81–90 of 106 posts
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.
Lonely Planet was, until very recently, owned by BBC Worldwide.
Which they sold at an £80m loss. How many license fees is that?
A sensible worldwide url proxy-like would be great in order to bypass such country-based accesses. Oh, and letme.in is for sale!
Wanna see the BBC? paste letme.in in the url ; wanna see french public TV from abroad? do the same ; belgian public TV? go ahead
On a related note, lemonde.fr has similar weird rules (not state owned though). Coming from google news you can't see the full article http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2013/03/04/grand-par... but copy pasting the title in google https://www.google.at/search?q=Grand+Paris+%3A+la+victoire+d... you just have to click on the first link to get the full article...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said I didn't like it, I said it was drivel. I'm quite partial to the odd well produced period drama. What I'm trying to say is that recently they tend produce content with a mind to how the US will receive this new content. Dr who, top gear and downton abbey for instance. All of these are popular in the US and while that isn't a bad thing (more money to the BBC to hopefully make more content) what I disagree…
Have you heard of BBC4?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The anger by the OP and most of the commenters is misplaced. This is not a decision solely by the BBC Trust, and was not done with the licence players best interest at heart. This is the result of lobbying by newspapers and commercial broadcasters. The theory is that compulsory tax (or license fee) payers money should not be used to compete against commercial interests in anything other than TV broadcasting. In the c…
The BBC has been out of control for a while now. They bought Lonely Planet and sold it at an £80m loss, they claim to provide impartial news coverage but clearly don't, and they have presided over a paedophile scandal that would make the Catholic Church blush.
The BBC Natural history Unit produces 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio every year, and is the largest wildlife production house in the world. It's work is watched by audiences around the globe and has won Emmys, BAFTAs and Prix Italias.
It's sports coverage (when it can get the rights) is second to none. The most long lasting and iconic comedies and dramas in British culture were created by and housed at the BBC.
The BBC runs for £4.8 Billion a year. Compare that with sky that runs at £5.9 Billion a year. Everything on the BBC is free to licence payers. To get the complete sky Package would cost you £66 per month AND you have to watch adverts AND they still have Pay Per View for anything worth watching. Neither ITV, Chanel 4 or 5 offer anything near the quality and quantity that the BBC offer (Although Chanel 4 news is my second choice). And every other digital channel is basically endless reruns of BBC programming (Switch on Dave, $5 says it's a Top Gear rerun).
I'll forgive them a few hiccups, and I expect a few hiccups considering it's size and reach. Overall, I think they're doing a sterling job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the BBC is no longer producing content for BBC 1 and 2 in the UK? Don't be ridiculous.
I never said I didn't like it, I said it was drivel. I'm quite partial to the odd well produced period drama. What I'm trying to say is that recently they tend produce content with a mind to how the US will receive this new content. Dr who, top gear and downton abbey for instance. All of these are popular in the US and while that isn't a bad thing (more money to the BBC to hopefully make more content) what I disagree…
The BBC runs the worlds largest news broadcasting organisation. It has 3,500 staff, has 44 foreign news bureaux, has correspondents in almost every country, produces 120hrs of radio and television output each day, is the largest news room in europe and runs on £350 million a year.
The BBC Natural history Unit produces 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio every year, and is the largest wildlife production house in the world. It's work is watched by audiences around the globe and has won Emmys, BAFTAs and Prix Italias. It's sports coverage (when it can get the rights) is second to none. The most long lasting and iconic comedies and dramas in British culture were created by and housed at the BBC.
The BBC runs for £4.8 Billion a year. Compare that with sky that runs at £5.9 Billion a year. Everything on the BBC is free to licence payers. To get the complete sky Package would cost you £66 per month AND you have to watch adverts AND they still have Pay Per View for anything worth watching AND they produce next to nothing original. The vast majority of it;s content is bought in from the states. Neither ITV, Chanel 4 or 5 offer anything near the quality and quantity that the BBC offer (Although Chanel 4 news is my second choice). And every other digital channel is basically endless reruns of BBC programming (Switch on Dave, $5 says it's a Top Gear rerun).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which they sold at an £80m loss. How many license fees is that?
BBC Worldwide is a separate commercial organisation. It does not get to spend any of your license-fee.
If BBC Worldwide had not lost that £80m, how much in additional funds could have been offset against the license fee that UK people pay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC has been out of control for a while now. They bought Lonely Planet and sold it at an £80m loss, they claim to provide impartial news coverage but clearly don't, and they have presided over a paedophile scandal that would make the Catholic Church blush.
The BBC runs the worlds largest news broadcasting organisation. It has 3,500 staff, has 44 foreign news bureaux, has correspondents in almost every country, produces 120hrs of radio and television output each day, is the largest news room in europe and runs on £350 million a year. The BBC Natural history Unit produces 100 hours of television and 50 hours of radio every year, and is the largest wildlife production hou…
However, all the points you make are unrelated to covering up of child abuse by several presenters.
The BBC are prohibited from running certain commercial services (of which BBC.com is one) in the UK due to regulatory requirements. It's not their decision. You could of-course lobby your MP to get it changed, but I imagine there would be substantial opposition from both supporters and opponents of public media services to allowing BBC to run commercial services in the UK.
So showing ads is the problem right? Then don't show adds to UK citizens and let them read the damn thing instead of blocking the article? Then BBC International can charge BBC for showing "add free content" to UK citizens and that would take care of the formalities.