Another £100m up the wall, BBC this time..
Discussion
So this guy who they have now suspended was on £350k+ a year with bonus. Apparently he isn't ex Microsoft but ex-MSN which was by all accounts a complete clusterf
k from beginning to end internally.
So now they have an investigation that will cost a fortune, they will find a scapegoat, give them a golden handshake to bugger off and then employ some stupidly overpriced poncy agency to find them a replacement, who will take hundreds of thousands of pounds in pay.
Its clear the IT/technology isn't the problem, its the incompetent management that appears to be rife from the top down in the BBC.
The problem is they are unaccountable. They can do what they want and don't have to answer to anyone. So, provided they get their exorbitant salaries who cares if they piss all the licence fee away ?
I think a radical change is needed. Make the licence fee optional - don't pay, don't get. I'm all for it but I don't think it will ever happen.
The next best thing is an independent body that properly oversees them, basically acts as the customer for the BBC output. Problem is it'll just get corrupted and end up as more jobs for the boys.
The whole situation stinks.
k from beginning to end internally.So now they have an investigation that will cost a fortune, they will find a scapegoat, give them a golden handshake to bugger off and then employ some stupidly overpriced poncy agency to find them a replacement, who will take hundreds of thousands of pounds in pay.
Its clear the IT/technology isn't the problem, its the incompetent management that appears to be rife from the top down in the BBC.
The problem is they are unaccountable. They can do what they want and don't have to answer to anyone. So, provided they get their exorbitant salaries who cares if they piss all the licence fee away ?
I think a radical change is needed. Make the licence fee optional - don't pay, don't get. I'm all for it but I don't think it will ever happen.
The next best thing is an independent body that properly oversees them, basically acts as the customer for the BBC output. Problem is it'll just get corrupted and end up as more jobs for the boys.
The whole situation stinks.
Hmmm bit like the NHS version scrapped a couple of years ago?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040259/NH...
apologies for the wail link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040259/NH...
apologies for the wail link
craigjm said:
Was it even that? how do we know it wasn't income made from BBC World etc?
BBC website said:
In a letter to Margaret Hodge, chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, the BBC Trust's Anthony Fry revealed the project had generated "little or no assets".
"It is of utmost concern to us that a project which had already failed to deliver value for money in its early stages has now spent so much more of licence fee payers' money," he said.
"It is of utmost concern to us that a project which had already failed to deliver value for money in its early stages has now spent so much more of licence fee payers' money," he said.
my bold
chris watton said:
Don't tell me - 'Lessons will be learned'?
BBC Website said:
"I have serious concerns about how we managed this project," BBC director general Tony Hall said.
An independent review has been launched "to find out what went wrong and what lessons can be learned", he said.
Surprise, surprise An independent review has been launched "to find out what went wrong and what lessons can be learned", he said.
Heard it on the radio earlier, the incompetence is truly awe inspiring.
Why are the BBC trying to do something like this in-house?
Define the project.
Tender the project.
Make sure the IT company is financially responsible (I understand the BBC have many many lawyers at its disposal).
If it works - big thumbs up.
If it fails - no big financial loss
Can someone reassure me about any recent large public sector IT projects that have gone well? Do we successfully deliver hundreds each year and hear about the odd failure?
Why are the BBC trying to do something like this in-house?
Define the project.
Tender the project.
Make sure the IT company is financially responsible (I understand the BBC have many many lawyers at its disposal).
If it works - big thumbs up.
If it fails - no big financial loss
Can someone reassure me about any recent large public sector IT projects that have gone well? Do we successfully deliver hundreds each year and hear about the odd failure?
It's bizarre really. It's not actually THAT hard a project. Yes - the BBC has 50+years of programmes filed away on tape (not rushes, mind, just TXd programmes - rushes tapes were recycled after a certain period) . But that archive could have been gradually and slowly added to a digital system over time. Demand for more obscure stuff is low and could have been kept on tape for the medium term. Stuff in high demand (news archive, popular shows that are often referenced etc) could have been brought online more quickly, and systems designed to get current material (news, sport, freshly shot rushes) onto people's desktops so they can spin through it on FCP or Avid have been in active operation in newsrooms around the world for a decade or more.
