By silicon.com, 14 July 2004 15:40
NEWS This week the BBC has been back in the news. Word that its web presence is to be reined in by the government for being anti-competitive certainly set off a series of lively debates among silicon.com readers.
Some took issue with silicon.com's own Will Sturgeon after he spoke out in support of limiting the corporation in his Web Watch column, while others were all in favour of changes to the BBC's website, which they believe has spread itself too far and wide across areas which are not core to its public service remit.
Susannah writes: "At last someone talking sense about the BBC. The BBC should either be a public service broadcaster, funded publicly, or a commercial operator competing with everyone for ad revenues. At the moment it's neither. It's a hybrid stifling the commercial sector and failing to provide a public service."
However, one issue which cropped up time and time again and which we'd love to clear up now is the misunderstanding of what is being addressed. We don't want to start a debate about BBC television programmes, or the Iraq War, the Hutton Report, the Beeb's independence and the fact that it should cover news without government intervention. All these are largely unrelated. All we are talking about are the recommendations that the BBC be forced to withdraw from areas which are typically catered for by a variety of excellent commercial services whose existence is being threatened by the BBC's spread into new markets.
Anonymous writes: "The whole Charter Review and the Graf report aren't about whether the BBC does things well. They're about whether they are fulfilling the remit under which they receive close to £3bn a year from the licence payers.
We also need to question whether the BBC is, in many of its activities, flagrantly flouting Competition Law, hiding behind its immunity from most regulation and its privileged status."
We're not even debating whether the BBC website is excellent. Of course it is - with that much funding it has to be. But there are concerns it is monopolising too many markets and that is a fact which could stifle innovation and prove bad for the UK in the long term.
Richard Bence writes: "The BBC has always had a reputation for high quality but its tentacles are now spreading into areas that do not provide value to licence payers."
Gaming was one area where the BBC was taken to task. Does the corporation really need to offer fantasy football competitions or even computer game reviews, when such offerings are provided by innovative independent services? Similarly some of the Beeb's entertainment coverage was highlighted as being far-removed from the core public service remit.
But many readers argue on principle that the BBC should not be touched - regardless of what it does, lest its tightly guarded independence ever be dented.
Anonymous writes: "This makes my blood boil. I pay my licence fee and I expect the BBC to provide me with the best of everything, whether TV, radio or online."
While there are those who simply love the BBC for its unarguably excellent service.
Stephen Archer writes: "BBCi provides fantastic value for money - I don't resent a penny of my licence fee. The BBC runs without doubt the single best website in the world."
Others go one step further and claim the playing field is already level and that commercial companies are failing themselves rather than being failed by the huge chunk of public funding finding its way into BBC coffers.
Martin Plunkett writes: "Presumably all this really means is that the commercial sector can't compete with what the BBC offers - doesn't this mean the commercial sector should become more competitive not the BBC less?"
So where is the consensus? We want you all to take five seconds and answer our latest poll on this very subject (found on the right of the homepage, here). But please put thoughts of TV programmes, repeats, presenters and news coverage out of your mind and answer honestly with regards to the BBC's online conflict with commercial sites.
Comments
There are 30 comments. Join the discussion
1. Howard Kitto
We should create a level playing field by making a subscription to Sky compulsory for all TV set owners, and prison terms for those who refuse to pay up!
2. Richard Ash
And If I don't have a set that's capable of sky, and certainly don't have the desire to watch it?
Maybe we should look at a way of spreading the license fee across more media - radio, TV and online?
3. anonymous
We invest a huge amount of our own money into developing good quality content for the web.
It infuriates me that a publicly funded organization (which we're taxed to support) can dabble and compete wherever it wants in a totally irresponsible way.
The BBC should only engage in online activity that supports its broadcast programming.
4. anonymous
All this is very interesting and certainly a topic where feelings and expectations run high. But one fundamental hole in the coverage is some kind of definition of what is 'core' for the BBC? 'Public Service' is a bit of a fluid term. Can we have a definition, or a summary of the charter to which the BBC is accountable?
5. anonymous
I hope silicon.com are going to make Tessa Jowell aware of the strong opinions posted on this subject, by unbiased license payers.
