On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary > >that makes profits, in much the same way. > > > >BBC - not for profit corporation. > > > >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit. > > > >Gordo > > > > At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: > > >[...] > Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has > been important for us and them. > [...] > > > And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with > the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of > IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). > > And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News > Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could > not be justified, could it?
no, iirc that investment came from World Serivice (funded by Grant In Aid from the Foriegn Office), since international news was under the perview of World Service rather than BBC Worldwide. The Foreign Office refused to continue this arrangement cos it prefered World Service to focus on BBC Arabic TV / Farsi - hence the adverts on BBC.com debate. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