Edited by krunchkin on Friday 24th May 22:23
iwantagta said:
Heard it on the radio earlier, the incompetence is truly awe inspiring.
Why are the BBC trying to do something like this in-house?
Define the project.
Tender the project.
Make sure the IT company is financially responsible (I understand the BBC have many many lawyers at its disposal).
If it works - big thumbs up.
If it fails - no big financial loss
Can someone reassure me about any recent large public sector IT projects that have gone well? Do we successfully deliver hundreds each year and hear about the odd failure?
According to the bbc this was outsourced to Siemens. The project was brought back in house in 2012 and then canned this year.Why are the BBC trying to do something like this in-house?
Define the project.
Tender the project.
Make sure the IT company is financially responsible (I understand the BBC have many many lawyers at its disposal).
If it works - big thumbs up.
If it fails - no big financial loss
Can someone reassure me about any recent large public sector IT projects that have gone well? Do we successfully deliver hundreds each year and hear about the odd failure?
Contracts don't work like you have suggested, they are paid in stages and often the requirements at the beginning change or mis-represented. Poor management every time results in over-runs, delays and escalation of costs.
Sometimes you get lucky but in the main large companies employ the cheapest staff and you get what you pay for.
krunchkin said:
It's bizarre really. It's not actually THAT hard a project. Yes - the BBC has 50+years of programmes filed away on tape (not rushes, mind, just TXd programmes - rushes tapes were recycled after a certain period) . But that archive could have been gradually and slowly added to a digital system over time. Demand for more obscure stuff is low and could have been kept on tape for the medium term. Stuff in high demand (news archive, popular shows that are often referenced etc) could have been brought online more quickly, and systems designed to get current material (news, sport, freshly shot rushes) onto people's desktops so they can spin through it on FCP or Avid have been in active operation in newsrooms around the world for a decade or more.
Have you guys heard of BBC Redux? Not really sure it's related to this but the BBC have been digitally archiving everything broadcast since 2007, and a lot of stuff from before as well. It's basically Iplayer with no time limits. Everything on it Hollywood films etc.Edited by krunchkin on Friday 24th May 22:23
Guess who has access to it, BBC staff and no one else, pretty nice perk for them.
the project was already underway in BBC Technology before that entire department was outsourced to Siemens - resulting in non working IP telephones in broadcast critical departments, absymal IT servicedesk help, and a myriad of other stfights before the BBC realised that outsourcing all its IT had failed miserably. That didn't stop the Digital Initiative being poorly concieved and executed throughout. A debacle within a debacle if you will .
tfights before the BBC realised that outsourcing all its IT had failed miserably. That didn't stop the Digital Initiative being poorly concieved and executed throughout. A debacle within a debacle if you will . Magog said:
krunchkin said:
It's bizarre really. It's not actually THAT hard a project. Yes - the BBC has 50+years of programmes filed away on tape (not rushes, mind, just TXd programmes - rushes tapes were recycled after a certain period) . But that archive could have been gradually and slowly added to a digital system over time. Demand for more obscure stuff is low and could have been kept on tape for the medium term. Stuff in high demand (news archive, popular shows that are often referenced etc) could have been brought online more quickly, and systems designed to get current material (news, sport, freshly shot rushes) onto people's desktops so they can spin through it on FCP or Avid have been in active operation in newsrooms around the world for a decade or more.
