5 ms·

Well that sucks... > 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. I

by geoah 11y ago

Well that sucks... > 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.

tekklloneer 11y ago
If I didn't live in the US, I would have trouble imagining life without some sort of VPN based in the US. The amount of crap I experienced the last time I was overseas was astounding, and it seems to be getting worse, not better.
- lovemenot 11y ago
  Perhaps its just your lack of imagination. If you didn't live in the US, then you'd be living in another country. Like most of the locals, you'd probably adjust to getting many services the way they are provided locally. In time, you may even come to find some of the things you take for granted about the US now to be just weird. This is not to disparage the US, but to offer perspective. "the worst thing about living overseas is that its full of foreigners"
  - personjerry 11y ago
    Well I'm Canadian and am in the US for school, and it honestly is just a lot more convenient to live in the US. More sites offer delivery, more content is available. Of course, Canada might be a special case; YMMV depending on what country you live in.
    - vertex-four 11y ago
      > More sites offer delivery, more content is available. Which is wonderful if you define your quality of life by how often you can get things delivered to your house and how much heavily-funded Hollywood-produced video you can watch. In much of the rest of the world, we do things outside our houses - I'm not sure if Canada is like the US for cities, but I can personally be in my city centre in 20 minutes by bus, and hang out with friends or see a film with my unlimited cinema card or check out the new cafes or find a new tasty Belgian beer. I can get my bicycle out and cycle with the cycling club - or run around one of the parks. These things matter much more to my quality of life than what I can access instantly at home - I don't like being at home very much long-term.
  - lstamour 11y ago
    If you prefer English-language content it can cost a lot more to get it through local distributors -- sometimes services are only made available in the US and a select few countries internationally. Everyone else would have to lie and proxy to get such a service, with no local alternatives. Ironic, since we're talking about how you can't visit this article from the UK, and for reasons that have nothing to do with US licensing. Of course, I've had the same happen to me with UK-exclusive, unlicensed content, so.... Works both ways. Ultimately even though the US catalog of Netflix is huge, it's overshadowed by the global catalog's selection in aggregate...
Pitarou 11y ago
I was shocked! If you don't have a VPN, you can view it with Tor Browser (so long as you don't get assigned a Tor exit node in the UK).
miracle_code 11y ago
Javascript deniers have it almost as worse, please can someone archive.is/mirror the page?
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  https://archive.is/kCJFQ https://archive.is/kCJFQ Get the Resurrect Pages extension for Firefox/Pale Moon and access with a simple right-click.
tomp 11y ago
https://archive.is/kCJFQ https://archive.is/kCJFQ
- johnlbevan2 11y ago
  Thank-you. For others' info: the above link points to a UK accessible version of this article.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Fizzadar 11y ago
Yep, BBC future is the same. Utter bullshit - it may not be paid for by the TV license but that's no reason to (try to) block access.
return0 11y ago
I don't get it. What prevents bbc worldwide to make money from UK viewers?
- peteretep 11y ago
  Murdoch complaining about unfair competition
- lovemenot 11y ago
  I don't get it either. But I guess they are are concerned about Mr. Disgusted, Cheltenham complaining: "I don't see why I have to pay my license fee AND suffer these interminable commercials". Come to think of it, it may be in the BBC's Charter that their content be free from commercials (to license payers). If so, they are contractually bound to hide the commercials or, keeping it simple, just not provide content with commercials to license-payers. Of course, most of the BBC's internet accessible content has always been geo-restricted in the opposite direction. So they have form there.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    BBC.com shows ads to people geolocated outside the UK. Most of that content is not blocked to the UK. Here we see something a bit different - the article is blocked to people in the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/
- beejiu 11y ago
  Because BBC Worldwide is a commercial organisation and the BBC (the parent company) is a public service broadcaster. Even though BBC Worldwide is a subsidiary, if it started publishing content in the UK (where it has no commercial interest), it would give rise to a conflict of interest. You could argue that if BBC Worldwide were available in the UK without advertising, then it would in effect mean that the parent company was licensing content from a commercial partner.
johnlbevan2 11y ago
I like to think it's because the article mentions the Georgian empire, which in the UK means something very different, so could be confusing. i.e. Georgians being the British immediately prior to the Victorian era, or (for obscurity points) the alien race inhabiting Uranus.

