

Why is the BBC future site not accessible from the UK? - barny
http://bbc.com/future

======
mootothemax
I'm failing to understand why you've posted this, when the explanation is
right smack bang in the middle of the page you've linked:

 _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_

On a technical interest note, I viewed the page first from my home here in
Poland, then via my UK proxy using the same cookies. Both worked, but as soon
as I switched to Incognito mode using the same UK proxy, I got the "go away"
message. At a guess they're doing something with cookies to prevent repeated
geo-up lookups.

The fun part is that when viewing using the UK proxy but with my "I'm a
foreigner" cookies, adverts magically disappear from the page. Interesting mix
of geo-ip tech they must be using :)

~~~
barny
I posted it because the explanation given makes absolutely no sense. The fact
that it is not funded by the licence fee is not an explanation. It might be a
reason to show adverts on the page, but it is not a reason to restrict access.
I find it ridiculous that a wholly owned subsidiary of the British
Broadcasting Corporation is producing content that can be accessed from any
country but Britain, regardless of how it is funded.

~~~
mootothemax
_I posted it because the explanation given makes absolutely no sense._

Well that's a different question to the one in the post title ;-)

 _The fact that it is not funded by the licence fee is not an explanation... I
find it ridiculous_

It _is_ an explanation, albeit one that you don't like. Fair enough. My worry
is that people will kick up a huge fuss over this when, frankly, it's a storm
in a teacup.

~~~
EwanToo
It's absolutely not an explanation as far as I'm concerned.

BBC Worldwide does operate in the UK, it sells DVDs, magazines, etc, so there
seems no reason to lock UK users out of a specific website just "because" -
the explanation they give does nothing to expand on the "because" element.

------
aac74
Being from the UK the explanation is perfectly clear to me. The BBC is
Mussolini's vision of the corporatist state distilled to its basic essence. He
is perfectly correct to post this. Why are people forced to fund private
business ? How can this generate an optimal structure of production ? If the
demand was there for the product no 'force funding' would be required and thus
we would be sure that scarce resources were being put to their best, wealth
creating, use. It is immoral to send people to jail for watching unencrypted
tv streams. Just as it is wrong to send people a product they didn't want and
then bill them when they use it. It is even worse to do this then recycle the
cash into a foreign business then use profits from that business to prop up
the main racket !

~~~
icebraining
Not sure if you can classify the BBC as a "private business". It's a company
which has a Royal Charter, and its governing body (the BBC Trust) is composed
of twelve members appointed by the Queen.

~~~
aac74
When it is almost impossible to tell the difference between state, charity,
business and government you have Mussolini's vision perfectly enacted. Society
now serves to enhance the power and prestige of the state rather than the
other way around.

~~~
icebraining
But I disagree that it's almost impossible to tell the difference. The BBC is
an extremely different company in many fundamental ways.

I think that if we were to consider the BBC as a signal of Fascism, then the
term loses all meaning because even the states criticized by Mussolini had
state controlled companies, from the what he called supercapitalists to the
socialists.

------
aes256
I suppose this is similar in principle to the Top Gear magazine.

It's not funded by the licence fee, but by revenue from the commercial arm of
the organisation, BBC Worldwide. It's not as though those in the UK who pay
the licence fee have a _right_ to view the content free of charge.

Presumably the international version of the site is supported by advertising
(as many other BBC online properties are), and someone decided it would be
better to just block UK users' access to this content than to provide it to
them with advertising, creating no end of confusion...

~~~
sthulbourn
I work for the BBC and can confirm this.

The content on /future is generated and created by BBC Worldwide and thus,
unavailable to the UK because of this...

They can't show adverts on this page and allow people from the UK to see it
because this would cause confusion and make people wonder where their licence
fee is going.

~~~
EwanToo
That still makes absolutely no sense.

The BBC use location services to show adverts on the BBC news website, they
could equally use the same services to not show adverts on this site.

It's just plain shoddy thinking.

~~~
EwanToo
Sorry I can't reply to you sthulbourn but go here:

<http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/>

It's a BBC worldwide website, working in the UK, using the BBC brand (e.g. the
logo), showing adverts to UK people.

At the bottom of the (very good) content it says:

"BBC Worldwide is a commercial company that is owned by the BBC (and just the
BBC).

No money from the licence fee was used to create this website.

The profits we make from it go back to BBC programme-makers to help fund great
new BBC programmes."

That's essentially the same message used as the explanation as to why I can't
use the bbc.com/future website. Confusion has not abounded, the world has not
ended.

The UK-blocked "future" website continues to make no sense to me. I can't see
how this is not daft.

~~~
barny
The same is true of the Top Gear site: <http://www.topgear.com/uk/>

------
alexanderst
The interesting thing is that the site opens correctly here in Bulgaria.

