Thats very interesting, you seem to know a lot about how the BBC is structured. Do you mind if I ask how the for-profit prohibition of their charter aligns with the ad-supported international BBC News websites and broadcasts on BBC Worldwide?
BBC Worldwide is an independent for-profit organization and, for the most part, responsible for the commercialization of BBC assets outside of the UK as the BBC itself is not able to commercialize.
Assets like Top Gear are an example of that - the show's production budget is(/was) unusually high because the BBC produces it for the world market where it knows it will generate a significant return selling the licenses (or broadcasting on BBC America etc). Compare that to domestic shows, such as Have I Got News For You, which is not shown abroad.
The advertising on BBC Website is placed by BBC Worldwide and they receive the money from that.
Profits made by BBC Worldwide are dispersed back into the BBC itself.
Aside from Worldwide the BBC has split up and sold or commercialized other assets. Much of the technical infrastructure it owned became RedBee and was invested in by Castle and/or Siemens (my memory is fuzzy). They also broke off their studio facilities into BBC Studios which I believe now operate commercially.
The BBC has been pushed considerably by Tory governments to becomes smaller over time which has resulted in these sell offs and break offs.
I've not worked at the BBC for 15 years but follow it closely and can probably answer other questions you might have.
The Charter covers "UK Public Services" and the "World Service", as does the Agreement with the Minister of the Crown. The World Service is a specific thing, which you can read about for yourself.
* So public service broadcasting to other countries isn't within the terms of the Charter.
* Commercial activities are prohibited to the BBC itself. They are limited to commercial subsidiaries.
The upshot of this is that services that you get outwith the U.K. are not from the BBC. They are from commercial subsidiary companies, such as BBC Studios for example, or from joint venture companies. BBC Studios is what broadcasts BBC content such as BBC America outwith the United Kingdom. Similarly, the WWW site that is served up to computers outwith the United Kingdom isn't provided by the BBC. It is provided by BBC Global News Ltd, another commercial subsidiary. It's quite different to the WWW site that is seen within the U.K..
The commercial subsidiaries aren't funded by the Licence Fee, and the BBC itself is not permitted to make a profit from its dealings with them, which must be "at arm's length" (to quote the Agreement).
If the license fee pays to make show x, who _eventually_ profits from the sale of x to the US?
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/11/top-gear-bbc-j...
The key is, I think, that a UK resident should not have to pay anything (other than the license fee) or be subject to advertising to enjoy BBC content.
So something produced for a UK audience can be sold outside the UK and the profits used by the BBC to make more content.
What's important is that the 'selling of things' is targeted to 'recoup costs', not 'make profit'.
An example, hosting an event and charging $5 per seat, to recoup the costs of renting the theatre. And to pay talent.
Maybe this is different in the UK?
And, you keep saying "operate for profit", which makes me think it is part of their charter, instead of saying "non-profit" which makes me think of my above logic.
For example last year BBC Studios paid £200m as dividend to the BBC.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/...
I browse both regularly and they’re basically the same content just with an advert. Not really sure what you’re talking about.