Shared publicly  - 
The full list of submissions for new internet address endings has been published by the organisation co-ordinating the expansion
Sam El-Khouly's profile photoAkhil Chandra's profile photoAna Aguiar's profile photoGodwin Bamsa's profile photo
So, we'd soon say: ?
More likely or at a guess., The "www" is pointless.
true. It is a really good move, just cut on subpages although I'm not sure what this will mean in subdomains/domains.
Interesting. I can't believe more companies didn't go berserk and file dozens of claims.
I expect B in a Q was one of the applicants for dot diy, meanwhile I wonder if anyone's gone after dot paper... :)
Wonder who got .chaos and .confusion?
Ken S
"This is an important extension of the BBC's brand-protection policies," 

Well, of course! The #BBC  can waste public money at the moment. If they waited until the TV tax was removed they would have to spend their own money.
Since the Beeb went after dot bbc, did their rivals bid for dots itv, ch4, ch5 and sky? :)
+Ken Sharp The BBC probably needed to bid for their own gTLD to prevent others grabbing it and launching pseudo-BBC sites on it.

As for the license fee, while some may be disgruntled at paying £145.50 a year for it (which works out at £12.13 pcm - far less than a subscription to any alternative broadcaster), there's currently no credible alternative that would allow the BBC to look even remotely like it does at the moment or produce the range of programming it currently does:

a) Going subscription-only would require bucketloads of money to encrypt everything (as well as the government removing their public service broadcasting requirement), would severely reduce their revenue and therefore the quantity / quality of programming they could do (possibly eventually leading to their collapse)

b) allowing advertising would probably turn them into a clone of ITV - programmes that weren't very advertiser-friendly would be junked, there'd be even more inane cheap-n-cheerful stuff such as quiz and game shows, and half the programming would have phone-in "competitions" with premium rate phone numbers to boost income caused by flagging ad sales; there'd probably be a severe reduction in expensive content such as science / nature / drama and high-brow stuff (it's a sad fact of life that cheap, lowest-common-denominator shows get far higher ratings and are far easier to show in long series [e.g. 26 episodes] than expensive high-brow stuff which can only be shown in short series [e.g. 4-6 episodes])

c) direct funding via taxation would also remove their impartiality as their funding settlement would be determined every year in the budget rather than in 5-10 year blocks; so they'd be very wary of openly criticising any government lest their funding got slashed as a punishment.

Bear in mind that as well as TV, the license fee also helps pay for radio (both national and local) - there's no commercial equivalent for Radios 3, 4, 4X or the local stations (since commercial local FM stations are almost invariably wall-to-wall pop music) - so their survival would be jeopardised with either of the three funding formulae above.
I'm looking forward to the new .derp TLD for politicians.
Ken S
The BBC is horrendous and throwing money at it will not improve this. Clearly. We have plenty of years evidence to show this.
+Ken Sharp I agree with +Ben Norwood . The BBC is more trustworthy than Murdoch, we have plenty of evidence of this. It's funding structure is unique and worth every penny, if not more...
This is a move in the right direction. But I failed my job interview with Nominet, the web domain supervisor.
Add a comment...