We thought the internet and its commercial cousin the web had made the position quite clear. The used(user) gets to see content only if it is laden down with commercial advertisements.
The model is kind of based on commercial television and the used(user) pays for the privilege when he/she goes shopping or buying on the internet.
Now take Sky! They rake in the filthy lucre from tv ads and then get some sucker to pay all over again. Add-on pay television for films and Sky makes even more change.
You gotta admit - sheer genius. And the fan even thinks his better-half enjoys the football on television and admires the £100 strip he wears to watch his team win or lose.

Short-changed

BBC will have to do something about its indigestion. Repeats!! Now that's something Commercial television never does. Well, of course, it may sell programmes on to another commercial channel but that's a matter of consumer choice.
And yes the viewer does see the same add again and again but that's subliminal and keeps the old grey matter active.
When exposed to American television the viewer is hard-pressed to tell which is the tv ad material and which the programme content.
Admittedly this is a North Korean brainwashing technique adopted by America's television and radio broadcasting companies to inculcate addictive consumerist instructions into the viewer's mind set.
It works, sure. But think of the damage it does to the viewer's freedom of choice.

Chu Fat

@@@Oohh. John Cronin, you're a nasty racist
Eric Clapton, lives and breathes black blues music as god's own but he does not want black people swamping out Henley or Kensington.
@@@@@
Fri, 2012-11-16 11:25 — john cronin (not verified) A waaaaycist is someone who is winning an argument with a leftist. So true!!!
.

I'm afraid BBC has dug its own grave. A lot of their news is not independent and very right wing - a bit like the Sky's really. So if the interest of public no longer a priority you get what we have now!!!

BBC is impartial to some extent. I recall a documentary where journalist were dreading how up the hierarchy the call is coming from Israel following their military operation. I am happy to watch BBC without being bombarded with publicity every 15 mins and relying on the news to some extent for impartiality. If we have a prime minister who had 300 text messages with Rebecca Brookes or hired Andy Coulson, this is a clear conflict of interest beyond any standards in terms of ethics. If the PM were a member of a professional body that has to abide by certain standards, he would have resigned long time ago. We are used to MP or PM being 'corrupted' and things being brushed under the house. The Saville saga is Xmas come early for some and I suspect a 'honey trap' a la Vince Cable with newsnight. BBC behemoth has taken a tumble and someone is trying to chop off its head. If BBC is gone, I fear we will be foxified as in the US. No wonder some have started with the author's integrity.

Since the revelation that the author of this piece believes that people who do not share his religious beliefs are ''cattle'', I have found it impossible to take him seriously as a ''progressive'' political commentator. The BBC, it has an obligation to be impartial-and it blatantly isn't. It's bias isn't even an honest ideologcal one. It is tribal, towards the Labour Party. As for the Murdochs, isn't one of Mr. Hasan's former pin-up boys-perma-tanned suspected war criminal Blair-godfather to one of Rupert's offspring?

Boris Johnson really is a prize cunt, isn't he?

Who on earth still watches BBC TV?

Licence fees. What are they for? To pay for road upkeep, in the case of vehicles. To ensure responsible, orderly business, in the case of alcohol sales. Dog licences would save injuries and lives; if anyone cared enough.

But what of that bit of electronics in the corner? Do I take it on the roads? Does it cause me to stagger about in a dangerous manner, or even sing raucously, waking up the neighbourhood? Has it bitten anyone?

I pay a 'licence fee' for it. Tell me why, Mehdi. Without revealing public dishonesty. Don't you dare post here again before you have done that; or admitted that it's impossible.

"...and accept that his beloved BBC has ruined the life of an elderly person." Really? The whole of the BBC did this, did it? So BBC radio, in all its channels, ruined Mcalpine's life, along with children's broadcasting, the weather forecast, foreign languages programmes, nature programmes, light entertainment - they all contributed to the ghastly idiocy that Newsnight had descended into?

Er, no. That would be the fault of....yes, Newsnight! And the lack of oversight and plain common sense of the upper echelons. But to tar the entirety of the BBC with this is, well, hysterical and unbalanced.

This is one of the most insensitive articles I have read for a long-time.

Just for a change the writer should forget about his hang-ups against the right, Murdoch, Boris, Cameron and accept that his beloved BBC has ruined the life of an elderly person.

The response from the right has if anything been quite restrained, if you were to forget for once your biased, blinkered views.

And why is it so bad because it is the BBC? Because most of us respect it and believe it and why it is therefore 100 times worse what they did to McAlpine.

The penny has just not dropped for the writer here. There are times when petty politics are not appropriate. This is one such time.

Poor, very poor

I have to agree. The BBC both UK national and World Service must be defended. Quality TV and radio is fast disappearing and if the BBC is emasculated any further it will be the UK’s and the wider international audiences loss. On the subject of the wider international audience? World Service - dear BBC, please remember there are more areas of the world than just Africa and not everyone has access to the internet. The BBC is truly a great ambassador for the UK and long may it survive.

I LIKE THE BBC.
It's not perfect, far from it, but then is ITV any better?
I loathe the 16 mins of ad breaks we have to endure.
I like the bravery of the BBC.
I dislike the public schoolboy over-excitement that seems to have infected it at the moment. Elementary errors have been made.
Politicians and rabid right and left wingers all accuse BBC Current Affairs of bias - they can't all be right, so they are most likely all wrong.
The Beeb needs fixing - not junking.

You value the BBC, you pay for it. That's your choice, isn't it wonderful?

Don't force your value judgements on me and force me to pay when all I want to do is watch the channel 4 News.

The license fee should be scrapped.

I have to agree. As degraded, spineless and directionless as it has become, the BBC has to be defended. The commercial stations and Sky are in the business of selling audiences to advertisers, which is where the big bucks are; the BBC's remit (like the NHS and public services also under attack by the attack dogs of the market) is to provide clear unbiased reporting, as well as entertainment, across a variety of outlets. Now, god knows BBC news reporting has been in a desperate decline in recent years but thats no surprise in the face of 30-odd years of animosity of one kind or another from Thatcher to the current gang. We need the BBC because we need a chance to get something like the facts, which corporate-owned media treat as just another optional extra depending on what audience they want to pander to. To that end, the BBC needs rejuvenation and its news division needs a clear charter guaranteeing independence. The alternatives are frankly depressing.