Yes, it makes sense to ensure that content that BBC License Fee payers have paid for is only seen inside the UK. But putting the same block on educational and or publicity material makes NO sense at all. It was the same with the BBC Archives material published a while back. Black and white footage of Neville Chamberlain returning from Berlin were apparently not available in my area! This is not the kind of stuff that will contribute to bandwidth bills. Now that the BBC Management have spoken about the new focus of the corporation, I hope they will consider subscriptions to some BBC domestic channels (or selected content). A new role for BBC Worldwide perhaps?
3 comments:
What most people forget is that the BBC is only funded for the UK: not overseas. It's simply not funded for making its video viewable globally.
The exceptions are BBC News content (which is paid-for by the ads that you see on the BBC News website, if you're not in the UK); BBC World Service (paid for by government grant); and BBC (national and local) Radio, where the public service funds the moderately cheap international streaming in return for the editorial contributions that international listeners give.
As a matter of policy, all other video and audio clips on the website aren't available globally without funding.
(Oh, and it's not geotagging, that's something else)
It's not the rights ... it's the bandwidth bill I fear.
RFreeman.
Ahem, Thanks James. I meant geoblocking. I would argue that some of the excellent programming made for the BBC News site should be released globally. By all means make it ad funded. It also seems strange that you can subscribe to BBC Entertainment as a TV channel but not as a channel on the web. Something for the new BBC Worldwide to exploit in the coming years.
Post a Comment