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)."

Comments

I wanna work for the BBC

[Mr. Darl McBride]

The down side of this is that the test launch is limited to BBC employees only. Not only that, the employees all get a PDA capable of viewing the shows.

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!?

TV on demand is the future...

[Grant29]

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!

Re:TV on demand is the future...

[garcia]

what helped define the market for me was BitTorrent. There was nothing like being able to download TV shows from the night before while at work, and watch them during the time of day when all that is on are reruns of older shows.

I was able to watch them without interruption, in great quality (as I refuse to subscribe to CATV or buy a double-fucking digital receiver), at my choice of when to watch it.

I really think that it would be an excellent idea for it to be brought here and used by the major networks. I suppose they would never accept it because of the possible loss in ad revenues... Sad really.

Re:TV on demand is the future...

[TexVex]

I used to use TiVo, and now I use a homebrew system built around SageTV. The thing continuously records TV from my cable box. Whenever possible it grabs shows off my "favorites" list. Over time it builds up a library, because not only does it go after first runs of my preferred shows, but it gets reruns as well.

Because you can fast-forward through commercials, over time I've gotten in the habit of never bothering to watch TV "live". Instead, I just let it record and whenever I feel in the mood I go catch up on some of my TV watching. While this is not TV "on demand" is is definitely the next best thing. I always have a huge selection of things in the library to watch. It's more like "on demand with limited selection based on configurable preferences".

All that being said, I can place a dollar value on on-demand television, based on what I pay per month for my cable service and how many shows I watch per month. I would happily pay $1 per hour of standard network/cable network TV if I could have it on demand and commerical-free, $2 per episode of premium-channel series shows (like Dead Like Me or Deadwood or Carnivale), $3 for a movie, and $4 for a new release movie.

Re:TV on demand is the future...

[cmacb]

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.

Been there, done that

[GraWil]

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!

License fee

[mr100percent]

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)

Re:License fee

[Tango42]

Actually, no. It's a tax on every household with a TV set in the UK. You can have as many TVs as you like, you still only pay once. I'm not sure of the system for businesses though. (NB: I live the UK)

Trouble is

[gilesjuk]

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.

Re:Trouble is

[Motor]

So maybe there's more to Dirac than just a cool open source project.

Not likely to be Worldwide...

[LostCluster]

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...

Freedom of Choice

[tobechar]

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.

putting media/news in the hands of proper citizens

[dj42]

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.

Interesting...

[lindec]

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.

what happens about the licience fee?

[flyingdisc]

In the UK, if you own a TV you are required by law the pay the 100 pound licence fee each year. Only if you are able to demonstrate that you don't own a TV are the fees waived.

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.

I would happily pay the license fee

[Bimo_Dude]

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.

Broadcast flag

[carvalhao]

There you have it!

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...

Pax Britannia

[Anonymous Coward]

TV and teeth on demand! How the hell did they lose the empire?

Re:Pax Britannia

[The Lynxpro]

"TV and teeth on demand! How the hell did they lose the empire?"

A half-century of practicing free trade while the US and Germany errected heavy tariffs on imports. Fighting two costly world wars that the United States waited until the very end to jump into. The rise of the US as a superpower. Colonial unrest. The constant flirtations with socializing industry post WWII. Sterling's collapse as the premiere world currency. James Bond's expensive STD treatments. All the Imperial Officers having British accents in the holy Star Wars trilogy. Star Trek's (TNG) IP theft of the Cybermen. Simon LeBon's yacht wreck. And Yoko Ono!

bit torrent

[WormholeFiend]

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.

Who?

[thpdg]

Great, now I can start another lost episode of Dr. Who, when ever I want.

Where's the Capitalist Innovation?

[scrotch]

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.)

Re:Where's the Capitalist Innovation?

[Tim C]

Years ago, the BBC ran a series of adverts on BBC2 (and perhaps BBC1, I forget), the basic message of which was that the licence fee allows them to experiment.

Because they're guaranteed at least some money no matter what they do, they can spend some of it trying out new stuff. Now, this was long before the net became a household word, and they were specifically referring to new programs, but the same applies.

Because they're not entirely beholden to fickle viewers and advertisers, they can afford to experiment sometimes, and without experimentation, there can be no innovation.

For the record, though, they are beholden to the Government, who occasionally make threatening noises about the licence fee (as do the Opposition). They also have to abide by a charter, although I've not read it, so I can't comment as to what it says.