Have you guys heard of BBC Redux? Not really sure it's related to this but the BBC have been digitally archiving everything broadcast since 2007, and a lot of stuff from before as well. It's basically Iplayer with no time limits. Everything on it Hollywood films etc.Edited by krunchkin on Friday 24th May 22:23
Guess who has access to it, BBC staff and no one else, pretty nice perk for them.
krunchkin said:
Magog said:
krunchkin said:
It's bizarre really. It's not actually THAT hard a project. Yes - the BBC has 50+years of programmes filed away on tape (not rushes, mind, just TXd programmes - rushes tapes were recycled after a certain period) . But that archive could have been gradually and slowly added to a digital system over time. Demand for more obscure stuff is low and could have been kept on tape for the medium term. Stuff in high demand (news archive, popular shows that are often referenced etc) could have been brought online more quickly, and systems designed to get current material (news, sport, freshly shot rushes) onto people's desktops so they can spin through it on FCP or Avid have been in active operation in newsrooms around the world for a decade or more.
Have you guys heard of BBC Redux? Not really sure it's related to this but the BBC have been digitally archiving everything broadcast since 2007, and a lot of stuff from before as well. It's basically Iplayer with no time limits. Everything on it Hollywood films etc.Edited by krunchkin on Friday 24th May 22:23
Guess who has access to it, BBC staff and no one else, pretty nice perk for them.
I just think it would be nice if it was, at least partially, shared with the public who paid for a lot of the stuff to be made in the first place. Rather than being fobbed of with having to watch stuff within a week on iplayer, a platform that seems to have got increasingly unreliable.
YouTube was IIRC, one of the bigger losses a a branded corporation chose to make, year after year.
It was my very limited understanding that Google simply kept funding its ongoing availability, and would address the problem of revenue generation one day in the future. Keeping it online till then.
Does anyone know whether YouTube is still running a huge loss? In the tens of millions a year for electricity alone per year? The figures made interesting reading, so interesting I dont recall them
Something along those lines...
It was my very limited understanding that Google simply kept funding its ongoing availability, and would address the problem of revenue generation one day in the future. Keeping it online till then.
Does anyone know whether YouTube is still running a huge loss? In the tens of millions a year for electricity alone per year? The figures made interesting reading, so interesting I dont recall them
Something along those lines...
Crafty_ said:
I think a radical change is needed. Make the licence fee optional - don't pay, don't get. I'm all for it but I don't think it will ever happen.
Greg Dyke actively prevented a subscription model in Freeview. He saw it as a way of preventing the demise of the licence fee.http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/sep/17/broadc...
The Guardian said:
Greg Dyke has confirmed suspicions in the commercial sector that he launched the digital terrestrial TV service, Freeview, as a way of delaying the day the licence fee would be scrapped.
The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented.
This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees.
In his book, Inside Story, Mr Dyke admits for the first time that part of the rationale behind the launch of the digital terrestrial service was to flood the market with "dumb" boxes incapable of turning the BBC's channels into "pay as you go" services at a later date.
Because most Freeview boxes do not contain the card slots or encryption technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital was "important to the BBC defensively".
"Freeview makes it very hard for any government to try and make the BBC a pay-television service. The more Freeview boxes out there, the harder it will be to switch the BBC to a subscription service since most of the boxes can't be adapted for pay-TV," wrote Mr Dyke, who was forced out of his job in January following the Hutton report.
"I suspect Freeview will ensure the future of the licence fee for another decade at least, and probably longer," he added.
Freeview has been a huge success since launching as the replacement for ITV Digital in October 2002, with 4 million households estimated to have taken up the service that offers 30 TV channels for a one-off payment of around £50.
But up to now the BBC has said it opposed having a pay-TV element in the Freeview package because it would confuse the consumer.
However, outsiders have always suspected that his was not the case - that Mr Dyke had a long-term, more defensive reason for blocking pay-TV on the network.
Mr Dyke's revelation that this was indeed the case comes as the BBC admitted for the first time that it costs more than twice as much to transmit its channels to Freeview customers than it does to broadcast over satellite.
Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for Freeview customers.
Protecting the BBC
Mr Dyke's admission will confirm suspicions at the time of the Freeview launch that the joint venture between the BBC, Crown Castle and BSkyB was as much to do with protecting the BBC's position as encouraging digital take-up.
For several years, advocates of reform have argued that as soon as the entire country is watching on digital sets, the argument for collecting the licence fee electronically becomes irresistible because it cuts down on evasion rates and the cost of collecting the tax.
