5 ms·

Cache for UK readers: http://web.archive.org/web/20130514033523/http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels http://web.archive.org/

by corin_ 13y ago

Cache for UK readers: http://web.archive.org/web/20130514033523/http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20130109-why-do-americans-not-buy-diesels http://web.archive.org/web/20130514033523/http://www.bbc.com...

gmantastic 13y ago
Thank you.
notahacker 13y ago
UK readers see this: "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." It's not a paywall, or an interstitial-ad-wall or a great firewall of China. It's just designed to save UK viewers from the horror of seeing an article with a BBC logo on the top and ads down the side. Stupidwall seems like a good term for it.
- corin_ 13y ago
  It may also be the case that some or all of their content is licensed for a non-UK audience, meaning that they would have higher costs if they wanted to allow UK viewers, a cost which they might not recoup from UK advertisement viewers. That said, based on the limited information we have, I'm totally with you that it's a ridiculous situation. Maybe they have a somewhat valid reason, such as the one I suggested above, but I do doubt it.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  Not exactly - the BBC often serves the same content without displaying ads in the UK. I'm not clear what's going on in this case, but it's more likely that this is out of its public remit - as a funded public service, they're not to compete with commercial companies in sensitive industries/they're not allowed to use public money on content irrelevant to their remit and so BBC Worldwide has to be somewhat carefully separated. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm This may be down to Rupert Murdoch's lobbying pressure.

by corin_ 13y ago

gmantastic 13y ago

Thank you.

notahacker 13y ago

UK readers see this: "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." It's not a paywall, or an interstitial-ad-wall or a great firewall of China. It's just designed to save UK viewers from the horror of seeing an article with a BBC logo on the top and ads down the side. Stupidwall seems like a good term for it.

corin_ 13y ago
It may also be the case that some or all of their content is licensed for a non-UK audience, meaning that they would have higher costs if they wanted to allow UK viewers, a cost which they might not recoup from UK advertisement viewers. That said, based on the limited information we have, I'm totally with you that it's a ridiculous situation. Maybe they have a somewhat valid reason, such as the one I suggested above, but I do doubt it.
ronaldx 13y ago
Not exactly - the BBC often serves the same content without displaying ads in the UK. I'm not clear what's going on in this case, but it's more likely that this is out of its public remit - as a funded public service, they're not to compete with commercial companies in sensitive industries/they're not allowed to use public money on content irrelevant to their remit and so BBC Worldwide has to be somewhat carefully separated. e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4058031.stm This may be down to Rupert Murdoch's lobbying pressure.