A version of the BBC iPlayer for Xbox 360 has been delayed "indefinitely" after the company failed to agree terms with Microsoft.
According to The Telegraph's BBC sources, a deal with the platform holder couldn't be reached because Microsoft's strategy of charging for all content on Xbox Live is incompatible with the BBC's public service remit.
"Microsoft only wants to offer its users access to platforms it can charge for as this is the model it is pursuing," the sources said. "It wants to ensure that only those paying for Xbox Live Gold accounts can access its additional content services and even then there is usually a charge on top to get access to those. For example, to access the Sky Player on Xbox, you have to pay for a Gold subscription as well as a Sky subscription.
"This does not fit with the BBC's model and Microsoft will not budge at the moment," they added. "It is really frustrating for those involved on the BBC side who want to make sure iPlayer is rolled out on as many popular entertainment platforms as possible."
The BBC cannot charge for access to the iPlayer as it is already included in the British licence fee, the Telegraph points out. Meanwhile Nintendo's Wii and Sony's PlayStation 3 already offer access to the web service - for free.
"BBC iPlayer has been extremely successful on PS3 and we recently re-launched on Nintendo Wii, from which the public response has been fantastic," a Beeb spokesperson said. "People clearly want the BBC iPlayer on their gaming consoles, and we don't think Xbox users are any different, so we've had discussions with Microsoft about bringing the service to the platform."
It seems 360 owners, for now at least, will have to get their Eastenders E20 fix from somewhere else.
When contacted, a Microsoft spokesman declined to comment.
I can see this only being a matter of time. It can't have been overlooked how good of a selling point this is on other consoles - even on the Wii.
My guess is that it's less to do with MS wanting to charge for it and more not wanting to piss off Sky by offering what is essentially a competetive service for nothing.
Not overly concerned by this development since, when I switch my Xbox on I switch it on to play games not watch TV, Facebook, twitter, I player,Sky player,maybe with the exception of Zune and Last FM, are all just Bells and whistles, Bells and whistles.
Spend more time giving me great games and I will be a happy man..
Started Dragon age ( looking very very promising) Last night,got exactly 3 hours sleep as a result, Here comes a low productivity day at work today
Its a shame because watching iPlayer is great through a console. I didn't really use the service on my PC, but once I had it on my PS3 I started using it and found some great shows through it.
I think MS shot themselves in the foot by picking up Sky before iPlayer. They could of had iPlayer for silver members and a few months down the line they could of added Sky Player for Gold members and I'm sure none of the companys involved would of had a problem.
Hardly surprising as anything worth having on Xbox Live costs you. I watch iPlayer on PS3 and its great. Maybe in the future this will matter more but right now I don't really think it will stop anyone buying an Xbox, yes, both consoles are marketed as more than 'simply' games consoles, but bottom line is games are what people use them for primarily.
Once again 360 owners get raped in the butt by MS. Money grabbing whores for sure. But you sheep will just bend over and say it's ok you don't need this service. But when they charge you for it you would gladly pay for it. Just like you pay to play laggy games like Modern warfare 2 on Xbox live.
I thought BBC iPlayer is only available to Virgin Media customers if they have a subscription with Virgin Media??? As far as Im aware, if you only have a basic Virgin package then you won't have BBC iPlayer access. If this is true then why can BBC iPlayer not be made avaialble to Xbox Live Gold subscribers only as well?
The benifit of having the service is because your console is connected to your TV and you dont have to stupidly crowd round a monitor to view a family programme you may have missed. So this addition would have been nice on Xbox Live.
Ah well, guess my PSN connection can add more bullets to the Xbox Live target.
As owner of both 360 and PS3 I'm not gonna bother with it anyway- there's absolutely bugger all on TV worth watching.
Not that I have a lot of time for TV anyway... nor gaming for that matter- seriously, at this rate I'm gonna be about 60 years old when I see the credits roll for Dragon Age.
Looking forward to more of the usual quality comments from the plethora of 'mature' sony fans by the way. Those guys are epic.
Once again 360 owners get raped in the butt by MS. Money grabbing whores for sure. But you sheep will just bend over and say it's ok you don't need this service. But when they charge you for it you would gladly pay for it. Just like you pay to play laggy games like Modern warfare 2 on Xbox live.
Bunch of suckers
You do realise that it's not an additional charge they are wanting, it's to make it available to those who have a gold account only.
But it's still not a great move. I do think it's only a matter of time before we see this getting sorted and released, though.
I thought BBC iPlayer is only available to Virgin Media customers if they have a subscription with Virgin Media??? As far as Im aware, if you only have a basic Virgin package then you won't have BBC iPlayer access. If this is true then why can BBC iPlayer not be made avaialble to Xbox Live Gold subscribers only as well?
The benifit of having the service is because your console is connected to your TV and you dont have to stupidly crowd round a monitor to view a family programme you may have missed. So this addition would have been nice on Xbox Live.
Ah well, guess my PSN connection can add more bullets to the Xbox Live target.
You're a c**k. That was just for the final paragraph though.
I have the small (basically free) TV package on Virgin along with my phone line and broadband. I get iplayer and pay nothing for TV services.
Still it is annoying MS don't back down on these things.
Considering that my TV License goes to fund the BBC, I can't see what they are moaning about. The BBC are money grabbing t**ts too.
Is it me, or does BBC iPlayer run better on the Wii than it does on the PS3. It does for me anyway.
Also, grasshopper, it has nothing to do with there being no web browser on the 360, it's a stand alone media player that's being used for iPlayer, not browser based.
How could anyone argue that charging for something that is free is ok? Oh and some of you xbox fanboys are just as bad as the ps3 ones....so dont make out its the ps3 fanboys that are annoying, its fecking both...just that there are alot more xbots on this website..
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Not overly concerned by this development since, when I switch my Xbox on I switch it on to play games not watch TV, Facebook, twitter, I player,Sky player,maybe with the exception of Zune and Last FM, are all just Bells and whistles, Bells and whistles.
Spend more time giving me great games and I will be a happy man..
Started Dragon age ( looking very very promising) Last night,got exactly 3 hours sleep as a result, Here comes a low productivity day at work today
My sentiments exactly. That doesn't prevent me from feeling some measure of sympathy for those Xbox 360 users that would like to have access to BBC iPlayer however.
Also, it seems I wasn't the only one who had a late night then although you out did me. I feel surprisingly fresh. So how's work today?
Typical Microsoft for you, "Let's charge them for an already free service". It's getting to a point where all those defending Microsoft's moves are cringe worthy. You can only access Sky Player if you have a Gold account, then on top of that you are paying for the Sky subscription. Access to FaceBook and Twitter requires Gold, anyone who has a little intelligence could use these on the PC for free. Basically Microsoft are charging people for using their own Internet Connections, and the funny thing is people are falling for it. Then if you think hard enough all the money they make for the Xbox Live subcriptions should result in amazing games. Let's take a look at this year what amazing game out... hmm seems to only DLC.I would like to play new games.You can call me a fanboy or what not, but this generation i have all consoles. You all know i am right, but the sad thins is you won't admit it.
As owner of both 360 and PS3 I'm not gonna bother with it anyway- there's absolutely bugger all on TV worth watching.
Not that I have a lot of time for TV anyway... nor gaming for that matter- seriously, at this rate I'm gonna be about 60 years old when I see the credits roll for Dragon Age.
Looking forward to more of the usual quality comments from the plethora of 'mature' sony fans by the way. Those guys are epic.
Heheheee! There you have it. I have 18 THQ games to go through (from the Steam deal this past weekend) which I've been making some headway with in the form of two of the titles. I'm 40+% through "Dragon Age" (though there will likely be at least two more play-throughs afterwards plus a couple of origin quests to complete). Then "AC1", "Dirt 2", "Supreme Commander", "GTA IV", "Planescape: Torment", "Demigod" beckon, and I still have to continue through "Batman: Arkham Asylum", "Eternal Sonata", "Condemned 2", "Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box", "Virtua Fighter 5" (if I ever get around to it) and finish off "Force Unleashed", "Viking: Battle for Asgaard" and "Afro Samurai" - none of which were finished first time around because of game stopping sections and/or a loss of interest.
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one area where the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Typical Microsoft for you, "Let's charge them for an already free service". It's getting to a point where all those defending Microsoft's moves are cringe worthy. You can only access Sky Player if you have a Gold account, then on top of that you are paying for the Sky subscription. Access to FaceBook and Twitter requires Gold, anyone who has a little intelligence could use these on the PC for free. Basically Microsoft are charging people for using their own Internet Connections, and the funny thing is people are falling for it. Then if you think hard enough all the money they make for the Xbox Live subcriptions should result in amazing games. Let's take a look at this year what amazing game out... hmm seems to only DLC.I would like to play new games.You can call me a fanboy or what not, but this generation i have all consoles. You all know i am right, but the sad thins is you won't admit it.
