3 ms·

I pay £145 per year for the BBC, and they're too tight to serve me a single webpage. Absolutely shameful.

by beejiu 13y ago

MarcScott 13y ago
To be fair, BBC.com isn't paid for with the license fee. But I agree, it's pretty miserly of Auntie.
- mike-cardwell 13y ago
  My understanding is that they're not allowed to serve that website in the UK because it contains advertising and they're not allowed to advertise in the UK. I'm not sure where I heard/read that though.
  - corin_ 13y ago
    That's not the case, because the main BBC websites (e.g. bbc.co.uk) serve the same content to UK and non-UK visitors, with adverts showing to the latter, so they could easily do that on this site too.
  - jonrimmer 13y ago
    What's idiotic is that nowhere do they actually explain that's the reason they block access, instead they just give a meaningless non-answer about it being a commercial venture, ignoring the fact that plenty of other BBC Worldwide run commercial things, such as http://www.bbcshop.com/ http://www.bbcshop.com/, are available in the UK. All it would take is a slightly more apologetic page that spells out the actual legal reasons they can't make the content available, and people would probably get a lot less annoyed. Instead, every time a link is posted to BBC Future, people have the same reaction and ask the same questions. And if you search, you'll find plenty of blog posts and articles with people complaining and trying to figure out why the content is blocked in the UK, with absolutely no effort on the part of BBC Worldwide to clear things up. It really seems to be a case of total incompetence on behalf of BBC Worldwide. The licence fee is already controversial, and stuff like this only serves to toxify their brand and give ammunition to their enemies. It's baffling.
    - disputin 13y ago
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
      - jonrimmer 13y ago
        People have complained in the past[1] and only received the same vague BS that the blocking notice gives. The Daily Mail ran an attack piece when BBC Future launched[2], but it didn't prompt them to change anything. Whether due to incompetence or apathy, BBC Worldwide seem incapable or unwilling to improve their communications. [1] http://halfblog.net/2013/01/16/why-is-this-bbc-website-not-available-in-the-uk/ http://halfblog.net/2013/01/16/why-is-this-bbc-website-not-a... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208251/Global-BBC-website-boasting-depth-analysis-cutting-edge-research-available--EXCEPT-British-licence-fee-payers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208251/Global-BBC-w...
peteretep 13y ago
No, you're wrong. The problem is Rupert Murdoch. > [...] making the content available to UK audiences is not > as simple as removing the ads. bbc.com/Future is a > commercial website produced by BBC Worldwide. Under the > BBC’s fair trading rules, commercial websites are not > allowed to receive unfair promotion from the BBC’s public > services. This prevents us from being able to provide Future > on bbc.co.uk Essentially, if the BBC shows you this content, BSkyB cries unfair, and - in their opinion - The World Ends.
- jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
  Nothing whatsoever to do with BSkyB, don't be silly. What that says is that the commercially-led, sponsored content of BBC.com is not content which they wish to (or would be allowed to) display on bbc.co.uk. "BBC Future" in particular exists because it is ripe for sponsorship by companies that want to be associated with blue-sky thinking and "building the future of tomorrow" - Honda, Huawei, etc. The BBC go to the extra step of blocking bbc.com in the UK purely because they realise that most people would not appreciate the difference between the two sites and just increasingly associate the BBC name with commercially-led content, which is deleterious to the non-commercial image that makes UK residents feel better about paying the licence fee.
- ronaldx 13y ago
  BBC/the UK government should stand up to Rupert Murdoch on this issue, rather than creating so-called "fair trading rules" which harm UK license payers. Besides, Facebook and Twitter (external commercial websites) receive plenty of unfair promotion from the BBC.

I pay £145 per year for the BBC, and they're too tight to serve me a single webpage. Absolutely shameful.

by beejiu 13y ago

I pay £145 per year for the BBC, and they're too tight to serve me a single webpage. Absolutely shameful.

MarcScott 13y ago

To be fair, BBC.com isn't paid for with the license fee. But I agree, it's pretty miserly of Auntie.

mike-cardwell 13y ago
My understanding is that they're not allowed to serve that website in the UK because it contains advertising and they're not allowed to advertise in the UK. I'm not sure where I heard/read that though.
- corin_ 13y ago
  That's not the case, because the main BBC websites (e.g. bbc.co.uk) serve the same content to UK and non-UK visitors, with adverts showing to the latter, so they could easily do that on this site too.
- jonrimmer 13y ago
  What's idiotic is that nowhere do they actually explain that's the reason they block access, instead they just give a meaningless non-answer about it being a commercial venture, ignoring the fact that plenty of other BBC Worldwide run commercial things, such as http://www.bbcshop.com/ http://www.bbcshop.com/, are available in the UK. All it would take is a slightly more apologetic page that spells out the actual legal reasons they can't make the content available, and people would probably get a lot less annoyed. Instead, every time a link is posted to BBC Future, people have the same reaction and ask the same questions. And if you search, you'll find plenty of blog posts and articles with people complaining and trying to figure out why the content is blocked in the UK, with absolutely no effort on the part of BBC Worldwide to clear things up. It really seems to be a case of total incompetence on behalf of BBC Worldwide. The licence fee is already controversial, and stuff like this only serves to toxify their brand and give ammunition to their enemies. It's baffling.
  - disputin 13y ago
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
    - jonrimmer 13y ago
      People have complained in the past[1] and only received the same vague BS that the blocking notice gives. The Daily Mail ran an attack piece when BBC Future launched[2], but it didn't prompt them to change anything. Whether due to incompetence or apathy, BBC Worldwide seem incapable or unwilling to improve their communications. [1] http://halfblog.net/2013/01/16/why-is-this-bbc-website-not-available-in-the-uk/ http://halfblog.net/2013/01/16/why-is-this-bbc-website-not-a... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208251/Global-BBC-website-boasting-depth-analysis-cutting-edge-research-available--EXCEPT-British-licence-fee-payers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208251/Global-BBC-w...

peteretep 13y ago

No, you're wrong. The problem is Rupert Murdoch. > [...] making the content available to UK audiences is not > as simple as removing the ads. bbc.com/Future is a > commercial website produced by BBC Worldwide. Under the > BBC’s fair trading rules, commercial websites are not > allowed to receive unfair promotion from the BBC’s public > services. This prevents us from being able to provide Future > on bbc.co.uk Essentially, if the BBC shows you this content, BSkyB cries unfair, and - in their opinion - The World Ends.

jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
Nothing whatsoever to do with BSkyB, don't be silly. What that says is that the commercially-led, sponsored content of BBC.com is not content which they wish to (or would be allowed to) display on bbc.co.uk. "BBC Future" in particular exists because it is ripe for sponsorship by companies that want to be associated with blue-sky thinking and "building the future of tomorrow" - Honda, Huawei, etc. The BBC go to the extra step of blocking bbc.com in the UK purely because they realise that most people would not appreciate the difference between the two sites and just increasingly associate the BBC name with commercially-led content, which is deleterious to the non-commercial image that makes UK residents feel better about paying the licence fee.
ronaldx 13y ago
BBC/the UK government should stand up to Rupert Murdoch on this issue, rather than creating so-called "fair trading rules" which harm UK license payers. Besides, Facebook and Twitter (external commercial websites) receive plenty of unfair promotion from the BBC.