5 ms·

Some validation: In the UK, the BBC has a pretty fixed budget, a pretty fixed (low) number of channels and a pretty fixed audience. They have continued to produ

by DanI-S 15y ago

Some validation: In the UK, the BBC has a pretty fixed budget, a pretty fixed (low) number of channels and a pretty fixed audience. They have continued to produce a high quality output of world-class educational and entertainment TV for a good chunk of the last century. They also managed to build a free streaming service superior to Hulu, and a bunch of great websites. It costs $230 per year ($19 per month). And there will never be any ads.

DanBC 15y ago
Legally I don't need a licence but I buy one anyway.
- DanI-S 15y ago
  I'm British, but I live in California, and I'm eagerly awaiting the day that I can pay monthly for BBC iPlayer (their streaming service). There are sketchy proxy services available, but it feels terrible to be paying a third party and effectively stealing the content.
  - cjrp 15y ago
    iPad only, but I guess it's a start: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
  - cdh 15y ago
    On the other hand, they could easily provide paid service internationally but choose not to. It's disingenuous enough when the word 'stealing' is re-purposed in discussions about copyright infringement, since it is very doubtful that every copy of a shared file resulted in an actual loss. In this case, though, it seems easy enough to establish that the BBC has provided no way to compensate them for viewing their content from the United States. You might be "stealing" bandwidth in some sense, but I don't think it's fair to characterize the content as stolen in this case. The third party (VPN/proxy provider) is paid for network access just like you pay an ISP, not for the content itself.
    - DanI-S 15y ago
      "On the other hand, they could easily provide paid service internationally but choose not to." I doubt it's easy, but they've been working on it for a while now and it should be available fairly soon. I agree that it may not be fair to characterise the content as 'stolen'; I chose to use that term out of laziness. However, it's definitely not fair to consume the content without paying, either. It increases the financial burden on the UK license payer. Many of the BBC's shows are available to a US audience - you just have to buy them on Amazon, or stream them on Netflix.
      - DanBC 15y ago
        This highlights some oddities of the UK TV licensing system. I can listen to BBC radio all day every day; I can use the BBC websites all day every day; I can watch BBC TV programmes on their iPlayer service (so long as the programmes are "catch-up" and not streamed live) and I do not need a licence. I only need a licence if I watch tv broadcast live. Everything is defined in law; the devices used to receive (which include smart phones and computers) and the signals (which weirdly include for example French telly received via satellite). A person could hate the BBC and all its output and never watch it but still need to pay the licence fee. Personally, I welcome the BBC but the enforcement of the licence has been sub-optimal in the past.
        epscylonb 15y ago
        Anachronistic is the word you are looking for. The licence fee made perfect sense when it was created, it arguably has been unfair to consumers since VHS became popular.
  - ludwigvan 15y ago
    Or you could buy a vps in UK (e.g. Linode London) and proxy through it.
iuguy 15y ago
Actually the BBC had it's remit massively widened by the last government so that it had to fill sections of DAB, a large amount of Radio channels, Freeview, set up iPlayer and run a whole load of channels that aren't even targeted at the UK (such as BBC Persian), largely to meet the FCO's propaganda needs. Additionally, the dodgy dossier episode has emasculated and distorted large chunks of the BBC's programming leading to some completely bizarre side effects[1]. The BBC still does produce a large amount of quality progamming, but budgets and purposes have been affected. Top Gear for example used to be about cars but is now an entertainment show - a wildly successful entertainment show, but no longer something you'd seriously watch to get an idea of what cars to buy and what to avoid. The BBC is also responsible for the One Show, which one day will be recognised by the UN as a crime against humanity. There's also been considerable dumbing down of shows like the Apprentice and Dragon's Den over time, eschewing quality in favour of personalities and entertainment. The natural history unit still put out good documentaries, but even they're not entirely untarnished[2]. The quality of news has also suffered, particularly thanks to spin doctors in previous administrations, the simon gilligan dodgy dossier affair and other stresses on the BBC. When was the last time you saw a proper debate? The other week I saw Alastair Campbell jogging around forests, talking up the end of civilisation through alcoholic poisoning brought on by drinking at home, demanding minimum pricing as the only way out but completely ignoring the impact of the smoking ban as a factor in home drinking increases. It was a terrible attempt at a documentary and a case study in what's wrong with the BBC at the moment. I do apologise for getting on my soap box about this, you didn't deserve it for pointing out the good stuff. Still, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and the amount of media it has to produce combined with political interference has meant that quality has dropped, perhaps not as much considering the volume of material it puts out, but it isn't immune. [1] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/today-programme-the-ladykillers-graham-linehan http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/today-pr... [2] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950070/Frozen-Planet-BBC-faked-polar-bear-birth.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950070/Fr...
- DanI-S 15y ago
  You definitely make some fair points. The BBC is definitely not a perfect organisation, although most of its value comes from the fact that it is intended to strive to be one. I'd certainly take commentary from the commercial UK press with a pinch of salt, though. They have a tremendous amount to gain from the BBC's demise.

by DanI-S 15y ago

DanBC 15y ago

Legally I don't need a licence but I buy one anyway.