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
Once again 360 owners get raped in the butt by MS. Money grabbing whores for sure. But you sheep will just bend over and say it's ok you don't need this service. But when they charge you for it you would gladly pay for it. Just like you pay to play laggy games like Modern warfare 2 on Xbox live.
Bunch of suckers
Ha ha ha ha ha ha... Tw@t.
Any idea what causes lag? Clue: it's not the game you cretin. Also, WTF does MW2 have to do with BBC iPlayer? Get back under your bridge, troll.
MS clearly didn't see this as being a worthwhile pursuit. They know Sony and Nintendo offer it for free, and I am sure if it was a viable market angle they would have got on board.
If not, you have to feel they have missed a trick here. I have no problems paying for Live etc, but if they really wanted to charge for this then they haven't done themselves any favours. I'm sure there will be more to this than the black and white picture currently painted though.
who cares about iplayer, the bbc only has 2 decent shows and thats top gear and family guy the rest is for people over the age of 30 with no life like starsail
Just downloaded the NEW iplayer for the wii. It looks fantatic and is a vast improvement on useing the old one. Now if only they would get there flash player sorted!
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one are the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Have you ever been to the US? Their TV is utter tripe! In two full weeks I never saw a single news story about anything outside of the US!! And even the stories that they did have were quickly followed by a "Interested in that news story? Then buy my new Book" plug!
The BBC makes some truly fantastic programs and is responsible for projecting our culture etc, it can only do this due to the way it is funded, it's shows do not necessarily have to gain a huge audience. I doubt programs such as Pacific, Life etc and many of the comedies could ever have been made on any other channel. I am very happy to pay for the license fee as long as they keep producing great comedy, documentaries and news. The only good thing about the US market is the ability to buy different DVRs for the cable network.
Also the the post above claiming that iplayer is not available to all Virgin customers. It is available on all packages along with all the other catchup tv. It is also far better than the console services.
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription. Regarding the games, I think DLC won't cut it. The 360 needs games, Halo ODST was a cut and paste level design job. The GTA episodes added everything San andreas had back, so it really wasn't anything new. I am begining to feel that I am the only one who questions and gives serious thought to where my money is actually going.
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one are the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Have you ever been to the US? Their TV is utter tripe! In two full weeks I never saw a single news story about anything outside of the US!! And even the stories that they did have were quickly followed by a "Interested in that news story? Then buy my new Book" plug!
The BBC makes some truly fantastic programs and is responsible for projecting our culture etc, it can only do this due to the way it is funded, it's shows do not necessarily have to gain a huge audience. I doubt programs such as Pacific, Life etc and many of the comedies could ever have been made on any other channel. I am very happy to pay for the license fee as long as they keep producing great comedy, documentaries and news. The only good thing about the US market is the ability to buy different DVRs for the cable network.
Also the the post above claiming that iplayer is not available to all Virgin customers. It is available on all packages along with all the other catchup tv. It is also far better than the console services.
When you visit the US you understand why so much TV is free. 1 - the free stuff is for the most part terrible and 2 - there's twice as many ad breaks.
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one are the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Have you ever been to the US? Their TV is utter tripe! In two full weeks I never saw a single news story about anything outside of the US!! And even the stories that they did have were quickly followed by a "Interested in that news story? Then buy my new Book" plug!
The BBC makes some truly fantastic programs and is responsible for projecting our culture etc, it can only do this due to the way it is funded, it's shows do not necessarily have to gain a huge audience. I doubt programs such as Pacific, Life etc and many of the comedies could ever have been made on any other channel. I am very happy to pay for the license fee as long as they keep producing great comedy, documentaries and news. The only good thing about the US market is the ability to buy different DVRs for the cable network.
Also the the post above claiming that iplayer is not available to all Virgin customers. It is available on all packages along with all the other catchup tv. It is also far better than the console services.
When you visit the US you understand why so much TV is free. 1 - the free stuff is for the most part terrible and 2 - there's twice as many ad breaks.
And their ads are just rubbish! At least some of our ads are entertaining...
