BBC - International web pages, not available to Uk people
StrmChaserSteve
Posts: 2,728 Forum Member
✭✭✭
BBC needs all the friends they can get at the momemt
If you are in Uk, try this link
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-election-day-animal-style/1
Richard Dawkins features the article on his site
http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/15/how-democracy-works-in-nature#.UKevZIa0MVo
BBC attempted explanation
http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/bbc_online/website_changes
If you are in Uk, try this link
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121114-election-day-animal-style/1
Richard Dawkins features the article on his site
http://richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2012/11/15/how-democracy-works-in-nature#.UKevZIa0MVo
BBC attempted explanation
http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/bbc_online/website_changes
0
Comments
Can't see the problem.
Is there such a problem as you see it?
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee.
It is run commercially by BBC Worldwide, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the BBC, the profits made from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes. You can find out more about BBC Worldwide and its digital activities...
That is no explanation at all. It's the sort of thing you get from a politician, a non-answer and then a bit of blurb promoting the BBC.
...not funded by the licence fee. Clearly irrelevant, most things on the web are not funded by the Licence Fee!
Is it a rights thing? Are we children not to be given the real reason?
I suspect that the BBC are in controlling mode for the sake of it.
Perhaps you could suggest the wording/explanation they they should give?
What's that got to do with it - most things on the web are not funded by the LF. And most things on the web do not have the BBC name attached to them.
Really, this seems to be yet another opportunity to have another go at the BBC.
So they've gone to a two-mode model to save money - UK=.co.uk with no ads, non-UK=.com with ads and GeoIP tells the server which model to display...
K
It seems like some are if they cannot understand that BBCWW is commercial whereas BBC UK is not and to give access to WW is to show adverts here in the UK.
Also not funded by the licence is relevant, we don't pay it to receive commercials either online or by tv & radio.
Advert free is the way it should be.
.
What is wrong with that explanation? The commercial arm of the BBC is paying for the creation and hosting of the content, and it makes that money back through ads.
There would be a bit of a backlash if the BBC site started having advertising in the UK, and I don't know for sure but there is probably something dodgy in BBC WW providing content for free to the BBC proper. So the correct thing to do is to prevent UK visitors from looking at the content. Unless you want the BBC to pay the commercial arm of itself for a few web pages...
It's a bit like the other BBC WW enterprises. Do you expect monthly free DVDs from the BBC because you pay the licence fee? Or a free RadioTimes when they owned it? etc.
Geo IP is grossly flawed and should be dropped. I can watch BBC UK or overseas versions at the click of a mouse on my US Proxy icon and that, for those who don't know how or don't have one, is discriminatory.
And it's mainly the fault of the copyright owners who continue to try to enforce Country or region specific agreements in this International age.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/the-graham-norton-show/videos/cameron-diaz-lassoing-a-cow/
Looking at their schedule, I can't see why anyone would want to watch BBC America. :eek:
The fault is the lack of clear explanation, not the blocking of BBC WW which can be justified on rights issues.
Is it that difficult to understand? It's why "Points of View" is so mocked, the failure of the BBC to engage honestly with the public.
Over and over we get this BS nonsense from BBC executives and they get away with it. If they don't give the truth as to why they are doing something then how can a debate take place?
Are the BBC not to be debated?
They do their best NOT to be debated:D - & sadly (for them) fail!
The BBC loves to talk about other people's misdeeds, (News, Watchdog etc) but are VERY reluctant, to discuss their own faults.
And what is the truth that the BBC are not giving in this case?
Yes, the BBC can be debated, but when the accusations are made that they are providing "BS nonsense", or are not giving the truth (as you allege here), any meaningful debate seems pointless.
This site is not accessible from the UK, as it is aimed an international audience.
No lies, no bullshit, no hiding of the truth. It literally gives the precise reason in the first line of the first paragraph of the redirection page...
And beyond that, my guess would be that very few people would be that bothered, nor would they question it any further, simply accepting the explanation as given.
I fail to see what the BBC could possibly be hiding about this, that others (but not you) are so concerned about?
The BBC had to slash their website a couple of years ago after complaints from other UK websites, and I imagine allowing ad-funded pages (even if the UK shown pages were ad-free they would still have been ad funded) would again upset other UK web operators and possibly EU competition laws.
The BBC has to walk a minefield of competition law regarding BBCWW, for example, where they are not allowed to use any licence fee money to subsidise commercial operations.
If their UK web pages carried adverts I can well see their competition complaining about the BBC taking ad money away from them, just as ITV would complain if their advertisers moved their advertising to the BBC.
And a minutes Googling found this:
So UK medial companies don't even want the BBC to accept advertising on websites outside the UK! Imagine how happy they'd be if the BBC allowed adverts inside the UK....
This sort of thing is not new. The BBC wanted to start a UK satellite broadcast service long before Sky or BSB but the then government stopped them.
As for debate, hello pot this is kettle!
You're complaing the BBC wont run ad funded web pages in the UK, but you'd be the first to complain if they did! Along with News International (owner of the Times, Sun and Sky), Trinity Mirror and the Guardian Media Group....
If I'd said "A few minutes Binging..." it would sound silly.
Bing Maps is great, often far better resolution than Google and for cities they have 3D views from N,S,E+W which give you a far better idea of the area. Very useful if you are driving to somewhere unfamiliar.
I can probably also see it at work (although that'll be with ads) because the Internet always thinks I'm in the USA when I'm at work.
You can debate the BBC to your little hearts content, but that and you claiming they have not explained when they clearly have in a form a child could understand are two very different things.