Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC blocking articles from UK residents

alexwarren.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 106 posts

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#91

Post by mapgrep »

timthorn wrote: post #75
dan1234 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, are UK residents prevented from looking at bbc.com URLs in case we see/click on any advertising?

No, it's in case the BBC URL substitutes for a UK commercial website.

But if BBCW is emphatically not subsidized as stated above, wouldn't it be perfectly OK -- even more OK than regular BBC -- if it competed with UK commercial websites? Since it's not got any "unfair" subsidy advantage?

Not trying to argue, just trying to understand the (bizarre) logic of the blockade.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#92

Post by azernik »

gadders wrote: post #89
tomelders wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A lot of their output is excellent.A lot of it is "me-too" copying of successful commercial formates. However, all the points you make are unrelated to covering up of child abuse by several presenters.

In your comment about the child abuse scandal, you were replying directly to a comment about attempts to shut down the BBC News website; in that context, your comments are going to be interpreted as being about the whole organization, not just about a single issue. In that context, it's not justified to then dismiss counterarguments (for the continued running of the BBC) as unrelated.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#93

Post by whiskers »

gadders wrote: post #88
sambeau wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC Worldwide is a separate commercial organisation. It does not get to spend any of your license-fee.

I will re-state then. 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?

None. BBC Worldwide is a separate entity that neither takes money from license fees nor produces anything specifically for license fee payers.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#94

Post by walshemj »

asg wrote: post #45
tomelders wrote: post #31

Please send an email to the BBC Trust asking them to reassess wether this policy really is in the best interests of the BBC and the licence payer. Please abstain from just complaining. The BBC is a complex beast and I genuinely believe this policy was drafted with the BBC and the licence payers best interests at heart, but perhaps they should take another look at this policy and debate wether or not there is a better…

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…

Yes sky etal including the Guardian actively lobby against the BBC as they can't compete against good services if you have heard UK commercial radio vs the BBC you will understand why.

No one ask why the sky tax is higher than the license fee and sky produces virtually zero high quality programming as that woudl upset that nice Mr Murdoch and we cant have that now can we.

Radio 2 was deliberately hobbled as it was getting to successful.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#95

Post by walshemj »

mapgrep wrote: post #91
timthorn wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's in case the BBC URL substitutes for a UK commercial website.

But if BBCW is emphatically not subsidized as stated above, wouldn't it be perfectly OK -- even more OK than regular BBC -- if it competed with UK commercial websites? Since it's not got any "unfair" subsidy advantage? Not trying to argue, just trying to understand the (bizarre) logic of the blockade.

one word "Murdoch"

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#96

Post by gadders »

gadders wrote: post #88
sambeau wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

BBC Worldwide is a separate commercial organisation. It does not get to spend any of your license-fee.

I will re-state then. 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?

Whiskers - it seems I can't reply to you, but according to the top-rated comment on this page:

The majority of the operation is a taxpayer-funded public broadcaster with a remit to produce high quality programming for free; but there's a unit called BBC Worldwide whose job it is to battle it out in the red-in-tooth-and-claw world of commercial TV programming, selling BBC programmes overseas and minting money that can then be used to subsidize the public broadcasting component.

That would imply that BBC Worldwide profits do impact the license fee (assuming the BBC don't just spend the profits, but use it to drive down license fee costs).

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#97

Post by gadders »

azernik wrote: post #92
gadders wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of their output is excellent.A lot of it is "me-too" copying of successful commercial formates. However, all the points you make are unrelated to covering up of child abuse by several presenters.

In your comment about the child abuse scandal, you were replying directly to a comment about attempts to shut down the BBC News website; in that context, your comments are going to be interpreted as being about the whole organization, not just about a single issue. In that context, it's not justified to then dismiss counterarguments (for the continued running of the BBC) as unrelated.

I would have thought that policies and procedures for producing good programming content are unrelated to whether it is OK to cover up child abuse or not. You could run a perfect news organisation, for instance, but still have a bad record on child protection. The two are unrelated.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#98

Post by rb12345 »

croisillon wrote: post #84

I love the NYUD trick, but trying to look up nyud.net brings me to some parked website, I don't know more about it. 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 weir…

I found that http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org was far faster than using Coral cache, but that assumes that you have access to IPv6. You can't chain the IPv4 proxy to it by the look of things (http://www.bbc.com.sixxs.org.ipv4.sixxs.org/).

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#99

Post by gadders »

zorbo wrote: post #83
gadders wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which they sold at an £80m loss. How many license fees is that?

If anybody is still wondering why BBC Worldwide would block its contents from viewers in the UK, it seems reactions like these are what they're trying to prevent.

Yes, they block the websites from the UK because people being outraged at a ("commercial" arm of a) state broadcaster losing £80m is a complete overreaction.

Re: BBC blocking articles from UK residents

#100

Post by Helpful_Bunny »

This falls under exactly the same Laws that prevent a UK resident viewing Channel 4 content on YouTube. (Or, try asking a German why so much of YouTube is "dark" to them, specifically Corporately sponsored music channels).

It has nothing to do with your license fee, and everything to do with the (vastly complex and totally out of my expertise) realms of International Copyright / Licensing Laws.

As ever, these things are really not simple enough to be covered by a blog post. Yes: the BBC's default page should be totally transparent (i.e. "You cannot view this because of agreement X, Y, Z", however, there's probably a clause in some contract preventing them from stating it - and no, that's not a joke) but this really is not the droid you're looking for to rant at.

Hint: If you're in Australia, the entire works of George Orwell are public domain; in the USA and the EU, this isn't the case. And yes, we need a serious shake up of the entire structure to progress, but this isn't the wet-stone to sharpen your axe on, trust me.

Ask why Disney gets 70+ years of Copyright, it's a far more egregious case.

Post reply on HN