"John Hall" wrote:
In article Phil Layton writes:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....tainment/tv_an
d_radio/article6991064.ece

Though the article goes on about forecast accuracy - including the
seasonal forecasts, even though those are totally irrelevant since the
BBC doesn't broadcast them - it seems that if the BBC *does* decide to
change its forecast provider it will be on grounds of cost. As the
forecasts on the BBC could be argued to be important in providing the
Met Office with a high profile with the public, one could argue that it
is actually the Met Office that should be paying the BBC rather than the
other way round.
--
The key is this line:

A BBC spokesman said: "It is common practice to look at the options
available when a contract is about to expire to ensure we get the best value
for money for our licence fee payers."

Put another way he is saying: "When a contract is up for a renewal
we always try to put the fear of god into our suppliers by threatening
to take the contract elsewhere even though we've no intention of
changing. It's standard practice to ensure they don't put the price up."

And, yes, I do have some knowledge of these procedures.

Philip