Discussion
Love this thing.
Marketwatch said:
BBC Worldwide today announced the launch of BBC Future, the latest BBC.com section. Informative and entertaining, BBC Future presents readers with an inspiring, forward-thinking and global array of content – going beyond reporting to delve deep into the personal and societal implications of topical developments in science, technology, health and environment.
The BBC could do well pitching to an educated and intelligent audience.Link not viewable in the UK.
BBC said:
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.....
colonel c said:
Link not viewable in the UK.
fuuuuuuuuuuuuBBC said:
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.....
AndyACB said:
Very good! 
AndyACB said:
As I'm out of the UK, I thought I'd try repacing '/future' with '/iplayer/tv'. But it automagically changes to '/mobile/iplayer/tv', and then reports that my phone is not supported. My 'phone' being an HP laptop! Am I missing something?. In my defence, I had a late night.Can someone remind me of the best way to use iplayer (and similar sites) when abroad?
Back on topic, the site does look interesting, but one of the three main sections is 'Science and the Environment', and two of the four sub-sections under this are 'Sustainability' and 'Recycling'. How predictable!
Symbolica said:
WTF?! Even if it isn't covered by the licence fee, the last time I checked the UK was indeed a part of the world, why should we specifically be excluded from seeing it?
I think because BBC Worldwide is a commercial entity, and isn't allowed to compete in the UK with ITV, Sky etc.sooperscoop said:
I think because BBC Worldwide is a commercial entity, and isn't allowed to compete in the UK with ITV, Sky etc.
About time the rest of it was put on the same footing and the license fee scrapped.Not sure I fully get the rationale of a wholly owned subsidiary of a license fee funded entity not being able to show content to the people who pay the license fee.
Mind you, can't imagine we'll be missing much (unless the quality's significantly higher than the carp the license payer gets).
Murph7355 said:
About time the rest of it was put on the same footing and the license fee scrapped.
Not sure I fully get the rationale of a wholly owned subsidiary of a license fee funded entity not being able to show content to the people who pay the license fee.
Mind you, can't imagine we'll be missing much (unless the quality's significantly higher than the carp the license payer gets).
Really think sky is offering you anything else but TV for idiots ? Not sure I fully get the rationale of a wholly owned subsidiary of a license fee funded entity not being able to show content to the people who pay the license fee.
Mind you, can't imagine we'll be missing much (unless the quality's significantly higher than the carp the license payer gets).
frosted said:
Really think sky is offering you anything else but TV for idiots ?
I agree with you. Which is why I don't have Sky.The current BBC offerings, however, are generally no better across the board from what I can tell. Just because it's license fee subsidised doesn't automatically make it a "quality" product, and allowing it to live or die on its own has to be a much simpler method than the ball ache of administering an outmoded license?
If the World Service output is such good quality that we can't see it due to commercial sensitivities, perhaps that could lead the charge in scrapping the license fee and showing how a BBC can stand on its own two feet.
AndyACB said:
Ha ! 
to you Auntie!frosted said:
Murph7355 said:
About time the rest of it was put on the same footing and the license fee scrapped.
Not sure I fully get the rationale of a wholly owned subsidiary of a license fee funded entity not being able to show content to the people who pay the license fee.
Mind you, can't imagine we'll be missing much (unless the quality's significantly higher than the carp the license payer gets).
Really think sky is offering you anything else but TV for idiots ? Not sure I fully get the rationale of a wholly owned subsidiary of a license fee funded entity not being able to show content to the people who pay the license fee.
Mind you, can't imagine we'll be missing much (unless the quality's significantly higher than the carp the license payer gets).
Except perhaps Sky Arts 1
and Sky arts 2
The Discovery channels are not really for idiots.
Oh! and Sky Atlantic has some interesting shows. Game of Thrones for for instance.
Then there's the History channel and National Geographic etc. But let not let reality get in the way of an out of date misnomer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff