Brits subsidising the BBC for an international audience
As any Brit knows, the BBC is funded by the tv licence, which we have to fork out annually if we receive any tv broadcast (nevermind if we want to watch BBC or not). All this money goes into Auntie Beeb's pocket, which does what it likes with. The BBC has warned, if we watch tv programmes via the net, then the place where we are viewing them, has to have a licence. It doesn't matter if you don't actually watch, a machine with a broadcast card will suffice. Think about the places where this could happen, workplaces, an internet cafe, picking up random wifi in a concourse lounge. Is the BBC effectively saying we have restrain outselves from browsing, until we check out if someplace has that bit of paper? What happens if you take a laptop with a broadcast card, to someplace with no bit of paper? How is the BBC going to monitor all this? Does it have power to make private internet companies disclose the physical address of IP numbers, against its statistics? Is it going to check for cookies in a computer? If the latter, what happens if you own a laptop, accessed your tv in a place with a licence and subsequently went to a place that did not. How do you prove this, will they literally have to marry IP numbers with downloads? How do they sift through their statistics? This appears to be saying, its not just about tv content viewed over a broadcast card, but tv watched over the net.
Their bespoke statistics to measure site traffic was launched this week, where the BBC said that off the shelf packages did not suffice. Perhaps the publicity for this package conveniently forgot to mention what it was really for. Apart from its pictures, is really monitoring people 'turning on the tv', and an army of heavies in waiting, to cart you off to court. What pisses me off about this, is the international audience that BBCi attracts, who all get to watch BBC content for free, with other countries besides the UK heavier net users. No need for them to live in fear, and perhaps a modern day version of BBC World Service? Modern World Service or not, the BBC's bandwidth (read servers, space for the services plus electric to run them) the UK licence payer has to subsidise the rest of the world. Furthermore, if a Brit accesses the same content and no bit of paper, we end up in court. Why do Brits have to pay to maintain a service so someone in some other country can access content? Granted, developing countries could benefit from, and one is happy to support this, but what about the developed nations?
Are licence payers actually happy for their money to be used in this manner? Should we just be proud that the BBC is in effect being an international flagship for quality standard and impartiality?
Bottom line though, is there the emergence of a two tiered internet, for Brits. Whatever happened to a place accessible for all?
Comments
The BBC licence does more than most people think. It allows the government to track every viewer around the country, Big Brother has been with us some time, and the beauty of it, is they make the viewer pay to be spied on as well !
Another aspect is to use the BBC World service as a propoganda and spy machine, which we again pay for, even if we don't agree with government policies.
The BBC has 8 channels (Nobody asked if there was ANY need or demand for it, and they only have two channel capability. so they repeat on the other 6, one could have been handed over to the disabled movement, and the deaf could have got some of it.
One wonders, why choice isn't included. e.g. pay per view BBC, and an option to render BBC viewing impossible on TV sets, thus removing any enforced licence fee. If we use SKY we get it there so pay TWICE.
The BBC is a state spy service, and we get bloody sport on 24hrs a day too with no real choice !
MM
Posted by: MM | June 14, 2006 9:35 AM
Actually before you go on about a two tier service from BBC - you should be aware that BBC have stated that all streaming videos etc from BBC will be accessible in UK only. Rest of the world cannot access it. Only if you're in UK can you get access to videos.
Here's a good example of how a site can ensure that only if you're in that country you can watch a video...
ABC - an USA TV channel - allows viewers to watch shows such as Lost on their website...but it's for USA only. Take a look, you won't access it since you're in UK
http://dynamic.abc.go.com/streaming/landing
It does it by your IP addresses - which is why BBC are keeping records of IP addresses. Each countries have their own range of IP addresses and if an IP address request a video but isn't in that country's IP range, it'll get rejected.
So a small number of people around the world will get to access these shows in USA or UK etc simply by using a proxy server based in that country but not everyone know how to do that.
Posted by: JGJones | June 14, 2006 10:25 AM
Forgot to mention...BBC does World Cup streaming - you can watch live football via its website...it's UK only too.
Rest of world only get to view the text website - news etc and perhaps some short video clips. They don't get access to streaming TV etc. I don't have a problem with the rest of the world seeing news etc.
In fact letting the world be able to see news that isn't as censored as their own country's is quite important - China for one (although they do block news.bbc.co.uk via the Great Firewall)
Posted by: JGJones | June 14, 2006 10:35 AM
I think people are too quick to criticise the BBC. I do understand some of the gripes but not why it's really winding people up.
The BBC is not funded entirely by the TV Licence alone. There are several avenues of funding.
Take BBC World - it actually run adverts. Yes, it's probably paid in parts by the TV Licence, but as I said on my blog, it probably bring more income to the UK through publicity, and there are probably more travelling Britons (with TV licences at home too) than ever before who would like to watch BBC World over CNN International.
I only wish BBC World would invest in subtitling.
Regarding the extra channels and that nobody asked for them? Strange, I used to remember lots of complaints that the BBC doesn't cover this/that interests.
Just my two pennies.
Posted by: Kyle Sterry | November 29, 2006 5:04 PM