I suppose the TV licence in the UK is a sort of paywall, even if it is made of swiss cheese and enforced by folk with all the legal standing of Larry the Head Mouser or whatever moggy it is now.

I pay it, but I'm loathed to now. Not because I watch any live TV or BBC programming, but because I use the BBC News site a metric fucktonne and I suppose I justify it to myself as funding the BBC News department rather than Graham Norton's salary.

Maybe I'll fuck it off though. I do fancy a letter war with Capita or whoever managed the enforcement these days.

BBC announced it’s introducing a paywall for consumers in the U.S

It seems like it’s only for the US? If that’s true can you update the title OP

Feels like subscriptions are inevitable for everything these days.

I love the US defaultism even when they’re talking about another country’s public news station

(edit: the title originally just said it was adding a paywall without mention of any country)

Done

And just at a time when the US really needs a decent news service…

I am sure this was discussed at the Starmer - Trump talks as a way to further isolate Americans from the truth.

I guess it’s just Al-Jazeera now…

Well to be fair, a perpetual license for media/news wouldn't make sense

They're not that great anyway. They're barely holding on to my personal list of reliable sources. If I really need something, there are other places to go. Good luck BBC.

I know there’s rights issues and all but if they made a real BBC streaming service with their back catalog and every David Attenborough special in 4K, it’d be one thing but Americans are inundated with news and streaming services. I pay for my local newspaper’s digital site — mostly because if I don’t, who will? But even The NY Times has to have recipes and word games to keep people subscribed. Why would anyone pay more than a dollar a month or something for BBC News?

The U.S. seems like an odd place to trial this. It’s the most competitive media market in the world and we’re all already sick of being asked to pay for 40 different services. In conclusion:‍️

Exactly this. Isn't the point of the BBC world service to communicate/propagandise the British view of what's happening in the world to other countries? Imagine Russia Today adding a paywall? It's counter to the entire point! I think you may be on to something about this being a concession to Trump.

i mean they basically have that with britbox

BBC is Israeli propaganda so no loss.

Seems fair enough, these things cost money and the #BBC is in a race to diversify it's income in preparation for the license fee going away. The dynamic description sounds like they want to preserve the casual visitors experience of an open site.

I get ads on my BBC podcasts when I'm abroad. I assume that's all part of it.

Given that I'm stateside, this makes me sad. But given that they are funded by UK taxpayers, this is probably the right move.

Of course, that's just one less outlet for USA citizens to get accurate journalism (better than here, anyway) about what's happening in our country. Hope Al Jazeera doesn't follow suit.

Awesome thanks!

It does actually seem like it's only the US for now

Unless I've misunderstood your comment

BBC article:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2vgkn7w10o

Would not be surprised if it was not Thiel and gang ensuring only the billionaires newspapers are read by all us plebes by paying BBC to go paywall.

Al Bawaba used to do well also ...

$25 a month for the NYT.

What's the defaultism here?