Slashdot Mirror

If you Read The Fine Article That Wasn't Linked on the Ofcom website you'll find interesting tidbits such as:

1.4 The BBC's proposed content management approach would require Ofcom to grant an amendment to its multiplex licence, subject to Ofcom's approval of specific proposals, to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to receivers that implement content management technology.

1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.

In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible. Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.

Full PDF is here

If you Read The Fine Article That Wasn't Linked on the Ofcom website you'll find interesting tidbits such as:

1.4 The BBC's proposed content management approach would require Ofcom to grant an amendment to its multiplex licence, subject to Ofcom's approval of specific proposals, to allow the BBC to restrict the availability of programme listing information for HDTV services only to receivers that implement content management technology.

1.9 The content management technology required to be implemented in receivers under the BBC's proposals would permit unrestricted recordings of HD content onto digital video recorders (DVRs) but would enable broadcasters to control the copying of this content onto other devices and its distribution over the internet. The HD content would only be accessible on other consumer devices which support the same content management technologies as those used in HD receivers.

In essence, if you use a receiver without support for this DRM tech, the only thing you're going to lose access to is the Programme Listing data - it's the BBC's way of placating the drooling media execs with as little direct impact on consumers as possible. Now that's not to say that someone in the government won't make it impossible to buy receivers that don't support this in the UK, but that's what China is for.

Full PDF is here

That will just go in the Recycle Bin. The correct place to complain is here
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/howtorespond/

Ars tells it better though:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/public-pressure-stops-bbcs-hdtv-drm-drive-for-now.ars

Its a little late to complain, or otherwise tell Ofcom what you think, but the link to the initial consultation letter is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/

You can still write to ofcom concerning this matter, but bear in mind there will (probably) be a further consultation when the BBC responds.

Open consultations can be found: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yes&sector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV

Ars tells it better though:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/11/public-pressure-stops-bbcs-hdtv-drm-drive-for-now.ars

Its a little late to complain, or otherwise tell Ofcom what you think, but the link to the initial consultation letter is here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/

You can still write to ofcom concerning this matter, but bear in mind there will (probably) be a further consultation when the BBC responds.

Open consultations can be found: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yes&sector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV

The last one was here

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf

Not too sure what is actually going on with the second round yet.

British prudes

They certainly exist, but they don't have control over the media. After 21:00, supposedly when young children are no longer watching, pretty much anything except porn is broadcast on normal channels. Before that time nudity would normally be non-sexual.

The full rules for broadcasters.

... so you're one of the guys screwing up communications on the amateur bands, just for your fun. Thanks. Thanks a lot. And thanks for caring about someone other than yourself. Would you corrupt others' Internet communications as readily?

(n.b.: This type of illegal CB operation is especially bad because the illegal "channels" used are in the portion of the amateur 10m band used for international narrowband, weak-signal work -- usually in Morse code, and often at the threshold of audibility in a 250 Hz bandwidth. Since the transmission modes were different, the illegal operators often can not hear the communications they are disrupting; further, since the "freebanders" use wider, single sideband transmissions, a single illegal transmission can interfere with dozens of narrowband signals at once. Since this band is capable of worldwide communication at certain points in the sunspot cycle, the interference can quite literally be global in nature.)

By the way, the world has changed. In the UK, an amateur radio licence is now free, valid for the lifetime of the user, and available online. If you're worried about the licence examination (but you're a geek, so technical matters are no problem for you -- right?) there are clubs that will hire the room, give you the study book, and teach you the exam material, all for £45. So if you want to talk to the world, why not just follow existing international standards and agreements, and get an amateur radio license?

And lose a *huge* chunk of their revenue. According to Ofcom 55% of mobile phones in the UK are pre-paid or PAYG (Look under the "Telecoms" section).

One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:

[snip]

Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.

MythTV will still work for all the current channels, you won't lose the ability to use that. The compression tables are only to be used for the new HD services, and you'll need a new DVB-T2 receiver card to get those anyway. Plus MythTV already deals with compressed EPG information in the UK for Freesat, do people really think that the compression tables for Freeview will be vastly different, if at all?

I'm confident that I will still be using MythTV to receive my TV on my computer for the foreseeable future and plan on getting and using a DVB-T2 card when they become available.

'It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?'

Here's one. Call the content providers' bluff. Right now, the BBC and other UK broadcasters transmit vast quantities of third party programming, free to air, in unencrypted digital formats. Somehow, the providers still seem to be willing to make their material available to the large and lucrative UK market. There's no particular reason why the gradual transition to HD should alter this situation in any significant way, except that the providers have seen an opportunity to lobby for restrictions advantageous only to them, and someone at the BBC has decided to roll over by proposing a misguided 'solution' that's pretty obviously in direct opposition to the spirit of the existing license. I'd like to think this is some Machiavellian token attempt to pander to the providers, giving the Beeb plausible deniability when the proposal is rejected, but sadly it looks like they were actually serious. A longer and better advertised consulation process wouldn't have hurt, either. I heard about it only on the last day of the process, and it looks like my response didn't make the deadline:

"I read with some concern the document at
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/ofcom_bbc.pdf
which describes a proposed change to the licence of the PSB3 mutiplex. I
note that the requested 'solution...is understood to be acceptable to
content owners', but that no attempt appears to have been made to
ensure that it is acceptable to 'content consumers' (or 'viewers', as
we used to call them).

As far as the viewer is concerned, there is no meaningful disctinction
between a 'free to air' scheme with an additional requirement to
enforce 'content management arrangements', and the type of fully
encrypted 'free to view' system prohibited by the current licence.
Both systems place similar constraints on the viewer's ability to
enjoy the 'content' without arbitrary restrictions, and would (for
example) make access to these broadcasts impossible from equipment
controlled by software available under popular Free and Open Source
licences (which are incompatible with the proposed terms of access to
the lookup tables).

The request for such an amendment is a transparent attempt to
circumvent the terms and intent of the existing licence, and I
strongly urge Ofcom to reject it."

One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:

Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.

Why would they want to block this? Note that he said watch TV on a computer - if he had said that he wanted to keep the ability to illegally copy it then you might have a point, but that's not what he said at all.

It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect.

Why should I (the licence fee payer) be legally required to financially support something controversial like DRM, that I fundamentally disagree with? If the content producers don't want the BBC to have their content then that's fine by me, but it will reduce their profits (by immediately excluding the BBC from the bidding process, they are automatically reducing the value of their content since less bidders means a lower winning bid (on average)).

It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem?

Perceived problems don't need solutions. Real problems need solutions.

That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative.

The alternative is to continue doing as they have been doing for decades - allowing licence payers to use the content to the full extent allowed by the law (and yes, this includes building your own receiver). Its worked up till now, why do they need to change?

Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.

DRM doesn't actually do anything to reduce copyright infringement. If anything, it increases copyright infringement by reducing the number of people who can get at the content by legitimate means. The choice is going to come down to:
* Replace my whole A/V system with a new system that has extremely limited functionality compared to what I already have.
* Illegally download the content off the internet.
Guess which choice I'm more likely to pick?

It surprises me how often people submit arguments to something (even here on Slashdot) and fail to anticipate the opposing view's points. I have read a few of the responses and have found virtually no alternative suggestions to combating piracy than DRM. Everyone just offers up reasons why it is wrong. Well, if you can't offer an alternative then you are condemned to fighting an uphill battle of why your specific qualms are worse for the consumer than the reduction of piracy. Of course, you can argue that a reduction in piracy does nothing for the end consumer but the BBC and UK Gov are singing a different tune apparently. The premium HD content providers to the BBC are interested in this so you'll need a different strategy than just saying, "wrong wrong wrong."

One particular fellow doesn't even seem to put two and two together (or spell correctly) and realize that his exact situation is just what they intend to block:

While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.

Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.

It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.

i didn't finish ur rant, i stopped at first paragraph...

but omg...i guess i have to use the modified chef example for u to understand?
here it is...do we need to teach the chef how to cook if he makes terrible food? we are on the receiving end, sure we can come up with ways if we feel like it, but ultimately it should be for the content provider to figure out how to cater to the consumers. i guess in your perfect world we also have to be witnesses for the RIAA and MPAA?

While I appreciate the BBC is keen to retain third party content providers for their HD channels I think compromising the rights of their viewers is not an acceptable solution to achieve this. I believe that it is in contravention of the BBC's responsibilty to provide unencumbered content to TV licence payers.

Personally third party content is of little importance to me, certainly not worth the risk of losing my ability to watch television on my computer via my DVB capture card; I use an open source operating system which will be highly unlikely to obtain a licence for the BBC's proprietary compression tables.

It amazes me that none of these responses addresses the basic needs or the fact that the BBC may be faced with losing some premium content providers if this doesn't go into effect. It's bad alright but what's your suggested solution to this (perceived) problem? That's why it will be eventually put into place if you don't proffer an alternative. Attack the problem at the root of its source and work to show that piracy really isn't a big deal, that's your only choice. Fundamentally, DRM is the only other alternative the market has to offer right now.

Dialup is guaranteed by the regulator through a Universal Service Obligation. However pressure by BT, the dominant ISP in the UK, on the regulator prevented the universal service obligation including broadband.

Oh, and did I mention that Murdoch stopped broadcasting BBC News, which relied on a Newscorp satellite in China, because they refused to take part in the Tiananmen Square cover-up?

And how come it's taken almost 20 years of monopolisation of the UK pay-TV market before any government organisation has said anything? (Ofcom just announced results of its investigation)

BT still owns the all the backbone connectivity and makes obscene profits on it.

Supposedly, though, the quid pro quo for BT inheriting a near-monopoly from the old, state-funded infrastructure is that they are under a Universal Service Obligation that requires them to provide telephone serviced to all, and not to cherry pick.

Unfortunately, this only applies to Plain Old Telephone Services - and extending it to Broadband would vastly increase the cost...

Ah, you are missing the key point in UK broadband economics. The link between ADSL ISPs and the exchanges are charged for by BT OpenReach or Wholesale (can't remember which one off the top of my head).

These "centrals" are extremely expensive, because this is how BT Openreach/Wholesale recoup the costs of the network of exchanges.

Take a look at:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/bbpricing/model.pdf

Rental of a 155Mbit backhaul was £347K annually, with a charge of £2.76 per averaged utilisation per k/bit s a year. Assuming my calculations are correct, that means that to give a user a 1:1 contention on a 1Mbit connection (and have the user use it all), that would cost the Service Provider around £5,100 in central rental and usage fees alone.

Remember that BT the ISP, is seperate from OpenReach/Wholesale so they must pay these fees!

Jason

It is not the companies that concern me, they have marketing departments that exist solely to make their products seem better than they are, and that is the same with all companies.

My anger is at the watchdog, Ofcom, that continually allow these companies to lie.

"Good thing the FCC isn't in the UK"

The direct equivalent of the FCC in the UK is Ofcom.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

That securedhome.co.uk article has nothing to do with the scope of Ofcom or FCC as both are about enforcing adherence to legal broadcasting. (I seem to remember there is something in the broadcasting act to allow entry into homes to check equipment, (e.g. to stop pirate radio stations), but even if they cannot there are many other organisations in the UK that can enter the home for many reasons).

As for organisations who have the right to enter UK homes, the number of them is growing all the time...

e.g.
Parking bailiffs may win right to enter homes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1548145/Parking-bailiffs-may-win-right-to-enter-homes.html

Bailiffs may get extra powers to enter homes
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bailiffs-may-get-extra-powers-to-enter-homes-1206531.html

Official snoopers get extra powers to enter homes as 13 new laws 'boost Big Brother state'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-513973/Official-snoopers-extra-powers-enter-homes-13-new-laws-boost-Big-Brother-state.html

That's just a few examples in the UK. Just look up anything Jacqui Smith is behind, because she is at the centre of the growing Police State in the UK.

Uh what?

They test for both. I happen to have just finished reviewing a test report specifically regarding electric tolerance and interference, as well as voltage variance for the FAA a few months back. Yes, I recognize the difference. Yes, radio can interfere with things in rare cirumstances. Note the phrase: RARE.

Only when they test intentionally old components, do they see a consistent issue.

I can put up with all the 'only £1.99 a day!' and 'from just £49.99' style marketing speak. It's jarring, but at least it's not dishonest.

However I am absolutely sick of hearing 'Unlimited usage! (fair use policy applies equal to 3Gb of data in any 28 day period subject to change)

I'm happy to pay for a 3Gb per month limit. I'd be delighted with an unlimited usage package. But I am fed up with providers advertising 'unlimited', when it is is clearly, unequivocally, NOT unlimited!

I'd urge any UK readers that agree to generate a gentle trickle of complaints to the Advertising Standards Agency and the Office of Communications.

>>>I've never had to fiddle around with the antenna on digital TV.

Must be nice. I have stations icoming from four different cities, so that means I have to turn my antenna in four different directions. It's not possible to just "set it and forget it".

You've mentioned the difference between the UK and the US then, which isn't at all obvious to us in the UK and explains the confusion. Here, the transmitting is centralised. The antenna on this building points towards the nearest/best transmitter, and it's unlikely it'll need to be moved (and if it does, it's a one-off).

The BBC have a map of all the analogue transmitters (which transmit BBC stuff, and the commercial channels). OFCOM has one for the digital ones (the map is in the PDF).

Firstly, it wasn't the government that deemed the advert misleading as the headline and summary suggests. The ASA are an independent body. Secondly, we've tried approaching Ofcom about the use of the word unlimited here in the UK and got nowhere. A petition was also started to get the government to do something about it but they don't want to get involved either, so it isn't just your government that doesn't give a rats ass...

[citation needed]

Here, here and here.

Unfortunately the regulator OFCOM want to relax the rules on advertising. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/20/ofcom_tv_ads/

Any fellow UK people may wish to respond to the consultation here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/rada/ We have until the 28th of this month.

And what would the FCC be doing with Virgin Media, which is a UK company operating - afaik - entirely in the UK?

Ofcom might have something to say about it, but I wouldn't count on it.

DSL competition is a fucking joke in the UK. Almost all the DSL services you can buy are still over BT's hardware, and BT charge other ISPs by the byte transferred.

I'm not sure what your information source on this is, but AFAICT it is simply not true. See here for pricing information for BT IPStream as of November 2006. Unless this charge is new, there is no per-byte charge.

The power increases over what's currently used is quite substantial. I'd imagine if you're receiving all but one channel it's because that channel is out of band for your aerial setup... the power increase will quite possibly overcome the inefficiency of your aerial in that band, if it's still remaining out of band after DSO that is; most sites are having a bit of a shuffle around to bring them back together.

"The interesting bit here is the Beeb isn't really a commercial organization"

Yes, they are. But they are a commercial organization that is allowed to keep its hand in the public's pocket by means of the licence fee.

However, the BBC also makes a lot of money off sales of programmes, sales of books, CDs and DVDs, a number of magazines it publishes sold through newsagents, and various other schemes.

"They're a public entity ..."

No, they're not. They have a charter they -- theoretically -- have to abide by, because of the way they are funded. They are *not* a public body.

  "... which is strictly required to keep itself free of commercial and political influence."

They may be required to. They've ignored their requirements for years -- particularly the latter one -- and got away with it. There's a strong left-liberal bias there. They've even admitted as much themselves behind closed doors. Unfortunately for them, the report where they did got leaked:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

Goodness, we had more proof of the obvious only just recently -- it's only what one would expect:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/298421/how-liberal-is-the-bbc.thtml

As for being in bed with Bill Gates, from what I've heard they certainly are pretty good friends if nothing more. But I wouldn't exactly be surprised if stained sheets did turn up at some point.

The BBC, of course, has to go a little careful. If it shuts Linux and Mac users out permanently it would have to answer to the communications regulator, Ofcom:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

The BBC will be well aware of that.

This is monopolistic behaviour. From the Reg (talking to Lord Currie, chairman of OFCOM):

Speaking to El Reg after the debate, he added that the crucial point was whether providers were attempting to force content providers to pay. A content provider going to a service provider and asking for a guaranteed level of service was OK, he said. Access providers strong arming content providers into paying, was not.

They'd better stop trying to strong-arm the BBC into paying for service, anyone who disagrees with these attacks on the free market should give OFCOM a ring. I've contacted them before, aside from being very informative/helpful, the number of complaints has an effect on whether they think they should intervene (assuming the complaint is valid of course).

Notasheep: A couple of points...

(1) Open devices are not the same as open services: Your post seems confused about what Google is proposing in terms of open access:
- In Google's terminology, "open devices" means that a network operator could not block users from attaching devices that are compliant with network standards. Contrast this with current mobile operator practice of selectively supporting some technically compliant handsets while not supporting others.
- In Google's terminology, "open services" means that re-sellers would be able to purchase services from the spectrum licensee(s) on wholesale terms.

(2) Wholesale markets in network services: You seem to be sceptical that wholesale access could work at all. But it already works in some other countries, so why couldn't it work in the US?
- Mobile: In the UK, spectrum licensees voluntarily opened their networks to virtual operators (MVNOs) who now have over 6% customer market share. MVNO's have also been growing in other EU countries, in some cases following regulatory intervention. The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, has published some interesting research on the subject (see p. 76-88).
- Fixed-line & broadband: In the UK, there's a mechanism to provide re-sellers access to the infrastructure of BT (the company which owns all of the country's "last mile" network). The relevant division of BT is called Openreach and the regulatory framework is available at the Ofcom site.

Notasheep: A couple of points...

(1) Open devices are not the same as open services: Your post seems confused about what Google is proposing in terms of open access:
- In Google's terminology, "open devices" means that a network operator could not block users from attaching devices that are compliant with network standards. Contrast this with current mobile operator practice of selectively supporting some technically compliant handsets while not supporting others.
- In Google's terminology, "open services" means that re-sellers would be able to purchase services from the spectrum licensee(s) on wholesale terms.

(2) Wholesale markets in network services: You seem to be sceptical that wholesale access could work at all. But it already works in some other countries, so why couldn't it work in the US?
- Mobile: In the UK, spectrum licensees voluntarily opened their networks to virtual operators (MVNOs) who now have over 6% customer market share. MVNO's have also been growing in other EU countries, in some cases following regulatory intervention. The UK communications regulator, Ofcom, has published some interesting research on the subject (see p. 76-88).
- Fixed-line & broadband: In the UK, there's a mechanism to provide re-sellers access to the infrastructure of BT (the company which owns all of the country's "last mile" network). The relevant division of BT is called Openreach and the regulatory framework is available at the Ofcom site.

T-Mobile is a "MNO" = Mobile Network Operator.
Truphone is, like my company, a "Other Licensed Operator".

In the UK we are all governed by the terms of licences issued by OFCOM. These licences do contain terms requiring us to route calls between all of us. There are certain, very specific exceptions, none of which I can see applying here.

As I understand it Truphone have also complained through OFCOM - and they are almost certain to win there ...but the wheels of OFCOM turn very, very slowly (many months, could be years) and they can't force T-Mobile to change their behaviour while they're working on it. Which is probably why Trucom went down the Legal route.

My company has also got an allocation of UK Mobile numbers, and we are planning an application which, while slightly different to Truphone, will also annoy T-Mobile et al. So we're watching closely to see what precedents are set.

You can find out all about UK telecom regulation from the OFCOM website, including who "owns" which ranges of numbers.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/

Unfortunately it is very badly laid out and, even with the benefit of experience, it can be very hard to find what you want.

The real technical details are not publically available - they are hidden in various contracts and behind confidentiality clauses. This is partly because some of the terms are, frankly, outrageous, and partly because some of the technical details are extremely naff.

I missed the program, but I've had an unrelated reason to make a complaint about the BBC before, and did so via that site. It basically got ignored, you're probably better off complaining to Ofcom as it seems that the Beeb have violated section 5 of the Broadcasting code. Unfortunately, my complaint was about the BBC online, so that avenue wasn't open to me.

I missed the program, but I've had an unrelated reason to make a complaint about the BBC before, and did so via that site. It basically got ignored, you're probably better off complaining to Ofcom as it seems that the Beeb have violated section 5 of the Broadcasting code. Unfortunately, my complaint was about the BBC online, so that avenue wasn't open to me.

In the UK, TV is controlled by the Independent Television Commission, now part of Ofcom. IMHO, they do a good job. There's not much censorship, just obvious things like not showing The Evil Dead before about 10pm. As long as issues are portrayed fairly, almost anything can be shown. Such as autopsy (Death Detectives) and Viagra on daytime TV (Richard & Judy). Even abortion is allowed: when My Foetus was shown in 2004, the ITC had this to say

The pictures were not used in a sensationalist [...] manner. Importantly the programme put what were certainly strong images into an overall editorial context. [...] The programme did not breach the Programme Code. [pdf]

The ITC also enforces a limit of 12 minutes of adverts per hour, and sets strict limits on direct fundraising. This month - for the first time - they allowed a religious TV station to appeal for funds directly from viewers.

As for technological measures, most people get the main 5 TV channels free (apart from the BBC license fee) through their aerial (rather than Sky or Cable). These people are being "encouraged" (ie forced) to switch to Digital TV, but once you've got a digibox (£30ish) that's free too.

That's how it works over here

In the UK, TV is controlled by the Independent Television Commission, now part of Ofcom. IMHO, they do a good job. There's not much censorship, just obvious things like not showing The Evil Dead before about 10pm. As long as issues are portrayed fairly, almost anything can be shown. Such as autopsy (Death Detectives) and Viagra on daytime TV (Richard & Judy). Even abortion is allowed: when My Foetus was shown in 2004, the ITC had this to say

The pictures were not used in a sensationalist [...] manner. Importantly the programme put what were certainly strong images into an overall editorial context. [...] The programme did not breach the Programme Code. [pdf]

The ITC also enforces a limit of 12 minutes of adverts per hour, and sets strict limits on direct fundraising. This month - for the first time - they allowed a religious TV station to appeal for funds directly from viewers.

As for technological measures, most people get the main 5 TV channels free (apart from the BBC license fee) through their aerial (rather than Sky or Cable). These people are being "encouraged" (ie forced) to switch to Digital TV, but once you've got a digibox (£30ish) that's free too.

That's how it works over here

In the UK ... recordings are only permitted if you're registered as a data controller under the Data Protection Act. That means people recording calls that they make is generally against the law.

I couldn't disagree more with the choice of BT as the leading company because of its 21CN network. As such it is in interesting choice of BT to go to Ethernet IP for its entire network. There are at least two other incumbents who are doing the same thing. KPN has a project called ALL-IP and and Telstra has a project called the Common Network.

However KPN is doing something more than just changing the backbone. KPN will roll-out VDSL2+ to the end-users as well. This will all be Ethernet/IP based for the backhaul and VDSL2+ for the last 450 meters, allowing 50/20mbit down/up. KPN will close 1350 swithch locations and roll out 28000 street cabinets to deliver the speeds to the end-user.
http://www.kpn.com/upload/1215076_9475_11328305981 77-1212162_9475_1132326712652-Op_weg_naar_All-IP_1 81105.pdf
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=69 419&print=true
(the lightreading article forgets the vdsl2+ bit, see presentation for that)

In contrast BT will only do ADSL in its network, they will not reach speeds above 24 mbit and in response to a question on access networks he says, that it is very hard to understand what a user will want to do with more than 24mbit. (hereby forgetting that most of the UK will not be living close enough to a dslam to actually get this 24mbit). He doesn't see a reason for fiber to the home or any other kind of access networks. This was said by its Chairman Ben Verwaayen at a recent Ofcom Event on convergence. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/event/presentations/sessio n6 (minute 25 and onwards)

After listening to all those clips ("Spocko's blog is back up: http://www.spockosbrain.com/) they are lucky that they are in the USA where you have first amendment rights, there was something in nearly every one of them that would have got them to apologise\face fines etc. from Ofcom (the communications regulator) here in the UK. I'm not sure how many would have had the presenters facing legal threat, but we have against inciting religious and racial hatred*, so quite a few I'd imagine.

*Personally I'm against these laws and wish we had our own "first amendment" protecting our freedom of speech.

The article doesn't give much information, but AFAIK the EU has no remit over what individual member states broadcast, so I don't know what the commissioner was on about, or the context.
for example, here in the UK Ofcom regulates TV and Radio broadcasting, and there is no regulatory body that stops me putting anything on the internet. However if I put up something that breeches domestic "hate speech" laws (for example incitement to violence) I could be prosecuted. This recent case suggests that such prosecutions are hard to come by: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/613798 6.stm (there was video evidence of this man saying things that could be considered incitement, however the jury refused to convict.) In fact I can't actually think of a case that has been successfully prosecuted under British "hate speech" laws (this doesn't mean that there hasn't been any).

In the UK we have a monopolistic telco - BT. We also have a government watch-dog - ofcom - which has mandated that BT must offer the local loop to competitors such as bulldog, etc.

Whilst this initially progressed quite slowly it is now at the point where you can get cheap broadband with up to 16Meg connections with the added bonus of being able to choose alternative phone line suppliers too. In fact you can now get 24Meg connections (dependant on distance from the exchange and quality of the wire).

The UK regulators have also taken action on the issue of misleading 3G phone adverts:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/itc/itc_pub lications/complaints_reports/advertising_complaint s/show_complaint.asp-ad_complaint_id=882.html

Use of an FM transmitter without a licence is an offence throughout the European Union.

Ofcom in the UK have measured the emissions from the PLT (as it is called here) system trials being held here. The results are here on the Ofcom website.

Basically they show just how noisy these signals are as well as spectrum trashing ability they have. It appears that, even at 100m from the powerline the systems exceed the German emission standards (the only applicable ones that the EU has currently) by a wide margin.

It is unlikely that PLT will be licenced in the UK with these characteristics.

Analogue and Freeview users can only get S4C in or near Wales right now, although that might change now that Ofcom has announced the adoption of 8k in the UK, which permits Single Frequency Networks, which only work if everyone in the Network receives exactly the same multiplex. I don't have any info on the likelihood of this, however... I'm not Alan Cox, and perhaps suggesting S4C was a little mischievous ;-)

Here are reports on BPL from OfCom, which is the British government's equivalent of the FCC in the US: OfCom reports on BPL. The first report (on Amperion) is cited in the ARRL article but was not written by the ARRL, but rather by the British government.

Before BT was privatised the GPO, as it was then, was limited on how much it could borrow and who from, to invest in network upgrades. That was a serious problem which kept running costs high and was solved by privatisation.

Nor are prices allowed to pile on since privatisation as Ofcom controls what BT can charge at all stages of the network. This is regularly reassessed to squeeze BT's margins. The only way BT can keep its margins over time is to keep reducing the running costs of its network.

If you're interested you can check this at http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/charge/#co ntent/. You will note that the costs of running BT's network go down year on year.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/advice/telecoms_ifc/codes/ bbm_cop/bbmcop.pdf/

Jonathan