BBC Throws Up Website Paywall for U.S. Users

Stembolt · 2025-06-26T12:21:48+00:00

BBC Throws Up Website Paywall for U.S. Users In the initial phase of the BBC’s paywall launch, the subscription will cost $8.99 per month or $49.99 per year. U.S. users who sign for a subscription will get unlimited access to the BBC’s news articles, feature stories and the 24-7 livestream of the BBC News channel.

InternetJeff

Stembolt

From the article, it appears that the BBC wisely chose not to air some probable Hamas-influenced propaganda.

ThirdShifter

Is the BBC not aware of vpn?

ElQuintron

ThirdShifter Is the BBC not aware of vpn?

Given the paywall is aimed at a single country, it’s probably safe to assume that the BBC is not attempting a technical tour de force, or even seriously considering technical countermeasures.

ThirdShifter

ElQuintron probably safe to assume that the BBC is not attempting a technical tour de force, or even seriously considering technical countermeasures

So easily defeated and for show?

MacLeech

Stembolt I could see the US paywall being a way to replace funding the BBC is losing from loss of USAID funding. https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaaction/about/funding

BBC is also suffering loss of funding as more switch to streaming and stop paying their TV license fee.

Like all broadcast video providers, they’re looking for new funding sources.

InternetJeff

MacLeech I could see the US paywall being a way to replace funding the BBC is losing from loss of USAID funding.

That’s actually good. Americans who wish to voluntarily subscribe may do so.

px_eliezer_

InternetJeff That’s actually good. Americans who wish to voluntarily subscribe may do so.

Have to agree.

As you might have guessed, I’m normally a BIG supporter of USAID (for crucial health and poverty projects) and likewise VOA/RFE—-but I see NO need for US taxpayers to be subsidizing the BBC.

That’s just bizarre.

I don’t think that people in Great Britain are taxed to support the American PBS/NPR….

InternetJeff

px_eliezer_ I see NO need for US taxpayers to be subsidizing the BBC.

What’s more, in looking at their chart of “significant donors”, in the paragraph below the chart where they acknowledge said donors by name, there seems to be no reference to the apparent second highest donor in the chart.

Our significant donors include the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, several UN agencies, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation, Global Affairs Canada, and many others.

In the text they appear to mention the first and third highest donors, but not the second highest. That’s puzzling.

Sparkchaser

px_eliezer_ but I see NO need for US taxpayers to be subsidizing the BBC.

Agree, I subscribe to BritBox and the BBC news I get from their internet site. I hardly watch any news on TV.

urbanriot

px_eliezer_ I haven’t seen that but maybe it’s my OWN bias

Try to maintain objectivity and see if you can hear it the next time you listen, you might find it happens more than you realize on topical issues that do not have universal support, or even majority support. They’ll say something like, “the widely panned plan to do something” on something that isn’t widely panned or “the government is making this unfortunate decision to do this thing” that isn’t unfortunate for anyone at all. And sometimes they’ll just insert their opinion into something like, “oh isn’t that dreadful?” I could see how you would miss all of these events if you were aligned with them.

urbanriot

ElQuintron Might explain Canadian visitors haven’t seen it yet.

I connected through a work VPN in Buffalo and also a consumer VPN in New York and it didn’t pop up in a clear browser session with no cookies, I don’t think it’s implemented yet. Just for kicks I registered an account while “in” the US and was able to watch content without issue. In fact I was surprised at how much content I was able to watch without issue, they have less restrictions than CBC has with US addresses. (for those who have never tried, you can watch a lot of CBC content without a CBC account)

Astyanax

px_eliezer_ By contrast, American media almost NEVER talk about even our neighbors Canada and Mexico. Even the massive Canadian fires this year have been pretty much ignored….

That’s because Americans don’t give a damn and are going to grab their remotes if they start covering it too extensively. I watch some of BBC’s foreign stories go so long in the tooth on stuff I start to nod off. Like their Africa stories go on for so long I needed to wipe my face.

px_eliezer_ So that at least is where the BBC excels—a more worldwide perspective.

The sun never sets on BBC’s reporting; whether you wanted to know about it or not.

px_eliezer_

Astyanax That’s because Americans don’t give a damn and are going to grab their remotes if they start covering it too extensively.

Americans seem to have too much ADD/ADHD if they can’t sit through an in-depth news story.

Very short attention spans…

Probably related to Americans being sleep-deprived.

Fact:

An old antihistamine Tavist was sold in Europe at a dose of 2.68 mg, it was pretty popular there.

When introduced to the USA at the same dose, it made people into zombies.

The dose was then cut in half for the US market (Tavist-1 was a dose of 1.34 mg) and it STILL was sedating for Americans.

Clearly Americans don’t get enough sleep…

broknsymetry

px_eliezer_

An old antihistamine Tavist was sold in Europe at a dose of 2.68 mg, it was pretty popular there.

When introduced to the USA at the same dose, it made people into zombies.

The dose was then cut in half for the US market (Tavist-1 was a dose of 1.34 mg) and it STILL was sedating for Americans.

Clearly Americans don’t get enough sleep…

Well, either that or the Europeans were already zombies.

Somewhat-Reticent

USAid funding BBC may have been a small return on colonial expansion.
————————————————————————————————————
px_eliezer_ all first-generation antihistamines are sedating
(Technically, the BBC antenna tax is Socialism, not Communism.)

px_eliezer_

Somewhat-Reticent all first-generation antihistamines are sedating

Well yes, to varying degrees.

As are some 2nd generation antihistamines such as cetirizine (Zyrtec, etc) which is labelled as sedating by US FDA standards but promoted as non-sedating in the United Kingdom and various EU countries.

(Technically, the BBC antenna tax is Socialism, not Communism.)

Technically, it was a joke.

Donut417

px_eliezer_ Clearly Americans don’t get enough sleep…

As an American my time sleeping is all over the place. Some nights I can get as little as 4 to 5 hours and some nights I can do like 8.5 hours. I think a lot of it has to do with all the additives in our food, also many people dont have a good work/life balance. Also I think many Americans are just stressed out their mind. I mean between crushing debt, unaffordable housing and what ever bull shit our president decides to do each day….. it can take its toll.

Sparkchaser

Donut417 I think many Americans are just stressed out their mind.

Absolutely, at 80 yo, I should be worried if I’ll wake up tomorrow but I worry about what I’ll fine when I wake up.

Donut417

Sparkchaser I mean, I think you would be worried if you couldn’t afford a place to live, food or medical care. Which is what a lot of Americans currently face. Not to mention the rioting happening around our country and the political instabilities in the world currently.

ugly95

px_eliezer_ I haven’t seen that but maybe it’s my OWN bias, after all SpongeBob doesn’t consciously know that he’s in water.

I often do watch BBC News which I get through YouTubeTV—and I will say that they do a better job covering the REST of the world, compared to American media.

It’s such a meaningless criticism to claim that a news outlet is biased. Every news outlet has some degree of bias. It’s such an obvious statement that it shouldn’t even really need to be said.

But we need to remember that there are particular groups of media outlets and influencers who, as part of their own business model, drum up endless outrage over the most milquetoast center-left news outlets being hopelessly biased.

« Previous Page Next Page »