[zba78]

Judging by the article the only 'alternative' OS they refer to is OSX. And even for that they put a time scale of around 2 years.

Fingal, do they really pop round to check?

[Roxoff]

Originally Posted by fingal

The BBC is publicly owned, funded by our license fees. We have to pay for the privilege of watching their programmes, so the least they can do is listen to the people who fund them.
...

As much as we hate paying for anything up front, I happen to quite like the license fee, which is tied-in to the BBC's charter. It's kept the BBC's output at a very high quality, and it means they have to provide a proper public service, not just pander to the appeal of the mass market which has resulted in a truly awful TV experience in the USA (despite significant improvements in quality over the last few years) and has led to the chronic demise of ITV.

TV standards in the UK are kept high by the commercial companies struggling to compete with the beeb (but I think ITV has reached a point much like a sick racehorse, it should be dragged off the course and shot).

[fingal]

Originally Posted by Roxoff

It's kept the BBC's output at a very high quality, and it means they have to provide a proper public service, not just pander to the appeal of the mass market which has resulted in a truly awful TV experience in the USA (despite significant improvements in quality over the last few years) and has led to the chronic demise of ITV.

I agree in principle, but I don't think the BBC has consistently produced high quality programmes for years. I used to really enjoy their output, but I often get a paper and scan the listings for stuff I'd be interested in. There are probably about 1-2 programmes a night I would watch, and usually there's nothing.

I want to see more drama, sci fi, decent documentaries, wildlife programmes and something which is intellectually challenging / engaging. I would argue that they've been producing mass market bilge for years, and I wouldn't give them 10p a year for that let alone their license fee.

Usually I get shot down in flames for statements like this, and I'm probably a minority audience. The BBC don't cater for minorities and - like most large corporations - don't care either. I think they're a bit puzzled by people like me, but then ... they're too lazy to bother finding out.

I missed something out. There's no decent comedy either. I would argue that - like much of our society - the Beeb has lost its sense of humour. Have you noticed that all the best comedies are repeats? They no longer support creativity or any kind of artistic expression.

[DrMega]

Originally Posted by apoorv_khurasia

Can't sign (not a British citizen) but fully support the cause.....its outrageous.....

But I need a clarification...........is it not true that corporations can decide the terms and conditions for the usage????

Anyways when they will see the number of signatures on the petition they will start thinking in terms of gain and loss

When answering opposition to the license fee, the BBC has always claimed that it uses the license fee for funding so that it doesn't have to depend upon, and therefore be bound to, commercial organisations. By releasing a service that is exclusive to users of a particular commercial organisation's product, they are going against that principle.

More to the point, we Brits are almost forced to pay our TV licenses, even if we don't want to use the BBC's services (the flak they give you if you opt out, it is easier to bite the bullet and just pay up). As a license payer I personally am annoyed that a corporation can demand money from me to fund the development of a product and service that I will not use, and can not use unless I pay some more money to somebody else (MS) for their product (Windows).

[apoorv_khurasia]

Originally Posted by fingal

The BBC is publicly owned, funded by our license fees. We have to pay for the privilege of watching their programmes, so the least they can do is listen to the people who fund them

In India public cos are regulated by an appropriate ministry....if any issue such as this comes up we usually complain the minister....I don't know if its so in UK....but anyways I have a strong feeling that things might change in your favor...good luck!!!

[Roxoff]

Originally Posted by fingal

I want to see more drama, sci fi, decent documentaries, wildlife programmes and something which is intellectually challenging / engaging. I would argue that they've been producing mass market bilge for years, and I wouldn't give them 10p a year for that let alone their license fee.

This could be just a difference of opinion in the value of the license fee. You see, I would expect (if the BBC is doing its job right) for there to be a whole range of programmes it is producing that I don't want to see. But what I expect to see is the variety. A range of good quality dramas and documentaries, with a good mix of light entertainment and programmes aimed at narrower sections of the community, some ratings winning mass appeal programmes, etc., etc...

I think the BBC does this pretty well - and even better since they expanded digitally. The new television and radio channels really do try to address diversity, and while they could be improved, they actually do a pretty good job.

[fingal]

Originally Posted by Roxoff

I think the BBC does this pretty well - and even better since they expanded digitally. The new television and radio channels really do try to address diversity, and while they could be improved, they actually do a pretty good job.

I actually prefer BBC radio in many ways, because radio's always been great at working in a more imaginative context. I also think, hats off to their efforts with Dr Who: the show's never been better and it's actually exciting to see that level of commitment and superb storytelling.

I also think they have one of the best websites on the planet, and they still occasionally produce some wonderful programmes. But I don't think they do this across the board with any consistency.

To make things worse, I should be at the forefront of their market for downloading individual programmes, but once again I've been excluded because they have no idea who their target audience is. If they can't be bothered to get the basics right, I can't be bothered to use their service.

Instead of sending me mildly threatening 'We know who you are and where you live!' letters, they should be asking me, 'How do you think we can improve our services?'

Instead of threatening to come around and visit me with a view to dismantling my computer (just in case I have a TV card) they should be doing what hardly any other corporation is doing ... Basic customer service.

They are incapable of these things, so I refuse to buy a TV or to watch it at home. It's different if I visit friends / relatives. Then I turn into a TV addict. My problem isn't with the medium, it's with how it's used. There's nothing wrong with enjoying TV, but there's a lot wrong with broadcasting complete crap.