Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Try TV On Demand
Shevek writes "The UK Independent newspaper is reporting on a new BBC trial: 'Later this month, the BBC will launch a pilot project that could lead to all television programmes being made available on the internet. Viewers will be able to scan an online guide and download any show. Programmes would be viewed on a computer screen or could be burned to a DVD and watched on a television set. Alternatively, programmes could be downloaded to a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) ... By launching iMP, the BBC hopes to avoid being left at the mercy of a software giant such as Microsoft, which could try to control the gateway to online television.' Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM)."
The BBC will likely do something to limit the International use of this service, as having the shows freely availalbe over the Web might negatively impact their ability to sell their programs in other places, and some of the shows aired by the BBC belong to other companies and they want the exclusive rights to the show in their home territory.
The article refers to this being a challenge, but one they plan on getting over...
It's a considerable boon to the future of de-centralized media to see a company like the BBC giving this a shot. If Internet users can acclimate towards using an Internet-based tv show broadcasting service, that could put media in the hands of those that deserve it, rather than those that have money and/or are already established as major players in the media industry. i.e. web sites like Slashdot could begin to leverage their user-base into targetted commercial ads, allowing the formation of "television" style shows online. Plus, the last thing we need is a software company like MS in control of the media because it's software is the platform to connect to all the sundries of devices.
We are one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. Back to you with the weather, Bob!
Even though I am American, I would happily pay the 121 pound annual license fee. IMHO, the BBC programming is much more intellectually stimulating, and costs far less, than cable/satellite TV in this country. Most of the shows I do actually watch are BBC productions that are airing on PBS.
"Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
You don't need no restrictive technology to make money out of media content, just find an easy-to-use distribution vector and a fair price. Who will want to sweep through a couple of hundreds of low-res DiVx files on Kazaa to download a show when you can get it premium quality for a price this low?
I wonder what is the ROI (Return on Investment) of the boradcast flag when compared to this...Isn't the BBC some kind of socialist, government supported thing?
I thought only free-market, capitalist companies in competion innovated? That's what I was taught in my American public school. There's just no reason to improve if you've got a steady, government supported income. You have to be in blood thirsty battle for market dominance to justify doing anything other than resting on your laurels and IP rights. Right?
Where's the innovation in product from the American networks?
Where's customer focus from American media?
Where's the desire to satisfy customer desire in America?
(It's sarcasm. I love my country.)
My fear for this idea is that the media moguls in Hollywood will view it as another inroad to piracy rather than as a moneymaking opportunity.
For example, we have this entire ad based economy that works off of estimates of how many people see an ad. Estimates, because they know how many people watch a show (the Neilson ratings are accurate enough for that) but they don't know how many people actually watch (and pay attention to) the ads. The same goes for magazines and newspapers, where subscription numbers feed the advertisers fantasy of how many eyeballs they are reaching. Compare that with the Internet, where you can know exactly how many people clicked though to a web paged based on a banner ad. In the latter case you know that someone was interested in your product (or not). You can even know how many people went on to buy the product as a result of the ad. That certainty I think actually hurts Internet advertising, since it gives the seller of the ad very little wiggle room about how much to charge for the ad.
The reality is that most advertising is relatively ineffective. Content on demand dispels the myth, and there are quite a few people who don't want that myth dispelled.
The flip side is this: If we had media on demand everywhere right now, and advertising built into the content, you would select a program, and while watching it see ads, just as you do now. But would you record the program on Tivo in order to watch the program later without the ads? I don't think most people would. The ability to watch something exactly when and where you wanted to would be too compelling to going back to the TV-guide sort of planning process that people do now.
The trick is, finally, to educate people who pay for ads about how valuable those click throughs are compared to a nebulous subscriber count. I don't know if the BBC experiment will do this, but I hope adoption of content on demand elswhere will convice the relatively thick skulled people in Hollywood that they may be missing out on a good thing. That will release a lot of lawyers to do more productive work perhaps.