Sport Why Wimbledon doesn't just have to be for tennis fans

[old.Tohtori]

Bandwidth costs. We're paying for it, why should we have to pay for the load of all the other countries accessing content?

Well, it doesn't stop all country related pages to go offline, so what makes BBC special?

 

[tris-]

Are we watching the same BBC guys?

A typical daily schedule

news
10 hours of bargain hunt
news
5 hours of cooking programmes
random film

And someone tell me what the hell is the point in shows like 'country file' and that 10 hour jesus marathon chat show they have on a sunday?

 

[nath]

Well, it doesn't stop all country related pages to go offline, so what makes BBC special?

What are we talking about here? iPlayer or the BBC news site? Plus, what other country related pages are you talking about?

 

[old.Tohtori]

What are we talking about here? iPlayer or the BBC news site? Plus, what other country related pages are you talking about?

Well any page really that uses international bandwith.

What makes BBC so special?

And in the name of common calm; i'm asking, not judging.

Ofcourse i think it's wrong, evidently, but i'm curious on if there's a reason.

(gotta learn this over explanation thing)

 

[nath]

Well any page really that uses international bandwith.

What makes BBC so special?

I'm going to ask you to be a bit more specific. What's more - what sort of content are we talking about? Regular web pages or heavy stuff such as video content?

As to what makes the BBC so special? I don't really understand the question - I don't see the need to compare to what other sites are doing. If the prospect of opening the site to worldwide access would make things too expensive to the license payer - it's entirely fair and right that they make it UK only.

There's also the issue of whether they're even allowed to show the content worldwide - perhaps the iplayer content is only licensed to show in the UK, but on this I'm not sure.

 

[Amanita]

Well any page really that uses international bandwith.

What makes BBC so special?

And in the name of common calm; i'm asking, not judging.

Ofcourse i think it's wrong, evidently, but i'm curious on if there's a reason.

(gotta learn this over explanation thing)

Its funded by the public.

In other news, thats just fantastic. I love that player's sense of fun.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm going to ask you to be a bit more specific. What's more - what sort of content are we talking about? Regular web pages or heavy stuff such as video content?

As to what makes the BBC so special? I don't really understand the question - I don't see the need to compare to what other sites are doing. If the prospect of opening the site to worldwide access would make things too expensive to the license payer - it's entirely fair and right that they make it UK only.

There's also the issue of whether they're even allowed to show the content worldwide - perhaps the iplayer content is only licensed to show in the UK, but on this I'm not sure.

Interesting enough, knowing that you CAN show it locally but not sure if it's ok worldwide is a fair point indeed.

I refer to something like, oh say CNN etc. No other news network seems to limit things.

It's very peculiar, because so far i've noticed hulu, BBC and southparkstudios that have limited things. There's no common nominator there.

THAT is what is worrying me, sites closing down "just cause".

If the BBC is closing it's doors due to "county spesific laws"(like i thinkk southpark did), then it's ok. But if it's done out of greed, as seems evident, then it's just bull. Pure bull.

 

[tris-]

The British public pays money for content provided by the BBC.

Due to this, there is no reason why other countries should get it free when the public from the country of origin has to pay for it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Fair enough, selfish "our thing" is all i need for a reason.

I don't think it's right, but it's a fair enough answer.

 

[Olgaline]

you cant compeare to CNN toht, Cnn is a commercial chanel, bbc is a public accses chanel.
the bbc have bbc world and bbc prime, wich are commercial chanels.


I do get why the bbc have chosen to limit it,
I however dont get some of the povs here though, what do you care if toht can watch it or not ? honestly
I can understand if your pissed about having to pay licence in general, but what does toht having accses take away from you or your ability to watch and enjoy the programs ?

If your gonna be pissed be pissed at having to pay for something wich you arent given a choice off..that at least I get.

 

[old.Tohtori]

you cant compeare to CNN toht,
Cnn is a commercial chanel, bbc is a public accses chanel.
the bbc have bbc world and bbc prime, wich are commercial chanels.

