BBC Worldwide (International Site)
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.
Because they are funded by taxes, they have very specific things they are allowed to sell because they have an unfair advantage in internal UK markets. However, to reduce the burden on the tax payers, they are allowed to sell things internationally.
So you suddenly have this dilemma, and this site is a direct consequence of that dilemma. They want to act in a commercial way to worldwide audiences to reduce the tax burden, but are prohibited from showing certain things to UK tax payers because they would have an unfair advantage against commercial UK competitors.
Your choice is get rid of the BBC or put up with this and a few other legal quirks.
Most companies are motivated to return a profit because that's what their shareholders want, and the continued employment of their directors depends on keeping the shareholders happy. The BBC doesn't have shareholders, it has a government oversight committee. The continued employment of their directors depends on keeping that committee happy, which a move like you propose would certainly not achieve.
They have an ordained purpose of providing quality content to UK citizens. Selling content internationally is only done insofar as it furthers this purpose (by generating extra funding for it). Their performance is measured based on how well they satisfy the UK market.
This hasn't really been a problem. Not as far as I can see from my life time.
The TV shows have never been any worse than private competition, especially considering the 'original 5'. In my opinion, BBC shows tend to be better overall (except Eastenders vs Coronation St).
That plus no adverts every 15 mins makes for a good experience.
Wrt to news, I read BBC News quite a lot. Again, no adverts to slow scrolling down and reporting that, although may face vehement accusations of bias, isn't all that biased.
That fails to explain why you aren't allowed to watch in the UK. This private/public thing is weird. It profits, to help fund the BBC. Part of those profits (what, $10 or so?) should go towards not fire-walling the UK from the content their channel produces to fund their channel.
Edit: I know proxies are not for your casual user, but will we ever have acceptance of the fact that fire-walling content is about the easiest thing to get around, and maybe (just maybe) that money could be less wasteful elsewhere?
I'm reading it from outside the UK and while well written, it certainly reads as partly a promotional travel article. I clicked on some of the other BBC travel articles in the sidebar and one even had a survey underneath asking readers to select from these responses:
> Did this story inspire you to pack your bags?
> * Yes! I'm looking at flight prices as I type
> * Maybe? I'll put it on my bucket list for the future
Yeah that gets me. I kind of understand the "you cannot see taxpayer funded stuff from outside the UK as you didn't pay for it (well, actually I don't get it either)
But this is weird - is it a new thing? Why bother?
