21–30 of 106 posts
I've read the reason several times and I still don't get it.
Now one would think that they could you know - strip the ads and not show them for UK IPs ...
It's a little like the BBC world service news, which is pretty good (especially compared to sky and cnn and so on), except you can't get it in the UK ... it even has the same presenters that are on the normal BBC 24 News, and 10 o'clock news! It's weird to say the least. But it gets even more weird, as programmes made by the licence pay version of the BBC appear on the world service news. I was watching it a week ago…
BBC World News is distinct from BBC Worldwide, they're different commercial groups. It has a much closer relationship with BBC News, which is publicly funded. BBC Worldwide exists to make a profit, whereas BBC World News is commercially funded but not profit driven. It's...complicated.
THIS! In the last few years the BBC have produced nothing but period dramas and drivel all of it aimed at the american market. Why make quality british programming for the British market any more when you can make a 'UK series' (6 eps) and make pure profit in the US market.
They aren't perfect by any means but have managed to produce some gems. They often don't fully appreciate that they are gems when making them mind you.
It's a little like the BBC world service news, which is pretty good (especially compared to sky and cnn and so on), except you can't get it in the UK ... it even has the same presenters that are on the normal BBC 24 News, and 10 o'clock news! It's weird to say the least. But it gets even more weird, as programmes made by the licence pay version of the BBC appear on the world service news. I was watching it a week ago…
> So what is that doing being shown on the commercial arm of the BBC? BBC World News is distinct from BBC Worldwide, they're different commercial groups. It has a much closer relationship with BBC News, which is publicly funded. BBC Worldwide exists to make a profit, whereas BBC World News is commercially funded but not profit driven. It's...complicated.
THIS! In the last few years the BBC have produced nothing but period dramas and drivel all of it aimed at the american market. Why make quality british programming for the British market any more when you can make a 'UK series' (6 eps) and make pure profit in the US market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you aren't a fan of various BBC programmes, doesn't mean that other people aren't either. Many people in the UK really enjoy all the period drama stuff that they show. That the US market also enjoys it is an added bonus. Please don't project your own opinions onto the rest of the UK.
I don't, they cost a shit load of money to make, and unlike commercial companies have a guaranteed budget for the TV licence..
The 2hr pilot episode of LOST cost $12MM[2]. Each episode of Game of Thrones has a budget of $6MM[3].
So no, they don't cost a lot of money to make, relatively speaking.
Edit: sources.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8717969/Trench...
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1...
[3] http://www.contactmusic.com/news/game-of-thrones-costs-6-mil...
It's a little like the BBC world service news, which is pretty good (especially compared to sky and cnn and so on), except you can't get it in the UK ... it even has the same presenters that are on the normal BBC 24 News, and 10 o'clock news! It's weird to say the least. But it gets even more weird, as programmes made by the licence pay version of the BBC appear on the world service news. I was watching it a week ago…
A BBC Worldwide spokesman said: [...] 'Under the BBC’s Fair Trading rules commercial websites are not allowed to receive unfair promotion from the BBC’s public services. 'This prevents us from being able to provide Future content on BBC.co.uk. genres. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208251/Global-BBC-w... (daily mail, so you have to scroll way down past the righteous indignation to get the facts)
>> 'Under the BBC’s Fair Trading rules commercial websites are not allowed to receive unfair promotion from the BBC’s public services. So don't promote it on the publicly funded sites. Done. >> 'This prevents us from being able to provide Future content on BBC.co.uk. genres. All that's saying is "we can't put this stuff on our UK sites". I'm not criticising the parent post by the way, but this just sounds like more n…
A number of years ago, the BBC ran a lot of websites that were extremely useful but not directly related to their broadcast output.
Unfortunately (for the general public), commercial broadcasters and publishers made persistant and vocal complaints that they were being irreparably harmed by the BBC entering into markets that were well outside their broadcasting remit. This led to a number of those sites getting shut down, and the BBC's web remit being considerably tightened inside the UK.
BBC Worldwide operates to a certain degree 'at arms length' from the publicly funded BBC, and is able to enter markets that are outside the BBC's normal remit. However, it is severely restrained on entering those markets in the UK, due to the perceived advantage the company has over other commercial competitors.
It is ridiculous and the lawyers that cause this to happen are so short sighted about how the internet works that its laughable. However as my actions show, it is annoying enough for people to give up and just accept it.
So this stuff we are "forced" to pay for via the TV licence, but we cannot see.. Think the BBC should be privatised.. TopGear is worth a few million for a start...