http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcintern...n_changes.html

And a new Red Button service:

And what for those people who don't have computers or connected TVs.
Ian.

No redbutton screens

I know. At least Sky are still providing that service.
Ian.

Good point, but sadly the BBC cannot hope to cater for all people, all income levels, all personal circumstances and all lifestyle choices.

If they could, and importantly, if they had the money and bandwidth and did not have the BBC Trust ensuring that everything that the BBC provided gave value for money via its Public Value Test, they would no doubt have 24 Red Button streams on DTT and satellite, as well as HD versions of all of its channels, +1 versions of all of its channels, BBC Three and BBC Four running 24 hrs,

But sadly, this is the real world, with a 6-year LF freeze.

Yes I have a computer and a 3D TV, but its not a connected TV.
Ian.

Yes, welcome to the real world, BBC, you've been living in cloud cuckoo land for the last God knows how many years.

And the real world leads to a worse service! Not exactly a great idea calling for cuts, eh?

When the BBC can take £22m and spend it on a 2 year contract for The Voice, to outbid ITV for it, i have zero sympathy for the BBC and its claims of money-constrained.

They did that because of the cuts. It was thought to be a safe spend in that the format has worked the world over.

Also, the format allows the BBC to make money from overseas sales, the tour (if it had gone ahead) and sales from records.

It got the viewers, but (with the exception of some programme sales) the rest didn't work.

But you have to gamble when you get your income frozen (which is a real world cut of course) and it's at the behest of commercial media baron. Blame him - and the government for not being strong enough to stand up to him.

I'm not a BBC basher but with all this going on I really think there should be an opt out service where if you don't want the BBC you.don't have to pay for it. I for one will not miss it as I never watch or listen to any BBC service. What's going to happen with the BBC licence fee after this price freeze will it go up big Time ?.

Doubtful, it'd be political suicide by any Government for the forseeable

I suppose it depends who wins the next general election whether the TV Licence shoots up in price. I've got Sky's full package, but I've always been willing to pay an increase in the TV Licence and I don't think it should have been frozen for 6 years.
Ian.

Bit annoying as online services won't work on my HTPC (at least until MediaPortal supports MHEG, which'll probably be never).

Poor Wimbledon coverage next year for those without a computer - just one extra court coverage.

This takes support of the executive to new levels.

Surreal stuff, "the BBC cannot hope to cater for all people..."

Mossy's right though, it can't.

I assume the Conservative/Murdoch/Jeremy Hunt plan was to freeze the licence fee for six years forcing the BBC to make huge cuts and making their output far less attractive and popular so that at the end of the six years they (if still in power) can say "Well the BBC isn't as good as it was so we're going to cut the licence fee/scrap the BBC/sell it off" and hope no one remembers that it was their licence fee freeze that did the damage in the first place.

A freeze Hunt introduced with no consultation, no evaluation of the effects, no manifesto mandate and no discussion in Parliament.
It clearly wasn't "to help people struggling to pay their bills" since a freeze doesn't have any effect for several years. It doesn't help anyone in any way now!

Putting more sport rights on the FTA list would have meant millions of people could have saved £600 a year paying for Sky Sports to see cricket, football etc.
That would have been a far bigger way to help people struggling today! But that would have hurt Sky, so of course that couldn't happen....

It can be difficult to distinguish between what is technically possible and what makes economic sense. The BBC already repeats shows many times the same week they are first broadcast and months later, as well as putting them on Dave, Alibi, etc, making them available ondownload and selling everything except the test card and Teletext on DVD. Cutting a few slow and unresponsive red button options that only a few people use won't exactly hurt.

ITV can't, BSkyB can't, CH5 can't... I could go on.

The whole point of the BBC is to provide for all, and to not create a "two tier" BBC

This sort of "ignore the minority" thinking is as far away from public service as you can get.

So by that logic the BBC shouldn't have any websites, since lots of people don't have access to the internet? Or give out phone numbers since many people don't have a phone?

And yet, that real world is now meaning a reduced service, and that real world seems to be ignored by some posters who still expect the BBC to be able to cater for tehir every requirement, regardless of cost or practicality.

I wasn't aware that they wanted sympathy.

However, the real world is the real world.

So, with that dismissive and less than insightful post, please tell me how the BBC can cater for everyone.

Please indicate how the BBC could have 24 Red Button streams on DTT and satellite, as well as HD versions of all of its channels, +1 versions of all of its channels, BBC Three and BBC Four running 24 hrs (which is what people seem to expect).


Or how the BBC could ignore the BBC Trust Red Button Service Review which highlighted the high cost of delivering content on multiple video streams. And how this review referenced plans by the BBC's Executive Board to reduce the service on satellite and cable after the Olympics to reduce costs.

Go on - how would the BBC provide all of that? How would they do that whilst having a 6-year LF freeze? And how would they do it whilst ignoring the results of the Trust's Red Button review?

The floor is yours.