BBC News 24

If I go on holiday, I can't take the scores of channels that I pay for through my Virgin Media subscription with me.

If you want to go down the "oh well, but the licence fee is a tax" route, then consider that when I go abroad, I don't get free health care provided by the NHS if I break my leg skiing (at least until I get back to the UK), nor do I get a Metropolitan Police officer protecting me wherever I go, nor do I get free use of a car despite the fact that I'm continuing to pay road tax for my car back at home while I'm away.

BBC News 24 is a national service, and the argument that just because I pay for it in the UK, I should be entitled to have it when I'm abroad is extremely weak.

The BBC provides an international news service through BBC World, and through the international element of the news website. What incentive is there to watch the commercially-funded BBC World if BBC News can be watched free, without adverts, online? It not only undermines the very licence fee that you and I are paying, by being required to pay for services that the rest of the world can access free of charge, but it also undermines the commercial value of BBC World, which is hardly a cash cow as it is.

i now know the real links...try these with WMP or VLC...but by chance

mms://wmlive-acl.bbc.co.uk/wms/news/news24_bb_s1
mms://wmlive-acl.bbc.co.uk/wms/news/news24_bb_s2

Have you paid for watching News 24, like we do in the UK? No. To me, that is not fair. You already have the option of watching BBC World, which is more likely to cover news which matters to you. After all, News 24 is predominantly UK news - why would you be interested in that, when none of it applies to you?

Neither the links above can work on my pc. I'm in the UK.

u know that 24 introducing news service and special coverage that World didn't provide it for the major news stories..

and u know also that most of the money that paid in BBC's abroad coverage going for the crews of 24,also i am very needed to watch tv stars like Huw edwards and Jon sopel presenting news..

the argument that the World viewers haven't what they in needing for.

good luck ,friend

itsrobert, I think now would be a wise time to use your one Wildcard Ban privilege that is afforded to you as a moderator.

It may seem like a harsh and needlessly aggressive act against a new member, but history will show that it was the right thing to do. Approximately five seconds after you do it.

You seem to negate the issue entirely - the BBC is funded by British viewers and thus, British viewers must surely take priority.

If you're watching abroad, and wish to see the BBC's journalism, then BBC World is the channel. It's funding structure is entirely different and is designed not to draw upon publically funded resources. It's a simple message.

I would actually defend BBC World. Much of the content you see being broadcast on BBC News 24 is exactly the same as it's international counterpart. Indeed, you refer to Jon Sopel who presenters numerous simularcasts between the two channels.

Economically, it would be unfair for British viewers to expect to see BBC World for free - indeed, it is not officially available here in the UK. Many viewers around the world have to pay to see BBC World and simply being able to letch is not a option I'd ever favour.

In what way would it be unfair?

Erm... let's think... what would make it unfair? How about that the fact that we haven't paid for it?

Have we paid for AJE, CNN, Fox, CNBC, Russia Today, France 24....?

You really need to book far more interesting holidays!

Except that it's free to air on many services. And anyway, don't we pay for it via a Foreign Office grant from our general taxation?