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one are the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Have you ever been to the US? Their TV is utter tripe! In two full weeks I never saw a single news story about anything outside of the US!! And even the stories that they did have were quickly followed by a "Interested in that news story? Then buy my new Book" plug!
The BBC makes some truly fantastic programs and is responsible for projecting our culture etc, it can only do this due to the way it is funded, it's shows do not necessarily have to gain a huge audience. I doubt programs such as Pacific, Life etc and many of the comedies could ever have been made on any other channel. I am very happy to pay for the license fee as long as they keep producing great comedy, documentaries and news. The only good thing about the US market is the ability to buy different DVRs for the cable network.
Also the the post above claiming that iplayer is not available to all Virgin customers. It is available on all packages along with all the other catchup tv. It is also far better than the console services.
When you visit the US you understand why so much TV is free. 1 - the free stuff is for the most part terrible and 2 - there's twice as many ad breaks.
And their ads are just rubbish! At least some of our ads are entertaining...
Like Americans themselves, they are loud and use a lot of words yet actually say very little.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription.
?I don't really get what your saying here. I have Sky Multiroom and to use the Sky player on my 360 it costs me nothing extra, if you don't have multiroom the only thing that you would need to pay for is the access to the live broadcasts. The on demand stuff is free for all Sky subscribers as long as your subscription includes the relavent channels.
As for the iplayer it should be available to everyone if it gets put on live but its no real loss if it doesn't. I've hardly ever used the feature on the PS3 and the BBC doesn't really make enough good programs to put on there. Infact Life is about the only decent BBc show i watch just now and thats series linked on BBCHD on my sky planner.
Why everones up in arms about this i don't know, its a games machine, you can add all these wee additions like facebook and twitter but at the end of the day its for playing games.
Though bringing the UK Zune store up to date with all the stuff the US store gets would be great.
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription. Regarding the games, I think DLC won't cut it. The 360 needs games, Halo ODST was a cut and paste level design job. The GTA episodes added everything San andreas had back, so it really wasn't anything new. I am begining to feel that I am the only one who questions and gives serious thought to where my money is actually going.
If Sky made the 360, or MS owned Sky then I could see where you are coming from. If someone got a gold account just to watch Sky on their 360, it would seem a bit much. But then they'd have to be slightly moronic to do that, so they probably wouldn't care.
I don't know, the 360 has been doing me fine this year. I'd like some more games, sure but Trials, Shadow Complex, ODST (which s**ts on MW2, IMO), Forza 3, L4D2 and the GTAIV DLC (also available seperately) aren't too bad. If you don't like the 360 games, then don't bother with it - it's very simple!
If someone has a 360 and doesn't bother with online play (so doesn't bother with Gold), are they really going to be bothered about not getting facebook, twitter etc? The only people I know who don't have gold on their 360s don't use it online at all as they don't have broadband.
Still, I do wish MS were more open to these things, but seeing as I use my 360 for gaming (and occasional streaming) I don't really care.
(ensabahnur, I think he means paying for xbl gold in addition to your sky sub)
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription. Regarding the games, I think DLC won't cut it. The 360 needs games, Halo ODST was a cut and paste level design job. The GTA episodes added everything San andreas had back, so it really wasn't anything new. I am begining to feel that I am the only one who questions and gives serious thought to where my money is actually going.
There is no argument as I'm not paying anything on top of my Sky subscription, I have the full Sky package (TV/Broadband/Telephone) so the 360 application is free for me.
I knew when buying a 360 that I'd have to pay for Live, MS never offered the service for free then whacked on a charge. The price is negligible to me as I smoke and that costs me more in a month than Live does in a year!
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription. Regarding the games, I think DLC won't cut it. The 360 needs games, Halo ODST was a cut and paste level design job. The GTA episodes added everything San andreas had back, so it really wasn't anything new. I am begining to feel that I am the only one who questions and gives serious thought to where my money is actually going.
There is no argument as I'm not paying anything on top of my Sky subscription, I have the full Sky package (TV/Broadband/Telephone) so the 360 application is free for me.
I knew when buying a 360 that I'd have to pay for Live, MS never offered the service for free then whacked on a charge. The price is negligible to me as I smoke and that costs me more in a month than Live does in a year!
because you spend more in a month on smokes, than live costs you in a year its negligible?!
surely that extra expenditure, makes optional bills more relevant.
see your point if you came off fags then had all this extra cash to toy with...
