An interesting comment on New World Notes got me thinking about an issue that the BBC didn’t have to deal with 20 years ago. The BBC is funded by a license fee which is mandatory for any UK household which owns a television – this fee is then used by the BBC to create content. In the past, there would not have been such an issue with the TV programmes that the BBC produced being distributed internationally without their permission, but in the modern internet age, they are seeing their content being uploaded to various video sharing websites without their permission.
The BBC produces TV programming solely for the British audience, and chooses to export some of the more popular series such as Top Gear and Doctor Who to an international audience. Through charging the UK population, and by selling the rights to the programmes it produces to the international community, the BBC is an organisation which is funded by the British people, for the British people. Flatly put, that means if you’re outside the United Kingdom, you don’t really get the right to say that you should be allowed to view BBC content unless you decide to move to the UK and pay the license fee. In fact, feel free to do just that as more money means better programmes.
That’s actually more of the moral argument though – you don’t get what you don’t pay for. The actual reason BBC content isn’t available outside the United Kingdom is because the BBC holds rights to distribute content within the UK. That’s regardless of being a license fee payer – so if you paid your fee, and then decided to be a jammy dogder and ran off to sunny Spain, then you lose the rights to watch BBC One in the evenings. Tough luck.
But wait? What about the BBC World Service? They broadcast radio to the world – so surely it’s inconsistent for them to broadcast one thing for free, but not TV programmes?
That question is flawed. The World Service (which doesn’t broadcast in the UK, except digitally) is funded not by the license fee payer, but by the UK Government (UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office), as a way of promoting Britain to the world. It’s basically a way of making you people come to London, see the Queen, take your photo next to a red telephone box and shoplift at Harrods, then getting out before your teeth rot and your accent turns twenty shades of posh.
Well, what about the BBC website? That’s an international website!
Yes it is. In fact, it’s one of the leading Global sources of news and information, as well as one of the most trusted. What you may not realise is that there are actually two versions of it. There’s a version for the International community, and then there’s a version for the UK. The difference? One has adverts, and one doesn’t.. can you guess which goes with which?!
The International version of the BBC website carries adverts so the British license fee payer doesn’t have to subsidise the cost of providing the website to the international community, and because we pay for the BBC, we don’t see adverts. It’s pretty much as simple as that.
Personally, I’m glad that the BBC doesn’t distribute content outside the UK on the BBC iPlayer. It’d be stupid to do so when Brits are paying for the content, to distribute it out for free. Likewise, American TV shows on Hulu are restricted to America only. The argument was made that the US networks are commercially funded corporations, whereas the BBC is a publicly funded one, so it is obliged to give the content out for free.
And I agree – it is obliged to give it out to free. To the public who is funding it.
I’m hoping this blogpost clears up a few things about how the BBC works, and why content is restricted to the UK only. When I shared the original subject topic with a work colleague, he suggested his reply to international community would be a simple, if ineloquent, two word reply.
BryonyXx on February 5, 2010
I hope foreign visitors will remember to visit other places besides London and the south east.
I hope you were joking about the accents and the teeth…if visitors actually leave London they’ll hear the variety of non-posh accents we have and see that our teeth are no worse than any one else’s.
You won’t be blinded by over-whitened teeth here.
Come up to north west England and visit Liverpool…you’ll get a
warm welcome and a chance to see a city that dates back to the 1200s
Ganymedes Costagravas on February 5, 2010
Hmm, personally I can’t blame you for claiming what you guys pay for, but without the BBC I think the world would be a much sadder place, and if you ask me too little of what the BBC produces is sold off to international broadcasting stations… or sold off to staions who can pull it off the way you guys did.
Perhaps (and I’m sure it’ll play some part) it’s because those stations aren’t too keen on “less mainstream” productions, those that aren’t a guarantee hit, but the BBC is an established name and in my experience pretty much eveything it makes comes with the potential to appeal thanks to the great skills it’s made with.
Also, there’s one thing that you perhaps aren’t aware of, or consider a minor triviality > there are a select number of nearby countries that get BBC 1 and 2, pretty much for scraps.
Like Belgium for example (and you have an easy way to verify that)
We’re not those who “fund” the BBC, and still get it in our standard cable subscription pack. It’s been included in that package for decades.
And I’ve had my share of Saterday mornings and afternoons in front of the TV with coffee or chocolate milk and a good BBC show, or when I was sick at home… the BBC was on in our house just as often (or in some occasions even more often) than our own stations.
I’m sure that a part of the monthly cable subscription fee will find it’s way towards the BBC, but… considering the rather average price on that pack I’m not sure if the sum of all those tiny fractions of all our monthly bills that go towards the UK is anywhere near in comparison to what the people across the channel are paying…
I doubt this situation is likely to change, seeing as how everybody over here is so used to having (a partial fraction of) genuine BBC quality in the standard package, they’ll get outraged if it would go.
