x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=12517		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:57 pm ]
Post subject:  172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
http://thenextweb.com/uk/2011/02/10/172 ... -for-3-99/
Author:  timark_uk [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
Yeah, this is cool.

Mark
Author:  Spreadie [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
Speedy torrent too, downloading at 1.5 megabytes per sec. 8-)
Author:  paulzolo [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
How big is it?
Author:  pcernie [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
Quote:
Arguing that the removing the hosting costs of these websites which were no longer being actively developed was no real saving to the taxpayer at all, the individual writes:

“The purpose of this project is to show how the entire 172 public facing websites that are earmarked for deletion have been copied, archived, distributed and republished online – independently – for the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee (around $3.99).

In other words the true cost saving of this horrendous exercise is nothing more than your morning’s grande skinny caramel latte.”

Taking a more political tone, the author continues:

A weaker BBC means a weaker free press and in turn a weaker British democracy and society at large.

The purpose of this project is to expose the ‘cost savings’ of this proposed exercise as nothing more than a charade to appease the detractors to a strong BBC and to curry favour with the current government. BBC’s current senior management has demonstrated a lack of leadership and a lack of courage in pushing back on these demands.


If he's right, it was quite a clever ruse :o
Author:  Spreadie [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
paulzolo wrote:
How big is it?

1.88 gigs - took about 25 minutes.

Came flushing down the pipes at an average of 1.25 megs an sec. :o
Author:  AlunD [ Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
Well if they are no longer being developed why not just add them here http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/webarchive/ :?
Author:  paulzolo [ Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
I’d say that this is more about placating Murdoch and his anti-BBC stance than cost cutting. The BBC websites is (wrongly, in my view) being trimmed to appears to be less competitive with his American Import Machine.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 172 doomed BBC websites saved by one geek, for $3.99
pcernie wrote:
Quote:
Arguing that the removing the hosting costs of these websites which were no longer being actively developed was no real saving to the taxpayer at all, the individual writes:

“The purpose of this project is to show how the entire 172 public facing websites that are earmarked for deletion have been copied, archived, distributed and republished online – independently – for the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee (around $3.99).

In other words the true cost saving of this horrendous exercise is nothing more than your morning’s grande skinny caramel latte.”

Taking a more political tone, the author continues:

A weaker BBC means a weaker free press and in turn a weaker British democracy and society at large.

The purpose of this project is to expose the ‘cost savings’ of this proposed exercise as nothing more than a charade to appease the detractors to a strong BBC and to curry favour with the current government. BBC’s current senior management has demonstrated a lack of leadership and a lack of courage in pushing back on these demands.


If he's right, it was quite a clever ruse :o

Unless there is a commensurate cut in staffing then this will not save money. I suspect that the majority of BBC costs like most services is wages. If these people are working in numerous areas which seems sensible then the cutting of staff means a reduction of quality of any other departments. This would benefit all those media who criticise the BBC but it also leaves them no stronger to a even more dominant News International.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/