Just an example, just an example.

 

[nath]

Interesting choice of word "greed". What exactly is greedy about it? They have to pay for bandwidth just like anybody else, and that means we have to pay. Why should we pay for people who don't pay?

Also, could you give me some specific links to international sites you're talking about, similar to the iplayer. Additionally - are you saying BBC News is actually not accessible outside the UK?


"Selfish" too - either you're intending to be antagonistic or you need to pick your words more carefully. I don't see a single reason why it's selfish - if I'm paying rent for a flat, it wouldn't be selfish to not want random people to come and stay there. If I'm paying for BBC services, it's not selfish to not want to pay for others to use them too. As Olga said - you have to realise, there's no adverts and so visitors don't pay for themselves by merely visiting.


edit: you say "just and example" but Olga gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why it's not a valid example to use.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Not going to start a whole nother discussion on how and what and who.

Internet restrictons, on previously "a-ok" sites, is limiting the internet and taking it backwards.

My opinion, like it or don't.

And nath, i won't, so don't even bother.

Not going to go into a spincycle of he said she said.

 

[nath]

Well, I think your opinion is wrong and if you want to leave it at that, then so be it.

I'm still no closer to knowing exactly what part of the BBC you're talking about - the iPlayer or BBC News as a whole, just the video content or all. Also I'm not sure what other international sites that you're referring to.

If you're not interested in discussing it, well that's the end of that then.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The thing is, if we continue it, it'll spin out of control into things that neither of us actually were discussing.

I simply think, internet limitations on normally public channels, shouldn't be done.

BBC, is an established global network. That's the thing. No one can deny it's not and limitations like this might sound the bells of the future, especailly regarding other sites doing this as well.

 

[Ch3tan]

Toht the rights of those programs are sold to different companies outside of the UK, this is a way for the BBC to generate extra cash. They cannot offer programs on iplayer outside of the UK for this reason -they would be undermining their rights sales. That is my basic understanding of it.

Saying the net should be free is an ideal, but not realistic. You cannot expect a public broadcaster to compete with a commercial one if they are competing internationally, but being funded by only one country.

And I do not think that it is selfish to ask that something you pay for is not given for free to someone who does not pay for it. The only countries I would not mind the bbc giving away their programming away to for free is 3rd world or under-developed countries with poor tv choice.

 

[nath]

Again, I'm still not sure whether you're talking the BBC News site or iPlayer.

Have you considered that if it were to be open to all, it may become prohibitively expensive on the bandwidth side, either thus shutting it down or forcing it to open to advertisements and as such making a fundamental change to what makes the BBC so special.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Toht the rights of those programs are sold to different companies outside of the UK, this is a way for the BBC to generate extra cash. They cannot offer programs on iplayer outside of the UK for this reason -they would be undermining their rights sales. That is my basic understanding of it.

Ah ok, that makes sense.

Though if it IS paid by the customers, and it worked in the past, i don't se why this should change.

Ofcourse, i could speculate that the "global recession" could be a good enough reason.

Still leaves a bad tste as it previously wasn't like this.

Again, I'm still not sure whether you're talking the BBC News site or iPlayer.

Have you considered that if it were to be open to all, it may become prohibitively expensive on the bandwidth side, either thus shutting it down or forcing it to open to advertisements and as such making a fundamental change to what makes the BBC so special.

I simply base thi on previous ways. BBC seemed to show everything in the past, yet now it's not.

It seems, note seems, to me that things are closing down. Not JUST the BBC.

 

[nath]

I still don't see why people should be getting things for free if it's costing others. When you access content on the iPlayer it adds to the bandwidth costs - why should that be free? I don't see "because it was before" as an acceptable reason. Things cost, expecting to get it free seems a little unreasonable, the Beeb isn't a charity.

 

[Ch3tan]

Still leaves a bad tste as it previously wasn't like this.



I simply base thi on previous ways. BBC seemed to show everything in the past, yet now it's not.

