for
> the last 10 years, since the government insisted that they bought cheap
> imports instead of making good radio and television, haven't been
> happening. "see no evil".
>
>>
>>> That the BBC are trying to blame the licence-fee cap for this shows just
>>> how completely dishonest and corrupt that organisation has become -
>>> they've fully embraced the Microsoft Integrity Model.
>>
>> Including getting more bloated too, IMO. They seem to think that they
>> have a "captured audience" in the licence fee payer, who is a bottomless
>> pit to finance every whim that some brainless idiot thinks up. IMO they
>> should just concentrate on *broadcasting* radio & tv.
>
> Well, they've employed failed senior people from Microsoft, so clearly,
> they're looking for an approach where you lock in your customers and
> control their behaviour.
It would seem so.
>> Just as an aside, with even more repeats now being shown on the BBC, who
>> the hell would want an iPlayer *anyway* to see something which is
>> repeated again & again, & again? I don't, but that's just my 2p worth.
>> ;-)
>
> We need a reset on the whole model. The *first* thing to do is to
> require the BBC to source no more than, say, 5% of its programming
> externally, staged over a few years, so that they have time to build up
> proper production facilities again.
>
> Then, they can work on selling the excellent material they make abroad
> in order to make up some of the costs of producing good television in
> the first place.
Yes. The BBC has totally lost it's way IMO &, as you say, the whole model
needs resetting.
It was interesting to read an article published in The Guardian in 2006,
which contained:
<quote>
The NUJ is one of 14 trade unions signed up to "The Public Services Not
Private Profit" campaign, which is backed by 80 MPs opposed to what they
fear is a government agenda to privatise public services.
Pointing to the BBC white paper, which "opens the door to handing over large
sums of public money to commercial operators and placing substantial
restrictions on the BBC's ability to operate", Mr Dear said the corporation
was also prey to a barrage of criticism from lobby groups with vested
interests.
<unquote>
Well there you have it. A white paper published by the BBC *themselves*,
which people predicted was a carte-blanche to hand over "large sums of
public money to commercial operators" (read M$) "placing substantial
restrictions on the BBC's ability to operate" (read large redundancies).
As I said, that was in July 2006. By October 2007, that prediction came to
pass.
So you have to ask, just *whose* interest do the BBC and its public service
commitment whose serve? The viewers & listeners, or *their own* commercial
or political interest. Well we know where M$'s interests lie, & it ain't
with the consumer.
It was interesting to note too, that at the time there were loud calls for
the licence fee to be scrapped & to limit the BBC's online services. There
were fears, in some quarters, about some commercial interests "gaining the
most from the diluting or removal of the public service commitments and
marginalisation of the BBC."
IMHO that has happened, & the fee *should* be axed. The M$BBC should stand,
or fall, on it's own feet....by subscription, perhaps. Though without
the "bottomless money pit" (ie: the UK licence payer) M$ would soon walk
away. I'm sure you can see why.
>>> I feel very sorry indeed for the 2,500 people who are now going to be
>>> looking for another job, whilst £280 million of our cash is lounging
>>> around in Microsoft bank accounts, for the delivery, of, well, *nothing
>>> at
>>> all*. The BBC owns *nothing* from its investment of £280 millions of
>>> our money.
>>
>> Nope, not a penny.
>>
>>> Kier - please, these are *real people* who've lost their jobs, in order
>>> to feed the Redmond machine. They have families, mortgages, spouses,
>>> children, elderly parents, gas, leccy bills, cars and food bills all to
>>> support. This isn't something for you to apologise for, this is *real*.
>>>
>>> Furthermore, it's your money and my money which is being sent to Mr
>>> Ballmer, and Microsoft is delivering, err, it's player which it was
>>> delivering anyway. In binary. Nothing for the BBC to own. No source
>>> code, no possibility of going to another vendor.
>>
>> No, & in effect they're "locked-in" to M$'s merry-go-round. And when M$
>> decide to update their iPlayer to a new version, they could charge the
>> BBC even *more* for using it.
>
> And Kier's answer was... wait for it... "Microsoft people are real
> people too". Basically, he's quite happy for corrupt ex-Microsoft BBC
> executives to shovel our, and his, licence-fee money to a foreign
> company, whilst putting British people out of work, who we then have to
> pay for through social costs. "See no evil".
Staggering...
>>> No possibility to change integrator. Licensing (rtu) fee to pay each
>>> time anyone even views something with the "silverlight" player, pay to
>>> whom?
>>> Yes, to Microsoft. So the £280 millions is going to rise rapidly, as
>>> Microsoft own more and more of our licence-fee money.
>>
>> And they won't be able to afford to make new programs, so more repeats &
>> probably more production staff losses....& so on....& so on..
>
> You're quite right - it is very much a downward spiral.
>
>>
>>> What will you say when the last technical people at the BBC are given
>>> their P.45s?
>>
>>
>
> He said "Microsoft people are real people too". He ignored the point
> completely.
Totally bypassed it.
--
Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2, PC-BSD 1.4,
Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA1.5
Linux systems: Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007,
Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy"
|
|