I would probably agree with you if MS charged £30 a month for Live, but you can get 12 months from Amazon for £32.99 and cheaper elsewhere. Plus you can't really say people have to pay a Sky subscription on top of Live, as some like myself have subscribed to Sky regardless of the 360 app and can use it for free.
Also your dismissive thoughts on DLC are tired. I got more out of the GTA expansions than I did MW2, for almost a third of the price.
I don't want to start some kind of argument, but even if you already have a Sky subscription (meaning you pay for it seperately) why should you pay to use your own subscription. Regarding the games, I think DLC won't cut it. The 360 needs games, Halo ODST was a cut and paste level design job. The GTA episodes added everything San andreas had back, so it really wasn't anything new. I am begining to feel that I am the only one who questions and gives serious thought to where my money is actually going.
There is no argument as I'm not paying anything on top of my Sky subscription, I have the full Sky package (TV/Broadband/Telephone) so the 360 application is free for me.
I knew when buying a 360 that I'd have to pay for Live, MS never offered the service for free then whacked on a charge. The price is negligible to me as I smoke and that costs me more in a month than Live does in a year!
because you spend more in a month on smokes, than live costs you in a year its negligible?!
surely that extra expenditure, makes optional bills more relevant.
see your point if you came off fags then had all this extra cash to toy with...
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Aye, which is one are the US decimates Europe: no tv licensing fees in the US. You can access public networks free of charge (calling within the same area code is also free of charge incidentally,) and if you want cable then the costs are between you and the provider. Seems fair to me.
Have you ever been to the US? Their TV is utter tripe! In two full weeks I never saw a single news story about anything outside of the US!! And even the stories that they did have were quickly followed by a "Interested in that news story? Then buy my new Book" plug!
The BBC makes some truly fantastic programs and is responsible for projecting our culture etc, it can only do this due to the way it is funded, it's shows do not necessarily have to gain a huge audience. I doubt programs such as Pacific, Life etc and many of the comedies could ever have been made on any other channel. I am very happy to pay for the license fee as long as they keep producing great comedy, documentaries and news. The only good thing about the US market is the ability to buy different DVRs for the cable network.
Also the the post above claiming that iplayer is not available to all Virgin customers. It is available on all packages along with all the other catchup tv. It is also far better than the console services.
I have actually. I lived and studied there for five years and have visited since then as well. Depending on which cable package you spring for not all of it is tripe. The same goes fro a great many other places in my experience. Personal interests/tastes and what not. That said, I do very much prefer the more sober and non-sensationalist news reporting found with some news channesl in the UK and the Scandinavian countries. Oh! The US National Public Radio and its TV off shoot do actually offer cool headed journalism and news reporting yet since many Americans seem to favour private cable, public channels are often seen as a bit of a joke. It's a shame IMO where it pertains to the news.
Generally speaking, many countries understandably focus a lot on local news. Granted, some countries - usually the smaller ones, again in my experience - seem to commit more time to international news. I expect this has to do with the reality that smaller countries often have to actively seek out outside actors in order to meet certain needs/interests and be a bit more flexible than larger, more powerful nations that can afford to be less considerate of others. I still find various UK news channels focus more on local UK news that I would prefer at times, though not quite as bad as certain US channels.
P.S. And if you think sitting through 5 minutes of US or UK commercials is bad, try suffering through 8 minute commercial breaks as is the case on Ducth television channels. It gets so bad at times that I forget what I was watching before the commercial break!
P.S.S. Personally I resented having to pay a TV license while living in Scotland. Even more so in Denmark where it was more expensive and where you now also have to pay for the same license if you are connected to the internet yet have no TV because you just might look at online TV (or not, but then you have to prove that your PC isn't able to access online TV - considering the time and costs of going through the legal battle I suspect those who fall in to that group simply decide to swallow the costs). As far as I can tell it seems that if there is a TV license in The Netherlands it is included as part of your payments to the cable provider; that or there simply isn't one.
Typical of M$hite making you want to pay for things that are free to use on a PC (and in this case, other consoles too).
But like roynluc said, the BBC are also money grabbing c*nts since they charge for a sodding TV license. I've always thought it was pathetic having to pay to watch TV, especially considering its mainly full of sh*te
Well the BBC could put adverts on every 12 minutes or less like ITV etc or SKY/Cable where you pay for the service and still get ads.
MSoft should of allowed this to all users in my book and not keep it for gold subcribers only.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
