Why is the BBC future site not accessible from the UK?(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Why is the BBC future site not accessible from the UK?
http://bbc.com/future
5 comments
I posted it because the explanation given makes absolutely no sense. The fact that it is not funded by the licence fee is not an explanation. It might be a reason to show adverts on the page, but it is not a reason to restrict access. I find it ridiculous that a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Broadcasting Corporation is producing content that can be accessed from any country but Britain, regardless of how it is funded.
I posted it because the explanation given makes absolutely no sense.
Well that's a different question to the one in the post title ;-)
The fact that it is not funded by the licence fee is not an explanation... I find it ridiculous
It is an explanation, albeit one that you don't like. Fair enough. My worry is that people will kick up a huge fuss over this when, frankly, it's a storm in a teacup.
Well that's a different question to the one in the post title ;-)
The fact that it is not funded by the licence fee is not an explanation... I find it ridiculous
It is an explanation, albeit one that you don't like. Fair enough. My worry is that people will kick up a huge fuss over this when, frankly, it's a storm in a teacup.
It's absolutely not an explanation as far as I'm concerned.
BBC Worldwide does operate in the UK, it sells DVDs, magazines, etc, so there seems no reason to lock UK users out of a specific website just "because" - the explanation they give does nothing to expand on the "because" element.
BBC Worldwide does operate in the UK, it sells DVDs, magazines, etc, so there seems no reason to lock UK users out of a specific website just "because" - the explanation they give does nothing to expand on the "because" element.
Its not that he doesn't like the explanation. Its that he doesn't understand the explanation because it doesn't make any sense.
And I don't understand it either.
(UK citizen living in UK, big supporter of BBC)
And I don't understand it either.
(UK citizen living in UK, big supporter of BBC)
I don't understand... this site is available for everyone EXCEPT people in the UK? And their explanation makes sense to you?
Being from the UK the explanation is perfectly clear to me. The BBC is Mussolini's vision of the corporatist state distilled to its basic essence. He is perfectly correct to post this. Why are people forced to fund private business ? How can this generate an optimal structure of production ? If the demand was there for the product no 'force funding' would be required and thus we would be sure that scarce resources were being put to their best, wealth creating, use. It is immoral to send people to jail for watching unencrypted tv streams. Just as it is wrong to send people a product they didn't want and then bill them when they use it. It is even worse to do this then recycle the cash into a foreign business then use profits from that business to prop up the main racket !
Not sure if you can classify the BBC as a "private business". It's a company which has a Royal Charter, and its governing body (the BBC Trust) is composed of twelve members appointed by the Queen.
When it is almost impossible to tell the difference between state, charity, business and government you have Mussolini's vision perfectly enacted. Society now serves to enhance the power and prestige of the state rather than the other way around.
But I disagree that it's almost impossible to tell the difference. The BBC is an extremely different company in many fundamental ways.
I think that if we were to consider the BBC as a signal of Fascism, then the term loses all meaning because even the states criticized by Mussolini had state controlled companies, from the what he called supercapitalists to the socialists.
I think that if we were to consider the BBC as a signal of Fascism, then the term loses all meaning because even the states criticized by Mussolini had state controlled companies, from the what he called supercapitalists to the socialists.
I suppose this is similar in principle to the Top Gear magazine.
It's not funded by the licence fee, but by revenue from the commercial arm of the organisation, BBC Worldwide. It's not as though those in the UK who pay the licence fee have a right to view the content free of charge.
Presumably the international version of the site is supported by advertising (as many other BBC online properties are), and someone decided it would be better to just block UK users' access to this content than to provide it to them with advertising, creating no end of confusion...
It's not funded by the licence fee, but by revenue from the commercial arm of the organisation, BBC Worldwide. It's not as though those in the UK who pay the licence fee have a right to view the content free of charge.
Presumably the international version of the site is supported by advertising (as many other BBC online properties are), and someone decided it would be better to just block UK users' access to this content than to provide it to them with advertising, creating no end of confusion...
It's not similar because folks in the UK can still buy the Top Gear magazine. They can't access it for free, but they can pay for it, because it's not funded by their licence fee.
This is not funded by the licence fee, but people in the UK cannot access it at all. They don't have the option to pay for it if they want to consume it.
A better solution would be to make these pages accessible from the UK but serve adverts and have a persistent alert bar at the top which explains why it is served with adverts.
I'm guessing that they're more keen on avoiding the tabloid headlines ("The BBC is dead: serves adverts on website for first time") than providing the content.
This is not funded by the licence fee, but people in the UK cannot access it at all. They don't have the option to pay for it if they want to consume it.
A better solution would be to make these pages accessible from the UK but serve adverts and have a persistent alert bar at the top which explains why it is served with adverts.
I'm guessing that they're more keen on avoiding the tabloid headlines ("The BBC is dead: serves adverts on website for first time") than providing the content.
I work for the BBC and can confirm this.
The content on /future is generated and created by BBC Worldwide and thus, unavailable to the UK because of this...
They can't show adverts on this page and allow people from the UK to see it because this would cause confusion and make people wonder where their licence fee is going.
The content on /future is generated and created by BBC Worldwide and thus, unavailable to the UK because of this...