Hold on now, what are you talking about? The bbc has never to my mind given away free programming to other countries, and it certainly never did with iplayer. It has the world service channel and you can get key bbc channels on satellite networks around the world -but not for free, you get what you pay for.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I still don't see why people should be getting things for free if it's costing others. When you access content on the iPlayer it adds to the bandwidth costs - why should that be free? I don't see "because it was before" as an acceptable reason. Things cost, expecting to get it free seems a little unreasonable, the Beeb isn't a charity.

Well if it was free in the past, the only reason to make it "pay per view" is greed or some other moneytary reason.

Hold on now, what are you talking about? The bbc has never to my mind given away free programming to other countries, and it certainly never did with iplayer. It has the world service channel and you can get key bbc channels on satellite networks around the world -but not for free, you get what you pay for.

I can't(as in "i think there's more then just me") believe it's only me who's noticed the increase in "not accepted in your country" tags in websites.

 

[Ch3tan]

But you made that comment in direct reference to the bbc, and that is NOT the case.

As for the other limited websites, you need to blame the rights holders again - the music and film industries want a lot of money for their rights, and the websites (some of which are generating massive amounts of moolah themselves, google anyone>) are too stingy to pay. Thus you get a limited service.

 

[old.Tohtori]

But you made that comment in direct reference to the bbc, and that is NOT the case.

As for the other limited websites, you need to blame the rights holders again - the music and film industries want a lot of money for their rights, and the websites (some of which are generating massive amounts of moolah themselves, google anyone>) are too stingy to pay. Thus you get a limited service.

I made the reference towards the BBC because this was a BBC video.

The comment was general in nature, not just towards the BBC.

And yes, this is most likely the case, as i said earlier, greed.

 

[Ch3tan]

Be glad you do not live in Iran or China then Toht. You should be glad all you have to moan about on the issue of net restriction is video content.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Be glad you do not live in Iran or China then Toht. You should be glad all you have to moan about on the issue of net restriction is video content.

Oh i'm not disputing that, i'm in a position that is, in comparison, very good. Still, i don't particulary like such things.

Mostly 'cause it might, note might, 'cause bigger restrictions as the door is open.

 

[Tuthmes]

For me (and i life in Holland) BBC1 and 2 are the only decent channels to watch. Especially for sports, because i get fking annoyed with the commercials in between my sports every chance they get, For example F1, but even tennis now (every small brake the players get there's a commercial). Not even to mention movies, etc, where they brake the move in parts with a news brake in between.

As far as not beeing able to see it if you're from another country, you'd have to blaim the cable company's in your own country. If you haven't noticed a lot of channels are dissapering from "the cable" and you have to get digital tv and pay extra to get it. This is why (or well 1 of the reasons) the BBC cannot display it online.

Anyways there are a couple of easy ways to go around it and there's even a good program for it (Hotspot Shield). I got searching after beeing pissed off at not beeing able to use Pandora Internet Radio - Find New Music, Listen to Free Web Radio anymore :<

As far as I understand the BBC (1 and 2) are public channels (just as Ned1, 2 and 3). They get payed from taxes is it not?

 

[nath]

Well if it was free in the past, the only reason to make it "pay per view" is greed or some other moneytary reason.

As has already been said, the Beeb is not a commercial channel and so greed doesn't factor in to it. It's also entirely possible that bandwidth costs weren't a big issue previously but they're more and more becoming so as more people around the country get broadband and so access more bandwidth intensive services. Granted this is a monetary reason but I don't see how that could for a second be considered "greed".

 

[kiliarien]

If I'd known the can of worms I was gonna open when I linked to iplayer.

TeeHee. ower:

 

[CorNokZ]

Haven't read this thread since I last commented, but I just think it's a load of bollox that I can't watch their videos eventhough I pay for it

 

[Rulke]

Heh I saw this on the news - good on the guy

Btw click the spoiler for the easiest way to improve your FH browsing experience

Spoiler