6. simon
whilst i resent being forced to pay £100 a year for the licence I do think that they should be able to do what they like on their website. If i choose to read a game review on the bbc site or any other site thats my choice, and ultimately i'll stick with the site that gives, in my opinion, the best review.
As a consumer i have the power to choose and use what i like best. I AM FREE to make that choice and change it at any time so why does anybody feel the need to start restircting the BBC or any other company for that matter. The more options the consumer has the better and more free things will become. If you start stifling things you're only restricting innovation and potential new projects.
7. Brian Chappell
I've worked for the BBC, I am a license payer, a Sky subscriber and a commercial website developer and from all these perspectives the BBC has overstepped it's remit.
I've seen comments stating that commercial organisations obviously can't compete because they aren't good enough. The BBC is offering these services for free, funded by the license fee (something in the order of £2bn p.a.). Money it is going to get regardless of whether you visit the site or not.
Compare that to a normal commercial venture where attracting users is your life-blood. You could develop a site that's better than the BBC, you would need the same kind of resources as the BBC. I'm willing to give it a go if someone is willing to stump up the £2bn to at least level the playing field.
8. Johnny Ringo
The beeb website is a boon to the world. I live in Ireland, and use the weather pages for my forecasts. I think it is one of the last great British institutions and is an excellent ambassador for our country. In short; a credit to the nation, a boon to the world, and something we should protect and nurture for our common good as Brits!
9. Paul Shrimpton
The main difference between the BBC and vendors within the same marketspace (TV, radio or online) is that the commercial companies are trying to get you to spend your money, and are governed by the rules laid out by their corporate sponsors. As someone who can remember Coronation Street before it became "The Street - sponsored by Cadbury Flake", I welcome the ability to see unbiased news, sport and entertainment, through whichever medium I choose, whenever I decide, and where I can be certain that there's nobody trying to sell me something. That's what the BBC offers that no other company can match. And I think that the current attempt to rein them back from being truly a Public Service can only be damaging to everyone.
But then when they stand up to New Labour and dare to disagree, what would they expect to happen?
10. Tony Odams
Of course the BBC should be reviewed regularly to see whether it provides value for our money. However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a primary driver for criticicm of the BBC is the Murdoch media empire which constantly snipes at BBC services. RM criticise the licence fee for being a tax and has the temerity to charge three times as much for largely recycled junk. This powerful body is answerable to no one and threw the BBC off the Star satellite network in China because BBC reporting upset the government there. The BBC gets things wrong and makes mistakes -but it is accountable - when did anyone at Director level last resign from Sky for poor or factually misleading stories?!!
11. W.S.Becket
It seems to me that the BBC lost the skill to entertain some thirty years ago and nowadays is little more than a forum for minority social groups. It's reputation for impartially is similarly buried in history.
My view is that the BBC has had its day and should be closed down - lock, stock and barrel. Its demise would probably to more good than harm.
12. Mike Gordon
No one has so far mentioned a specific company that the BBC is competing with , and i for one certainly wouldn't pay good money for game reviews or competitions run by anyone. Surely the BBC only charges for it's own products and services ; anything else offered is free information ? If that is correct then antyone trying to sell freely available information like weather forecasts , needs to add some extra value to it , which they are at liberty to do .
I think that even the question posed on the silicon poll misses the point . Surely it should be is the BBC competeing with other commercial sites and if so , is that against it's charter ?
The big question then is who can be trusted to carry out a truly impartial review ?
13. anonymous
If the BBC wants to compete on a commercial playing field then it should be regulated and be forced to conform to the same guidelines as all the other companies in the media sector. The current system is discriminatory. Discrimination is one of the worst failings of any culture and should be avoided wherever it is found, race, sex, age AND business.
If I pay a subscription to a company I have a say in how that company works, I can "vote with my feet"; with my licence fee I don't. I want equal rights when using all of the services I pay for.
14. anonymous
Is it a coincidence that one of the last communist style government owned organisations in the UK (like British Telecom, British Petrolium, British Airways, British Leyland, British Gas etc. etc.) is the one which is able to make up its own news about itself. No wonder it's survived - I keep hearing how amazing it is, in the news - duh
15. anonymous
As interesting to me as your readers' response to this debate is silicon.com’s own posturing on the issue. Playing devil’s advocate for a second, is silicon.com truly impartial here? You are a commercial website (and a fine one at that!), but commercial nonetheless. Does it concern you, from a business point of view, that the BBC may be overextending its reach – perhaps capable of starting “industry web sites” to compete with you and others of a similar ilk? Methinks you doth protest too much and should declare your business interest at this point!