They can't show adverts on this page and allow people from the UK to see it because this would cause confusion and make people wonder where their licence fee is going.
> They can't show adverts on this page and allow people from the UK to see it because this would cause confusion and make people wonder where their licence fee is going.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
The BBC absolutely could serve this content, with a persistent explanation of why this page serves adverts with its content.
Essentially the BBC is not confident in its own ability to design something which communicates a simple message ("This content is produced by a BBC subsidiary which is not funded by the licence fee, and we therefore have to pay for it by placing adverts on this page"). Having seen the incompetent UX work the Beeb have done on their homepage in recent years (BBC Sport redesign, anyone?), I can understand why they don't have that much confidence in their own abilities.
It's a shame that the BBC's arbitrary fear of confusion, which is fundamentally rooted in their own inability to manage expectations, is preventing millions of people from accessing interesting content.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
The BBC absolutely could serve this content, with a persistent explanation of why this page serves adverts with its content.
Essentially the BBC is not confident in its own ability to design something which communicates a simple message ("This content is produced by a BBC subsidiary which is not funded by the licence fee, and we therefore have to pay for it by placing adverts on this page"). Having seen the incompetent UX work the Beeb have done on their homepage in recent years (BBC Sport redesign, anyone?), I can understand why they don't have that much confidence in their own abilities.
It's a shame that the BBC's arbitrary fear of confusion, which is fundamentally rooted in their own inability to manage expectations, is preventing millions of people from accessing interesting content.
> Essentially the BBC is not confident in its own ability to design something which communicates a simple message ("This content is produced by a BBC subsidiary which is not funded by the licence fee, and we therefore have to pay for it by placing adverts on this page").
On the contrary, I would argue it is more a case of the BBC lacking confidence in the ability of the general public to understand such a message.
The problem is exacerbated here (unlike in the case of Top Gear magazine, the BBC Good Food website, etc.) because the /future page is not an obviously distinct entity.
On the contrary, I would argue it is more a case of the BBC lacking confidence in the ability of the general public to understand such a message.
The problem is exacerbated here (unlike in the case of Top Gear magazine, the BBC Good Food website, etc.) because the /future page is not an obviously distinct entity.
> I would argue it is more a case of the BBC lacking confidence in the ability of the general public to understand such a message.
Whichever it is, they're going about it entirely the wrong way. Is there a solution which most people could understand? I bet there is. Farm it out to five or six top UX people and I don't doubt that they would come up with a dozen beautiful and workable solutions.
The BBC shouldn't be censoring its/its subsidiary's output because of the stupidity of the general public.
Whichever it is, they're going about it entirely the wrong way. Is there a solution which most people could understand? I bet there is. Farm it out to five or six top UX people and I don't doubt that they would come up with a dozen beautiful and workable solutions.
The BBC shouldn't be censoring its/its subsidiary's output because of the stupidity of the general public.
That still makes absolutely no sense.
The BBC use location services to show adverts on the BBC news website, they could equally use the same services to not show adverts on this site.
It's just plain shoddy thinking.
The BBC use location services to show adverts on the BBC news website, they could equally use the same services to not show adverts on this site.
It's just plain shoddy thinking.
Sorry I can't reply to you sthulbourn but go here:
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/
It's a BBC worldwide website, working in the UK, using the BBC brand (e.g. the logo), showing adverts to UK people.
At the bottom of the (very good) content it says:
"BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC).
No money from the licence fee was used to create this website.
The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."
That's essentially the same message used as the explanation as to why I can't use the bbc.com/future website. Confusion has not abounded, the world has not ended.
The UK-blocked "future" website continues to make no sense to me. I can't see how this is not daft.
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/
It's a BBC worldwide website, working in the UK, using the BBC brand (e.g. the logo), showing adverts to UK people.
At the bottom of the (very good) content it says:
"BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the BBC).
No money from the licence fee was used to create this website.
The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great new BBC programmes."
That's essentially the same message used as the explanation as to why I can't use the bbc.com/future website. Confusion has not abounded, the world has not ended.
The UK-blocked "future" website continues to make no sense to me. I can't see how this is not daft.
The same is true of the Top Gear site: http://www.topgear.com/uk/
They can't. The content isn't owned by BBC UK, it's owned by BBC Worldwide, and BBC UK would have to: pay to licence the content from BBC WW or BBC WW would have to display ads.
I'm pretty sure the BBC aren't allowed to make a profit from ads from UK viewers.
They soon will. In the UK there are two versions of the BBC. The main one charges a 'licence fee' if you own a tv and another one called 'channel 4'. Channel 4 is part funded out of general taxation and part funded by ads. They will soon be forced to merge because the internet is bringing the licence fee racket to an end. The BBC is desperately trying to work out a way to tax ISPs !
The interesting thing is that the site opens correctly here in Bulgaria.
[deleted]
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 at www.bbcworldwide.com
On a technical interest note, I viewed the page first from my home here in Poland, then via my UK proxy using the same cookies. Both worked, but as soon as I switched to Incognito mode using the same UK proxy, I got the "go away" message. At a guess they're doing something with cookies to prevent repeated geo-up lookups.
The fun part is that when viewing using the UK proxy but with my "I'm a foreigner" cookies, adverts magically disappear from the page. Interesting mix of geo-ip tech they must be using :)