Many broadcasting grandees, including the former Five chief, David Elstein, and the deputy chairman of Channel 4, Barry Cox, have gone further and suggested that digital technology will mean viewers should be free to stop paying the licence fee and pay only for those channels they want to see.
"One of the main arguments for the BBC has always been that it corrects 'market failure' in broadcasting. In the digital age, the BBC is starting to look like one of the main reasons why a market in television can't develop properly," argued Mr Cox in a pamphlet published earlier this year by Demos that was based on a series of lectures delivered the previous year.
"A situation where people can essentially choose what TV they pay for argues for the end of the poll tax we call the licence fee, and with it a fundamental reformation of the BBC," Mr Cox concluded
But by heavily promoting a technology that does not have the means to accept electronic micro-payments or subscription services, Mr Dyke hoped to stop the argument in its tracks.
Industry insiders confirm that the policy of stopping the growing clamour for a digital licence fee was one of the main planks of the BBC's policy when Freeview was first discussed.
Keeping up the BBC's audience share
In his book, to be published on Monday, Mr Dyke also pinpoints another key reason why the BBC launched Freeview. In order to keep the BBC's share of viewing up, he argues that it was in the corporation's interests to encourage the free-to-air service - a stance that flies in the face of the corporation's public stance of platform neutrality.
"Given that the government plans to turn off the analogue signal in the early part of the next decade, it is obviously very much in the BBC's interest for people to go digital via Freeview rather than through BSkyB. In Freeview homes they watch 8% less BBC programming than in traditional five-channel homes; but in Sky homes the loss is a massive 50%," he wrote.
Mr Dyke, who throughout the book makes his distaste for Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB patently clear, also predicted that Sky would come to rue agreeing to be a partner in Freeview.
"I've never really worked out why BSkyB wanted to help us build Freeview. To me, it was always obvious that if it worked it would undermine their own basic-tier pay business. This is now happening, and again, I think history will show that it was a business mistake for BSkyB to help us grow Freeview," he said.
There were understood to be serious rifts between senior executives at the pay-TV broadcaster over whether to get involved but the then chief executive, Tony Ball, had the final say.
BSkyB recently reacted to stalling subscriber levels by announcing the launch of a "freesat" service that will essentially compete with Freeview.
Once viewers have the free service, which will offer 150 channels and added interactivity for a one-off payment of £150, Sky hopes they will upgrade to its pay-TV packages.
But chief executive James Murdoch continues to insist that Freeview has not had an adverse impact on Sky subscriptions, describing the key distinction as being between free and pay rather than analogue and digital.
It SHOULD be made subscription-only but they know that would result in a collapse in the £3.2bn of revenue they receive from licence fee-payers.The former BBC director general reckoned that if millions of homes were hooked up to Freeview, the move to turn the BBC into a subscription service could be prevented.
This is because under Mr Dyke's original plans the Freeview service would be a Trojan horse, offering free channels exclusively with no means of collecting subscription fees.
In his book, Inside Story, Mr Dyke admits for the first time that part of the rationale behind the launch of the digital terrestrial service was to flood the market with "dumb" boxes incapable of turning the BBC's channels into "pay as you go" services at a later date.
Because most Freeview boxes do not contain the card slots or encryption technology required to operate a pay-TV service, Mr Dyke concluded that leading the launch of the service following the collapse of ITV Digital was "important to the BBC defensively".
"Freeview makes it very hard for any government to try and make the BBC a pay-television service. The more Freeview boxes out there, the harder it will be to switch the BBC to a subscription service since most of the boxes can't be adapted for pay-TV," wrote Mr Dyke, who was forced out of his job in January following the Hutton report.
"I suspect Freeview will ensure the future of the licence fee for another decade at least, and probably longer," he added.
Freeview has been a huge success since launching as the replacement for ITV Digital in October 2002, with 4 million households estimated to have taken up the service that offers 30 TV channels for a one-off payment of around £50.