DanI-S 15y ago
I'm British, but I live in California, and I'm eagerly awaiting the day that I can pay monthly for BBC iPlayer (their streaming service). There are sketchy proxy services available, but it feels terrible to be paying a third party and effectively stealing the content.
- cjrp 15y ago
  iPad only, but I guess it's a start: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14322604
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- cdh 15y ago
  On the other hand, they could easily provide paid service internationally but choose not to. It's disingenuous enough when the word 'stealing' is re-purposed in discussions about copyright infringement, since it is very doubtful that every copy of a shared file resulted in an actual loss. In this case, though, it seems easy enough to establish that the BBC has provided no way to compensate them for viewing their content from the United States. You might be "stealing" bandwidth in some sense, but I don't think it's fair to characterize the content as stolen in this case. The third party (VPN/proxy provider) is paid for network access just like you pay an ISP, not for the content itself.
  - DanI-S 15y ago
    "On the other hand, they could easily provide paid service internationally but choose not to." I doubt it's easy, but they've been working on it for a while now and it should be available fairly soon. I agree that it may not be fair to characterise the content as 'stolen'; I chose to use that term out of laziness. However, it's definitely not fair to consume the content without paying, either. It increases the financial burden on the UK license payer. Many of the BBC's shows are available to a US audience - you just have to buy them on Amazon, or stream them on Netflix.
    - DanBC 15y ago
      This highlights some oddities of the UK TV licensing system. I can listen to BBC radio all day every day; I can use the BBC websites all day every day; I can watch BBC TV programmes on their iPlayer service (so long as the programmes are "catch-up" and not streamed live) and I do not need a licence. I only need a licence if I watch tv broadcast live. Everything is defined in law; the devices used to receive (which include smart phones and computers) and the signals (which weirdly include for example French telly received via satellite). A person could hate the BBC and all its output and never watch it but still need to pay the licence fee. Personally, I welcome the BBC but the enforcement of the licence has been sub-optimal in the past.
      - epscylonb 15y ago
        Anachronistic is the word you are looking for. The licence fee made perfect sense when it was created, it arguably has been unfair to consumers since VHS became popular.
- ludwigvan 15y ago
  Or you could buy a vps in UK (e.g. Linode London) and proxy through it.

iuguy 15y ago

Actually the BBC had it's remit massively widened by the last government so that it had to fill sections of DAB, a large amount of Radio channels, Freeview, set up iPlayer and run a whole load of channels that aren't even targeted at the UK (such as BBC Persian), largely to meet the FCO's propaganda needs. Additionally, the dodgy dossier episode has emasculated and distorted large chunks of the BBC's programming leading to some completely bizarre side effects[1]. The BBC still does produce a large amount of quality progamming, but budgets and purposes have been affected. Top Gear for example used to be about cars but is now an entertainment show - a wildly successful entertainment show, but no longer something you'd seriously watch to get an idea of what cars to buy and what to avoid. The BBC is also responsible for the One Show, which one day will be recognised by the UN as a crime against humanity. There's also been considerable dumbing down of shows like the Apprentice and Dragon's Den over time, eschewing quality in favour of personalities and entertainment. The natural history unit still put out good documentaries, but even they're not entirely untarnished[2]. The quality of news has also suffered, particularly thanks to spin doctors in previous administrations, the simon gilligan dodgy dossier affair and other stresses on the BBC. When was the last time you saw a proper debate? The other week I saw Alastair Campbell jogging around forests, talking up the end of civilisation through alcoholic poisoning brought on by drinking at home, demanding minimum pricing as the only way out but completely ignoring the impact of the smoking ban as a factor in home drinking increases. It was a terrible attempt at a documentary and a case study in what's wrong with the BBC at the moment. I do apologise for getting on my soap box about this, you didn't deserve it for pointing out the good stuff. Still, the BBC is not a perfect organisation and the amount of media it has to produce combined with political interference has meant that quality has dropped, perhaps not as much considering the volume of material it puts out, but it isn't immune. [1] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/today-programme-the-ladykillers-graham-linehan http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/08/today-pr... [2] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950070/Frozen-Planet-BBC-faked-polar-bear-birth.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8950070/Fr...

DanI-S 15y ago
You definitely make some fair points. The BBC is definitely not a perfect organisation, although most of its value comes from the fact that it is intended to strive to be one. I'd certainly take commentary from the commercial UK press with a pinch of salt, though. They have a tremendous amount to gain from the BBC's demise.