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)."
Who do I have to blow to work for a company that hands out PDAs with 512 meg CF to all its employees, just so they can watch TV at work!?
The BBC License Fee is great if it means that us Americans can get all that great programming without having to pay for it! :-)
TV on demand is the future, once you get a taste of it, it's hard to go back.. Luckily for the content providers, TIVO and ReplayTV have already demonstrated the market. Sure TIVO isn't really TV on demand, but it helped define the market.
--
Hot deals!
I lived in the UK for 4 years and just returned to Canada. I only wish the CBC was as good as the BBC. I do find their style of news to be way to similar to the big, sensational US news outlets but, otherwise, the content is great! Heck, I'd probably even pay my license fee from Canada!
Just to remind everyone, the BBC license fee is a tax on every television set in the UK.
(I don't live in the UK, but I would pay it if I could get this kind of innovation)
They'll go and use RealMedia or WMV and still be at the mercy of some other company.
I doubt they'll use XVID or other open standards. Would be fairly neutral if they released MPEG-2 files, however these would be gigantic.
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 is great to see a company that is willing to provide choice to its customers.
Perhaps this will force American media companies to offer a few better options to their customers.
-
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!
This is an interesting move, especially considering the events transpiring regarding digital televion, TV ripping and the like. I find it refreshing and interesting that while the recording industries (namely the MPAA) push broadcast flag legislation through, in an attempt to end behavior like this, the BBC makes it computer viewable. Also, sites that are providing ED2K links and torrents to TV Rips are beginning to feel the wrath of the DMCA, so I wonder how much this will change things? Probably not much... but hey, I try to be optimistic.
But all TV programs are already available on the net,
#tv-torrents
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
This will raise some intersting questions: Apart from resulting in nonTV owners (and hence non licience payers) accessing the BBC it would this not lead to much wider dissemination of the BBC TV outside the UK. Wouldn't this damage the existing syndication relationships that the BBC has set up. I am amased that any broadcaster risk distribution over the internet. Certainty thinking outside the box.
It's about time. The only way I watch TV any more is through downloads or season DVD's who has the time to play the network games when they bounce your favorite shows around every other week chasing ratings numbers.
We recently dropped our cable subscription down to the $10 /mth 19 channel deal, and we're thinking about dropping that. The problem is that we only ever watched one or two channels and we didn't get enough viewing time to make it worth our $99 /mth cable bill.
I would love to be able to just watch the shows that I want, when I want them, and pay strictly for what I watch. I don't want to pay for a bunch of crap I don't want. Why should I be forced to buy HGTV when I'm an overweight fat slob who spends 99% of his day behind a keyboard? All I wanted was Tech Tv (although it's gone downhill bigtime).
You might be interested in /.'s BBC coverage from last week then, in which the BBC has created an open source, wavelet-based codec which ramps from low to high throughput with better than MPEG2 video quality.
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...No, you do not pay on how many TV tuners. You pay per household.
No, you don't have to pay for radio anymore. Radio makes up less than 1% of the BBCs total spending, so I guess they figured the cost of billing people for radios was over the amount they'd actually get.
Also, portable TVs are exempt from the license.
IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
TV and teeth on demand! How the hell did they lose the empire?
why not provide shows on bit torrent?
is it because it's harder to advertise?
would people be offended by short adverts played at the beginning of the video files? (eg This Bit Torrent file is brought to you by...)
networks could distribute the seeds across their affiliates to reduce bandwidth cost, etc.
A couple of days ago, I clicked to view a video on BBC news website and it told me that I have to buy a subscription as international user. I was a bit surprised since so far, BBC had been free and even free from ads.
This page says that: "Broadband video news from the BBC is only available to international users by subscription. Find out how to get the latest broadband video news from the BBC here.
It doesn't explicitly say, but the tone of the article suggests that the BBC's mentality is not much different from the **AA bunch.
"If we don't enter this market, then exactly what happened to the music industry could happen to us... everybody starts posting the content up there and ripping us off."
What would be wrong with the public freely sharing the content? They are subsidizing the creation of it with their tax payments.
Why don't allegedly "public" broadcasters, like the BBC in Brittan or PBS or NPR in the US, produce and release content under Creative Commons type, or other Free licences? That way the public could use, share, and redistribute the content freely. People could even re-edit the content and create new and interesting works. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't the idea behind public broadcasting to serve the public, instead of seek profits?
Instead, the "public" broadcasters have developed the same control-freak mentality of the rest of the media that effectively opposes the very idea of a public domain and favors every byte having a DRM restricted ownership sticker. If that is the case, what is the point of the public subsidizing these broadcasters... and why should they even exist?
> Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM).
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility*.
I on the other hand am very pro-BBC. The only slight problem I have with it is that the fee is the same for everybody (i.e. a poll tax).
* Whether or not Andrew Gilligan exaggerated his story, the government (and Alistair Campbell non-gov) made an enormous issue out of it in order to discredit the BBC, as the charter is coming up for renewal soon. The bastards.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
from8 / :
http://p2p.weblogsinc.com/entry/672947338275913
The most significant revelations were concerning the protection of the content. All content will be DRM'd, only available for a limited period time, once downloaded. As expected, it will also only be available to UK broadband users. In a break with the BBC's long-standing support of Real, Microsoft DRM will be used for the technical trial, but it appears that no final decision has been made.
As was known previously, the EPG (Electronic Programming Guide) will cover fourteen days; seven looking forward and seven backward. The programs that have been broadcasted will be downloadable to the computer simply by clicking on them. A preview of a piece can be watched before committing to download a complete show.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
There seem to be quite a few Americans here who think BBC produces better quality programs than US tv. But remember, when you view something from abroad, it is usually selected because it is the cream of the crop, it does not nessesarily reflect the overall quality of BBC television. I'm sure few of you would care to see hours of snooker or cricket. Likewise, foreign countries usually buy the best American shows. Foreigners who only see the Sopranos, West Wing, etc. may conclude that US tv is of pretty high quality.
Great, now I can start another lost episode of Dr. Who, when ever I want.
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
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.)
Of course lots of the good programs could never get shown on broadcast TV in the USA - they freak out over a single female nipple after all.
Indeed. Well spotted to all those chimps that pointed out that BBC stands for "British Broadcasting Corporation". 10/10 for general knowledge and 5/10 for understanding.
:)
The BBC is operated under two constitutional documents: its Royal Charter and the Licence and Agreement. The Charter defines the BBC's objects, powers, obligations and the sources and uses of its income, while the Licence and Agreement sets the terms and conditions under which it must operate.
"Subject to the general law of the land and the provisions of the Charter and the Licence and Agreement, the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence in its day-to-day programme and other activities"
For more information visit this terribly informative site, which will doubtless also explain all about impartiality and public service broadcasting for you.
I should point out the UK Writers Guild (not the American Writers Guild) is extremely pissed off about this move, because writers won't be getting repeat fees (which can be a large source of income). However, the British Guild has far less power than the American one, meaning not much action can take place over the programmes on demand...