I for one was displeased when they took out BBC World.
In extension: we get some French stations, German, Italian, Turkish, some from Holland, Spain and 1 American over here in BE, all in that standard cable pack…
I can’t deny we’re quite spoiled on that matter, but we love it and pay for it (even tho it’s probably not as much as you)
Of course, it’s “just BBC 1 and 2″, which is only a portion of what the BBC uses it’s money for… and that goes to say for all the stations from abroad > it’s generally 1 or 2 stations, 3 at the most, so perhaps the BBC considers whatever money comes from us as “extra”?
Anyhoo, for now, I’ll gladly go down on my bare knees and ask you not to block those 2 BBC stations for us, we need them too badly to show the guys over here how it’s done.
BryonyXx on February 5, 2010
If you read my reply on the NWN blog…I’m all for BBC programmes being made available to other countries. I’d love to be able to
see plenty of BBC programming when I’m on holiday elsewhere.
When we were in Lanzarote, all we got was BBC World which was rubbish compared to the channels available in the British Isles.
Surely there’s a way of allowing foreign viewers access to the delights that Brits take for granted. I hope Auntie Beeb catches
on soon, as there’s a lot of good stuff gathering dust in the vaults
that deserves to be shown to new eyes.
Kim Food on February 6, 2010
If it’s a money issue, maybe you should ask the guys at Top gear to stop destroying brand new cars…
We get BBC Canada here, which is basically just a “concentrated” version of all the BBC channels. We get the big shows like Doctor Who and Top Gear. We do have to pay an extra for it, but then I figure the system here is a little different than in Europe.
I dont mind that they dont broadcast all the BBC channels worldwide, but it does annoy me when I cant access web content and get a message saying “sorry, not available in your country”. I can understand that it would need lots of bandwidth to make videos available to everybody on the planet, but it’s too plain obvious that BBC can afford it.
Top gear rocks, seriously. I dont give a flying bunny about the cars, but just listening to the guys makes me laugh till I lose my breath every times. They are the best hosts ever. Besides, I get to know more about the British slangs… and that reminds me I still have to look up where the word “rubbish” comes from.
Zig on February 6, 2010
Perhaps the BBC could sort out a subscription system. I would gladly pay a monthly fee to access the content, which would then be used like the license fee to fund .. stuff.
MAKE IT SO!
Saffia Widdershins on February 6, 2010
Kim Food – No, the BBC can’t afford it. It needs to put the money it gets into making programmes that the people who pay for it watch (i.e. the British licence payers). If the BBC has money, it is because WE have paid for it through a special form of taxation.
Moggs Oceanlane on February 6, 2010
Hrm.
My main bitch with tv, film and broadcasting in general is that despite the fact we supposedly live in a global community and talk to people around the world who are watching and listening to stuff they thing we should see/hear we can’t see or hear it because those who broadcast or distribute content are still using the same methodologies that they’ve used for years. I’d like to see/hear content while it is still current and before it gets cancelled.
I have no issue with paying for content but I’d like to be able to purchase it while it’s current – which, if you live elsewhere you can’t always do. If the content was sold – and the BBC earned money from it from external sources what’s the big deal.
I don’t think it’s all about “we payed for it so it’s all OURS and you can never see it” – I think it’s about coming up with a new broadcasting and distribution system that takes into account payment (so “you can pay for it too”).
A lot of people would be happy to pay for content – the problem is, it’s not available to them even if they are willing.
Moggs Oceanlane on February 6, 2010
(profoundly apologises for the typos and lack of punctuation)
Ion Money Today on February 10, 2010
{Amazing|Interesting} that I came across this…
I was just talking about this just a few days again and just happened to come across this….
bob newheart on February 10, 2010
Lets see here.. Considering the fact that the sharing of information and ideas promotes understanding and education i would think that regardless of who pays for it .. It wouldn’t be a good idea to start limiting you audience. (limitation of information and idea’s is how you get Hitlers and Stallins)
You make the point that people download these shows etc, and it is costing you/someone money… Your premise is flawed..
its the old argument about how much blood you can squeeze out of a rock. The rock in this case is people who watch shows online. The majority of them , Me included, would buy the show once it was made availiable in dvd format etc. But until that time there is not point..
This post reminds me also about tax on the tax… The content has already been bought and paid for many times over.. Just how much money is enough? Seems thats all people give a damn about anymore.. Money money money.. Anything else that gets in the way is shoved under the bed and forgotten about. .
BTW .. The BBC is a terrorist enabler .. Do your own research if you think i am full of myself. Maybe you will learn something.
Lena Olsson on February 12, 2010
This is just awesome. I think this is a great article. I’ve checked out your other posts and must say they are very informative indeed. Looking forward to reading more from you.