by geoah 11y ago

tekklloneer 11y ago

If I didn't live in the US, I would have trouble imagining life without some sort of VPN based in the US. The amount of crap I experienced the last time I was overseas was astounding, and it seems to be getting worse, not better.

lovemenot 11y ago
Perhaps its just your lack of imagination. If you didn't live in the US, then you'd be living in another country. Like most of the locals, you'd probably adjust to getting many services the way they are provided locally. In time, you may even come to find some of the things you take for granted about the US now to be just weird. This is not to disparage the US, but to offer perspective. "the worst thing about living overseas is that its full of foreigners"
- personjerry 11y ago
  Well I'm Canadian and am in the US for school, and it honestly is just a lot more convenient to live in the US. More sites offer delivery, more content is available. Of course, Canada might be a special case; YMMV depending on what country you live in.
  - vertex-four 11y ago
    > More sites offer delivery, more content is available. Which is wonderful if you define your quality of life by how often you can get things delivered to your house and how much heavily-funded Hollywood-produced video you can watch. In much of the rest of the world, we do things outside our houses - I'm not sure if Canada is like the US for cities, but I can personally be in my city centre in 20 minutes by bus, and hang out with friends or see a film with my unlimited cinema card or check out the new cafes or find a new tasty Belgian beer. I can get my bicycle out and cycle with the cycling club - or run around one of the parks. These things matter much more to my quality of life than what I can access instantly at home - I don't like being at home very much long-term.
- lstamour 11y ago
  If you prefer English-language content it can cost a lot more to get it through local distributors -- sometimes services are only made available in the US and a select few countries internationally. Everyone else would have to lie and proxy to get such a service, with no local alternatives. Ironic, since we're talking about how you can't visit this article from the UK, and for reasons that have nothing to do with US licensing. Of course, I've had the same happen to me with UK-exclusive, unlicensed content, so.... Works both ways. Ultimately even though the US catalog of Netflix is huge, it's overshadowed by the global catalog's selection in aggregate...

Pitarou 11y ago

I was shocked! If you don't have a VPN, you can view it with Tor Browser (so long as you don't get assigned a Tor exit node in the UK).

miracle_code 11y ago

Javascript deniers have it almost as worse, please can someone archive.is/mirror the page?

J_Darnley 11y ago
https://archive.is/kCJFQ https://archive.is/kCJFQ Get the Resurrect Pages extension for Firefox/Pale Moon and access with a simple right-click.

tomp 11y ago

https://archive.is/kCJFQ https://archive.is/kCJFQ

johnlbevan2 11y ago
Thank-you. For others' info: the above link points to a UK accessible version of this article.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Fizzadar 11y ago

Yep, BBC future is the same. Utter bullshit - it may not be paid for by the TV license but that's no reason to (try to) block access.

return0 11y ago

I don't get it. What prevents bbc worldwide to make money from UK viewers?

peteretep 11y ago
Murdoch complaining about unfair competition
lovemenot 11y ago
I don't get it either. But I guess they are are concerned about Mr. Disgusted, Cheltenham complaining: "I don't see why I have to pay my license fee AND suffer these interminable commercials". Come to think of it, it may be in the BBC's Charter that their content be free from commercials (to license payers). If so, they are contractually bound to hide the commercials or, keeping it simple, just not provide content with commercials to license-payers. Of course, most of the BBC's internet accessible content has always been geo-restricted in the opposite direction. So they have form there.
- DanBC 11y ago
  BBC.com shows ads to people geolocated outside the UK. Most of that content is not blocked to the UK. Here we see something a bit different - the article is blocked to people in the UK. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbc.com/faq/
beejiu 11y ago
Because BBC Worldwide is a commercial organisation and the BBC (the parent company) is a public service broadcaster. Even though BBC Worldwide is a subsidiary, if it started publishing content in the UK (where it has no commercial interest), it would give rise to a conflict of interest. You could argue that if BBC Worldwide were available in the UK without advertising, then it would in effect mean that the parent company was licensing content from a commercial partner.

johnlbevan2 11y ago

I like to think it's because the article mentions the Georgian empire, which in the UK means something very different, so could be confusing. i.e. Georgians being the British immediately prior to the Victorian era, or (for obscurity points) the alien race inhabiting Uranus.