(Ed note. Not at all. If you read the articles again, you'll see we specifically mention that none of these recommendations would impinge upon the BBC's news coverage - that would include its coverage of technology news wich is where our only crossover is with the Beeb.)
I am in fact standing up for both the BBC and silicon.com. Why? Because, to me, the fact that silicon.com can survive and thrive as it does is proof that the system actually works. silicon.com is successful because it delivers excellent content in which it is expert and in which the BBC is unqualified and probably precluded from creating content anyway due to the "niche" nature of the subject matter.
16. Steve Chambers
I think your article is missing the point somewhat. The BBC has a responsibility to provide a public service to all. In order to support as wide an audience as possible it's site must appeal to a vast range of tastes and interests. Hence the spectrum of information and activity from football to the arts.
As for a real public service - you might consider how society benefits as a result of politically neutral news and views reaching the highest number of people possible. Isn't this a fundamental aspect of an educated, informed, rational, tolerant society.
I consider the web service provided by the BBC to easily sit within the remit of its charter.
The government interfering in the BBC's activities merely generates suspicion as to its intentions and motives. Anyone wishing to test the scope of the BBC's activities under its charter should be able to do so - In a politically and commercially neutral environemnt.
17. anonymous
I operate a commercial internet and gaming cafe, the bbc has opened a FREE internet cafe, I pay my licence fee and am competing against someone I help fund
18. Paul Tansom
Let's look at this in simple terms. The Internet is a new medium for the 'broadcast' of information. This is a similar transition to the introduction of television to sit alongside radio. As such people are now wanting to restrict what the BBC can 'broadcast'.
This surely compares to saying that because Sky, etc. put programmes on that review games software the BBC shouldn't compete with that because it reduces the commercial companies ability to generate revenue from advertising sales and limits interest in subscribing to the channels.
This to my mind sounds like censorship. If the BBC had been restricted on what it could broadcast when ITV started where would it, or we, be today? Would the BBC be a marginal radio station? Would we have the quality television we have today?
19. Amy Yap Day
The BBC performs a fantastic public service - compared to what's allowed/possible in any other country in the world. We don't know how lucky we are to have such a broadcasting/webcasting service. They're worth every penny of the licence fee and it's only a pity that they have to dumb down to compete with the commercial world.
20. Colin Hinkley
Hmm... I wonder how many of your anonymous BBC knockers are employees of Murdoch?
(Ed note. The second half of your sentence seems to have been missed off... we assume it finished '...or how many anonymous supporters are BBC employees...?')
21. chris white
As a license payer I fund this site, it is the best site I have ever used, and I'm the one who should say what is and is not acceptable, not commercial organisations
So it's a monopoly - who cares so is Microsoft and their site (MSN) is poor, so it is not a monopoly issue, is a content issue
22. Philip Nash
Part of the BBC Online Review states, and I quote, "The BBC has a role as a home on the internet for those who wish to have a safe guide and introduction to the web." Now I have two teenage boys and I feel that the BBC website is precisely that. Therefore when they have games like Fantasy Football I believe they are fulfilling a public service because they attract my boys to go there rather than to some more unscrupulous site.
The competition thing is overplayed. Any commercial site can compete successfully, although they may need to have more depth than the BBC in any one area and more of a niche player, such as Silicon.com. In any case the BBC is really competing on the worldwide stage against people like CNN. Anything that hinders the BBC in that does this country a diservice.
23. Gordon Nicol
The BBC are competing on a global scale against the likes of AOL, MSN and other media rich websites. The BBC have embraced digital media like no other company giving the world a great web presence. If the government curtail the online content of the BBC it is actually the world that suffers. If the BBC were to remove their presence who loses out? Who are the government actually going to protect? The guy in the street who runs his own website selling something or the large multinational who offers everything? In the years to come I would prefer to go online safe in the knowledge that I would be getting UK content for the UK by the UK and not by an American based multinational with revised content. Surely we should be thinking globally, as the internet is, rather than the insular way some of the readers are at the moment.
24. Neil Postlethwaite
Why doesn't the government bloody well leave the BBC alone. More like axe grinding over Hutton and the numerous reports which consistently show up Blair's inabilily to deliver anything. Presumably the challenges of the NHS, economy, transportation, environment, Post Office, continuing government IT fiasco's are of secondary importance. At least at the BBC, whether right or wrong, people like Greg Dyke took responsibility and resigned. Blair and John Scarlett should follow his lead.
25. Paul Heneghan
Why do people not understand what the word 'broadcast' means?
The BBC is the British BROADCASTING Corporation. Broadcasting means distributing the same content to many. It started off using radio as a medium, then television, and now the Internet. All of these are forms of broadcasting. The BBC is obliged to use the most effective media at its disposal to get its content delivered to the public. If the quality of that content tends (on average) to be a little on the high side, then it will force the quality from commercial outfits to rise or they will not survive.
The arguments for and against the BBC should be exactly the same for its Radio, TV and Internet services. The BBC is there to provide Public Service Broadcasting. As long as it stays within its mandate 'to inform, educate and entertain), it is doing what it was set up to do, and in most peoples minds (including presumably Will's and ed's), doing it rather well.
You can whinge about the way it collects its revenue - like all forms of taxation, it's not particularly fair - but it does guarantee it its independence. Is its independence important? Most people think so.
26. anonymous
I have been watching with interest the comments made about the BBC. If commercial concerns can not do attain this standard why should we the general public have to put up with their substandard offerings. They just don't want to compete with the best.
Hands OFF the BBC
27. Chris Goodman
The BBC has developed into a tremendous, albeit cumbersome and inefficient, publicly funded organisation. My consideration is that it has too much now publicly funded, it seems to regularly opening new radio stations in various formats, it has increased it's TV channels (even if some only run a few hours each day).
I contend that it should be financially and operationally divided (and this can be done - it does it now for the World Service) to provide just TWO TV channels and perhaps no more than THREE national radio channels at public expense with a small web presence related to these channels. All remaining production and TV/radio channels to be commercialised over a period of TWO years and become financially self supporting. Many of the radio channels now are duplicating existing commercial coverage and are not really necessary any more.
28. Paul Heneghan
Why do people not understand what the word 'broadcast' means?
The BBC is the British BROADCASTING Corporation. Broadcasting means distributing the same content to many. It started off using radio as a medium, then television, and now the Internet. All of these are forms of broadcasting. The BBC is obliged to use the most effective media at its disposal to get its content delivered to the public. If the quality of that content tends (on average) to be a little on the high side, then it will force the quality from commercial outfits to rise or they will not survive.
The arguments for and against the BBC should be exactly the same for its Radio, TV and Internet services. The BBC is there to provide Public Service Broadcasting. As long as it stays within its mandate 'to inform, educate and entertain), it is doing what it was set up to do, and in most peoples minds (including presumably Will's and ed's), doing it rather well.
You can whinge about the way it collects its revenue - like all forms of taxation, it's not particularly fair - but it does guarantee it its independence. Is its independence important? Most people think so.
29. Bob Robinson
The BBC cost me about £10/month. That is tremendous value for money. It should be able to innovate in any area of broadcasting including the internet. If the other providers cannot compete because they cannot achieve the standard, then they may fail, thats life. It is not for the government to stifle competition or restrict public broadcasting to the lowest common denominator.
The BBC offers great value for money even if some of its TV producers seem to think they have to dumb down to the poorest commercial chanel standard, I would hate the BBC to be reduced to the standard of American public service broadcasting.
30. Andrew O'Leary
The real question here is 'is the BBC's remit to be a public service broadcaster, or as times have changed, are they now a public service media provider?' I think it is clear that at the time when the BBC's charter was drawn up the words broadcast and media were essentially synonymous, and as such the intention has always been to provide the best in public service 'by whatever broadcast media necessary'. If that is the case then we can all take immense pride both in the forsight of those early pioneers, and the talent and innovation of our present day BBC. It isn't broken, leave it alone!