But up to now the BBC has said it opposed having a pay-TV element in the Freeview package because it would confuse the consumer.
However, outsiders have always suspected that his was not the case - that Mr Dyke had a long-term, more defensive reason for blocking pay-TV on the network.
Mr Dyke's revelation that this was indeed the case comes as the BBC admitted for the first time that it costs more than twice as much to transmit its channels to Freeview customers than it does to broadcast over satellite.
Appearing before the public accounts committee for the first time earlier this week, Caroline Thomson, the director of policy and legal at the BBC, confirmed to MPs that while it costs £2 per licence fee payer a year to transmit an analogue signal and £3 a year to broadcast on digital satellite, licence fee payers shell out £7 a year for Freeview customers.
Protecting the BBC
Mr Dyke's admission will confirm suspicions at the time of the Freeview launch that the joint venture between the BBC, Crown Castle and BSkyB was as much to do with protecting the BBC's position as encouraging digital take-up.
For several years, advocates of reform have argued that as soon as the entire country is watching on digital sets, the argument for collecting the licence fee electronically becomes irresistible because it cuts down on evasion rates and the cost of collecting the tax.
Many broadcasting grandees, including the former Five chief, David Elstein, and the deputy chairman of Channel 4, Barry Cox, have gone further and suggested that digital technology will mean viewers should be free to stop paying the licence fee and pay only for those channels they want to see.
"One of the main arguments for the BBC has always been that it corrects 'market failure' in broadcasting. In the digital age, the BBC is starting to look like one of the main reasons why a market in television can't develop properly," argued Mr Cox in a pamphlet published earlier this year by Demos that was based on a series of lectures delivered the previous year.
"A situation where people can essentially choose what TV they pay for argues for the end of the poll tax we call the licence fee, and with it a fundamental reformation of the BBC," Mr Cox concluded
But by heavily promoting a technology that does not have the means to accept electronic micro-payments or subscription services, Mr Dyke hoped to stop the argument in its tracks.
Industry insiders confirm that the policy of stopping the growing clamour for a digital licence fee was one of the main planks of the BBC's policy when Freeview was first discussed.
Keeping up the BBC's audience share
In his book, to be published on Monday, Mr Dyke also pinpoints another key reason why the BBC launched Freeview. In order to keep the BBC's share of viewing up, he argues that it was in the corporation's interests to encourage the free-to-air service - a stance that flies in the face of the corporation's public stance of platform neutrality.
"Given that the government plans to turn off the analogue signal in the early part of the next decade, it is obviously very much in the BBC's interest for people to go digital via Freeview rather than through BSkyB. In Freeview homes they watch 8% less BBC programming than in traditional five-channel homes; but in Sky homes the loss is a massive 50%," he wrote.
Mr Dyke, who throughout the book makes his distaste for Rupert Murdoch and BSkyB patently clear, also predicted that Sky would come to rue agreeing to be a partner in Freeview.
"I've never really worked out why BSkyB wanted to help us build Freeview. To me, it was always obvious that if it worked it would undermine their own basic-tier pay business. This is now happening, and again, I think history will show that it was a business mistake for BSkyB to help us grow Freeview," he said.
There were understood to be serious rifts between senior executives at the pay-TV broadcaster over whether to get involved but the then chief executive, Tony Ball, had the final say.
BSkyB recently reacted to stalling subscriber levels by announcing the launch of a "freesat" service that will essentially compete with Freeview.
Once viewers have the free service, which will offer 150 channels and added interactivity for a one-off payment of £150, Sky hopes they will upgrade to its pay-TV packages.
But chief executive James Murdoch continues to insist that Freeview has not had an adverse impact on Sky subscriptions, describing the key distinction as being between free and pay rather than analogue and digital.
I stopped paying my TV licence over a year ago (and don't actually miss live TV at all) but I'd be breaking the law to watch commercially-funded channels even if I never watched a single second of BBC output. It's ridiculous. I'd rather not watch than fund the BBC.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff