News - BBC details plans to slash online services

[HEXUS]

360 jobs and 400 TLDs will be cut in a major reshuffle that will save £34 million.

Read more.

[Hicks12]

Once again, cutting staff and cutting services... soon we will be paying a huge amount for just bbc one....

Why cant they just stop giving managers/directors and all the overpaid celebs so much money!

[Saracen]

....

Why cant they just stop giving managers/directors and all the overpaid celebs so much money!

That too, but I'd also question the benefit of the vast effort and expense in their online presence (and some of their other niche services), and whether it's damaging to fledgling competitors to be facing the monolith of the BBC.

Besides, there's enough dislike of the licence fee without it going up over the next few years, so it;s about time the BBC decided (or the government decided for them) just what they ought to be doing that's genuinely within their remit, and not seeking do do ever more stuff and then jacking up the licence fee to pay for it, from people who, short of going TV-less completely, having little legal alternative but to pay it.

[saltyzip]

For the the viewing public, I doubt this budget cut will make any difference.

I do love the Beeb, some fantastic programs.

[Nelsaidi]

They have 400 TLDs? I only know of a few, the main bbc, bbc world, and a few others i cant recall but i'm pretty sure are BBC.

[crossy]

That too, but I'd also question the benefit of the vast effort and expense in their online presence (and some of their other niche services), and whether it's damaging to fledgling competitors to be facing the monolith of the BBC.

Much as I hate to disagree (even slightly) with an esteemed Hexus moderator I'm going to side with the commentators who have questioned why some of the axed sites have been dropped. The most notable example being h2g2 - okay, its like Wikipedia, but different enough to probably be worth retaining. And surely a clear case of "public service"?

There will also be a reduction in the overall amount of sports news, live sport and showbusiness news, but also more culture and arts coverage on the news website.
Local sites will additionally no longer publish non-news features content.

Presumably the live sport is being reduced because it's expensive, and "showbiz news" I can well do without - especially as most of it seems to be pimping BBC programs.

I'm kind of concerned though by the "more culture and arts on the news website" comment - elitism? Especially if it's coming at the expense of local interest stories - maybe the BBC needs to be reminded that not everyone is "lucky" enough to live in London, so some local interest stuff needs to be retained, big fan of the BBC local news online actually (although that's not threatened - at the moment).

As to the comment "whether it's damaging to fledgling competitors to be facing the monolith of the BBC" - funny that this is the same line trotted out by ITV at intervals, and by the Sky folks with increasing volume.

[Terbinator]

As long as i can still watch F1 and Wimbledon on the iPlayer I'm not too bothered.

[Saracen]

Much as I hate to disagree (even slightly) with an esteemed Hexus moderator I'm going to side with the commentators who have questioned why some of the axed sites have been dropped. The most notable example being h2g2 - okay, its like Wikipedia, but different enough to probably be worth retaining. And surely a clear case of "public service"?

But "public service" isn't enough for the BBC to be justified doing it. A free taxi service to and from our local hospitals would be a wonderful public service, but I doubt it's in the BBC remit.

....

As to the comment "whether it's damaging to fledgling competitors to be facing the monolith of the BBC" - funny that this is the same line trotted out by ITV at intervals, and by the Sky folks with increasing volume.

They're hardly fledgling, though.

I am a supporter of the BBC. They do create some wonderful programs, and among my favourites, a good chunk are BBC. But .... being a BBC supporter doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, and they seem to have adopted of doing it if they can, not if they should. And given that they then pay both execs and "stars" obscene amounts, and then have the temerity to suggest the licence fee be increased, year after year, I think it's fair to cut them down to size, and to get them to focus on their remit, which at it's core is broadcasting, not developing a competitor for everything on the web, just because they can.

As for ITV, not a fan especially. They come up with the occasional program that interests me, but by and large, I wouldn't miss them if they weren't there. And Sky? Not especially a fan there, despite being a subscriber .... though for how much longer is another issue.

[rabbid]

But "public service" isn't enough for the BBC to be justified doing it. A free taxi service to and from our local hospitals would be a wonderful public service, but I doubt it's in the BBC remit.

They're hardly fledgling, though.

I am a supporter of the BBC. They do create some wonderful programs, and among my favourites, a good chunk are BBC. But .... being a BBC supporter doesn't mean I agree with everything they do, and they seem to have adopted of doing it if they can, not if they should. And given that they then pay both execs and "stars" obscene amounts, and then have the temerity to suggest the licence fee be increased, year after year, I think it's fair to cut them down to size, and to get them to focus on their remit, which at it's core is broadcasting, not developing a competitor for everything on the web, just because they can.

As for ITV, not a fan especially. They come up with the occasional program that interests me, but by and large, I wouldn't miss them if they weren't there. And Sky? Not especially a fan there, despite being a subscriber .... though for how much longer is another issue.

about time the tv tax was removed completely and the bbc left to fend for itself and evolve a self sustaining business model, not be forced onto everyone whether wanted or not.

[stewis]

about time the tv tax was removed completely and the bbc left to fend for itself and evolve a self sustaining business model, not be forced onto everyone whether wanted or not.

And lose decent 1 hour programs for cruddy 40 min programs with 20 mins of ad breaks which just about supports the network.

[crossy]

about time the tv tax was removed completely and the bbc left to fend for itself and evolve a self sustaining business model, not be forced onto everyone whether wanted or not.

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ....

So you'd dump something the size of the Beeb into a market that's already suffering trying to support ITV, CH4, CH5 and the various Sky-based things? If you want to see how good that would be, trying nipping out to the US and have a look at TV there - with the exception of a few series' it's pretty awful. Although I'm amazed how carefully they fit the program breaks into the ads. If you don't believe that this'll be a problem, then Google for the various steps ITV's had to take - ad revenues have fallen, so their income has too.

I'm not suggesting that the Beeb gets carte blanche to charge what they like. In fact, I quite like the idea that they get to do more commercial stuff and in return the license fee stays at it's current level, or even goes down a bit. I'm also very dismayed/angry by the exorbitant salaries being paid out to some (but then again, I'm of the opinion that anything more than £5pa is too much for Wossie!)

What worries me is that the "license fee" is going to get further raped to provide other things. For example, I read (somewhere) that part of it is going to provide S4C - which angered me. After all, what use is welsh broadcasting to someone in Aberdeen, Belfast or Coventry? Why support non-BBC welsh broadcasting, but not either Gaelic's for example? So the amount of money going to the BBC goes down, but the amount we fork out doesn't. Although that plays nicely to the scum N.Intl press and their friends in government - "Bloated and expensive BBC needs trimmed"

And then there was that suggestion that because iPlayer is delivered via the net, that some of the license fee should be diverted to provide universal broadband. I'll agree to that idea when they start charging horse riders and cyclists road tax!

[warejon9]

One of my family friends works for the BBC as a reporter, and yea he was saying the tv liscense is quite controvershal, however he also mentioned that in the 80's that it was a reporters dream to work with ITV, as they had pretty much a monopoly on the advertising space. Hence why ITV was broken down into regional parts, so that it wasn't quite so big. So saying that adverts can't support a large company i think is wrong. How bout google and facebook? Ain't most of their actual revenue from adverts (appart from people investing). I also don't watch live tv, so just use the iplayer anyway, and most of the people i live with (students as i am one myself) watch it that way anyway.

[this_is_gav]

Presumably the live sport is being reduced because it's expensive

I don't know if the 'live sport' is the online showing of things like the F1 alongside the TV broadcast, or if it's the live text commentary. I suspect it's the latter, given that the football 606 message board is also being removed.

Neither can cost that much. A page of automatically updating text, one person employed to write the commentary as they watch multiple football matches, and however many staff are required for the technical side.

[chis]

I'm kind of concerned though by the "more culture and arts on the news website" comment - elitism? Especially if it's coming at the expense of local interest stories

Oh honestly, heaven forbid that the BBC would cater for others than the working class. One issue I have with the BBC is that it doesn't cover arts or music in nearly enough depth for my liking, and many others agree as I have seen this complaint echoed often - BBC Four isn't enough.

Some of us aren't obsessed with dancing, drama and sports, thank you very much!

[BobF64]

They have 400 TLDs? I only know of a few, the main bbc, bbc world, and a few others i cant recall but i'm pretty sure are BBC.

What made me laugh about that, apart from a lot of the domains possibly being trademarks, was the BBCs own "Media Correspondent" who said

And which of those 400 top domains will users miss? Not bbc.co.uk/littledorrit perhaps. But what about bbc.co.uk/h2g2, which is due for "disposal"?

neither of those are TLDs, so it worries me a little that the BBC dont even know what theyre doing.

[abaxas]

'BBC slash online services to they can continue to pay pensions' should be the headline.