Friday
Tom Coates, who used to work for the BBC and is now at Yahoo, really lays into Ashley Highfield, the supposed visionary leader of the Beeb's new media efforts. Euan Semple, the BBC's former head of knowledge management, agrees with Tom's assessment. An excerpt:
If Ashley Highfield really is leading one of the most powerful and forward-thinking organisations in new media in the UK, then where are all these infrastructural products and strategy initiatives today? And if these products are caught up in process, then where are the products and platfoms from the years previous that should be finally maturing? It's difficult to see anything of significance emerging from the part of the organisation directly under Highfield's control. It's all words!...[T]he truth is that for the most part - with a bunch of limited exceptions - these changes just don't seem to be really happening. The industry should be more furious about the lack of progress at the organisation than the speed of it, because in the meantime their actual competitors - the people that the BBC seems to think it's a peer with but which it couldn't catch-up with without moving all of its budget into New Media stuff and going properly international - get larger and faster and more vigorous and more exciting.
Let us not forget that Highfield gets his funding whether he delivers or not, as the BBC is financed under threat of violence to anyone who wishes to own a TV in the UK. That is the plain, ugly truth of the matter, no matter how much Tom may like to think that the BBC is a 'valuable organisation'. I guess I would want to believe that, too, if my salary had come from working people who faced prison sentences if they did not pay up.
Indeed, as Tom notes, Highfield's miserable failures have resulted in him being rewarded with a much larger role within the BBC. He will be managing up to 4,000 people, according to the Guardian. Please, tell me again why we need this 'valuable organisation'.
I tend towards leading edge, by it should scare them nonetheless that some of us get along quite nicely without any TV at all. The internet has quite enough material to fill my limited viewing time, and Fox News works quite reasonably with Linux (CNN loses out entirely because their video simply does not work for me.)
The BBC does some nice documentaries... I am sure I'd buy some of them on DVD ;-)
Posted by Dale Amon at July 21, 2006 05:42 PM
Question for Samizidata folks: Does a laptop computer with wifi card qualify as a TV? Tia.
Posted by jrdroll at July 21, 2006 09:54 PM
Scrap the licence fee, then the goings on at the BBC would only be of interest to those who want to buy their products.
Posted by Pete at July 21, 2006 10:38 PM
I was walking past the sheriff court in Dumfries today and there was a woman in tears standing outside. She was making it plain what she thought of the T.V. license ans she'd just been sentenced to three weeks in prison for being unable to pay the fine for not having a TV license. Not only was she being sent down but for the three weeks she would be inside, her kids were going to be placed in care. Now I worked out that it would cost approximately £7000 to do this, all for a measly £140 pounds. Its extortion pure and simple. Not only that it makes absolutely no economic sense.
Posted by mandrill at July 21, 2006 11:34 PM
"Does a laptop computer with wifi card qualify as a TV?"
No it doesn't. The rules are kind of convoluted. If you own a TV but don't use it for receiving broadcast signals (e.g. you use it only with a Playstation), then you don't have to pay the fee. But if you own a T.V. and use it only for watching Sky and ITV you do have to pay the fee.
For my part, I got rid of the telly over a year ago and don't miss it. My enjoyment of BBC radio 4 is now entirely funded by others. Hurrah!
Posted by J at July 22, 2006 10:43 AM
No it doesn't. The rules are kind of convoluted. If you own a TV but don't use it for receiving broadcast signals (e.g. you use it only with a Playstation), then you don't have to pay the fee.
The rules are indeed kind of convoluted, and they have recently been changed. It is not what you use it for, but whether it is capable of being used for receiving programmes that matters, because if that is the case you will have little chance of proving your innocence of having it installed, or using it (which is what it would come down to) for that purpose. Therefore you need to make sure you have no working aerials and/or all equipment relevant is de-tuned.
The definition is under the 2004 regulations:
In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.
and
In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, "television set" means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.Computer apparatus is defined to exclude computers with tv tuners, or that can take tv signals from (say) a VCR or set-top-box capable of receiving broadcast... but internet tv appears to be safe at the moment (though TV licensing is starting to grumble).
Posted by guy herbert at July 22, 2006 06:55 PM
Apologies. Last paragraph is my comment and shouldn't be in blockquote.
Posted by guy herbert at July 22, 2006 06:57 PM
Here's a thought: with the switch-over to digital, will it not become much easier to prove that one does not use the TV to watch TV? By all accounts this is currently next to impossible, but in the future one could simply say "I do not have a digital box".
On the other hand, since apparently having Sky also puts you into license-paying territory, this would not be much help. It does, however, open up the possibility of Sky offering a package without any BBC channels - would that be subject to the TV license, and if so, why?
Posted by Dominic at July 24, 2006 09:39 AM
