Slashdot Mirror
BBC Signs 'Memo of Understanding' With Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft has signed a memorandum of understanding with the BBC for 'strategic partnerships' in the development of next-generation digital broadcasting techniques. They are also speaking to other companies such as Real and Linden Labs. Windows Media Centre platform, Windows Live Messenger application and the Xbox 360 console have all been suggested as potential gateways for BBC content. It is unclear how this impacts on existing BBC research projects such as Dirac, although it is understood that the BBC would face heavy criticism if its content was only available via Microsoft products."
It seems to me that Microsoft are the big winner here. Their attempts to enter the TV market have failed several times, whereas the BBC has been at the forefront of digital TV R&D for years.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
In the future, who will buy whom?
Next week, Apple will sign a 'Memo of Screw You' with Microsoft.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
It is unclear how this impacts on existing BBC research projects such as Dirac...
Is this the Dirac project that's being run by the Duke Nukem team?
The sooner the BBC move to a format that isn't RealVideo the better; even WMA would be preferable to RA.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
"We, the BBC, understand that all Microsoft products--past, present, and future--are and always shall be 100% bug free. Any problems anyone encounters with them will be attributed to faulty hardware and/or third party software."
So sitting here with an un-extended freefox (well it's still called firefox for now) Debian-1.5.dfsg+1.5.0.7-1 the zdnet article is blocked out by a "click here to get this plugin" box. Thankfully I get some gifs instead in konqueror where I can read the story just fine. And they coplain when people block ads? Muppets!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
It's the last word there which is giving me qualms. Just how does signing agreements with the most proprietary business on earth qualify as extending access?
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
All this means is that BBC content will be available through Microsoft's distribution channels, in addition to the current distribution channels. Hardly newsworthy.
Whenever Microsoft gets whatever it signed this agreement to get, probably to stop something potentially competitive, then *something* will go awry that will allow Microsoft to get out of the deal without having giving anything in return.
Just ask Stac, Burst, Pointcast, Intuit, Apple.....
I pay a hell of a lot of money to the BBC every year*, all I want in return is that all of their digital content to be available through open source technology... this is a step in the wrong direction, or at best a side step. Why can't they also make it work with something like Helix player?
*which they largely squander on stupidly high pay for the executives whilst sacking many of the people responsible for content - Damn them.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Most of the problems with Microsoft compatibility comes from Microsoft insisting on "invented here" frame of mind. If this ends up as a non-Microsoft owned, but Microsoft backed video content management framework, it will most likely be better than the alternative of Microsoft pushing solely on with it's own ideas and goals.
The BBC has taken pretty mature way on establishing it's view on being a internet content provider. There are many examples where the notion of the net is been seen as a desktop extension. This means that the only thing being asked by the wannabe internet broadcaster's decision-maker's is "Will it play well on my laptop?".
I can't wait until television companies start requiring people to install WMP11 to watch their content. WMP11 has a horrendous licensing agreement when it comes to DRM infected downloads and your inability to back them up.
Oh You POS
If it weren't for the DRM that so many people complain about, the BBC would not even be able to make alot of its content available on the internet. They would almost certainly have to break contracts to release this content without DRM.
So what'll it be slashdot? Still think DRM only limits the availability of content? Is Microsoft still evil for making DRM tools available?
You need to understand who the BBC is and how it is funded. In the UK it is illegal (it is actually a criminal offense) to watch TV unless you, in effect, subscribe to the UK State Broadcaster. This is done by means of the so called 'license fee' - a license to watch TV, all of the receipts from which go to the BBC.
As a result, one of the main activities of magistrates courts in the UK is to jail single mothers for not subscribing to the BBC. One conjectures that neither these ladies nor their children have the slightest interest in watching the BBC, but they will pay for it anyway, and if not, go to jail.
The fee is not small. It is well north of $150 a year. It rises every year, faster than inflation. It is probably one of the most regressive taxes ever devised, and falls most heavily on those who can least afford it.
The BBC then spends substantial amounts of this money to go into new businesses which are already perfectly well covered by the private sector, and it usually succeeds owing to its ability to do cross marketing - magazines linked to shows. So the UK State Broadcaster is also the UK State Magazine Publisher, and is the largest magazine publisher in the UK.
Now we read that the BBC is to strike a strategic agreement with Microsoft. Will anyone be in the least surprised when this turns out to be a vehicle for further attempts to raise the license fee still further, and to extend the BBC's activities still further?
What we in the UK need more than anything is to make subscription to the State Broadcaster optional, and to stop jailing poor people for the crime of wanting to watch some other TV channels, while not subscribing to it.
It is as if, in the US, you were obliged to buy a copy of the NY Times, or commit a criminal offense every time you read a newspaper. It is as if you could only buy a PC with Windows on it. These are the same people, with the same basic attitudes: compulsion is good.
I've read the article (pretty short actually) and this "memo" kind of reminds me of "No Technical Objection" letters I've written and received from time to time. They authorize nothing and they imply no committment. In the end, it's just a way to go back to our customer with, "yea, we discussed this with {company} and they seem OK with it. See? they ever signed a memo."
Almost doesn't seem like news.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
It has to be said that the BBC management that arses about and signs such stuff is very much divorced from the people actually developing use of technology within the corporation *. As such, they are ("he is") very likely to sign such ridiculous (and in this case, apparantly meaningless) things without consultation. Whether this amounts to anything at all basically comes down to random chance. Hopefully, it'll end up like so many things: a series of statements by management to support the spirit of the agreement while carrying on doing things properly. Of course, it could all go horribly wrong :/
* certainly "Technology Group" - those that are supposed to be thinking about how the BBC uses technology - didn't hear anything about this before the press release.
Is this anything like Stephen King's pet cemetary, cause that would be really cool.
{in creepy, fresh from the grave voice} I'm cooomming to geeettt youuuu Billll Gatteesss...
An agreement between the UK and the forces of Evil (M$)? Oh yeah, "Peace for our time." That should keep everyone happy.
All jokes aside, I don't see a need for co-operation with M$ on this one. The goal from the FA is:
Why don't they just allow and encourage libraries to mirror the content as is? That's the direction publications should be moving. Hopefully, they are not going for some kind of M$ DRM snake oil. Their current lack of such nonsense is why it's the most read English language news in the world. Mirrors would ensure their continued influence now and into the future. With mirrors everywhere, the historians can cross check and trust what they see. The natural partner for that kind of effort is Google.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The BBC is funded by the "TV Tax" ... if you own a television and live in the U.K., you don't really have a choice.
... a HTPC with a tuner card, and then just use a suitably big monitor, or a DLP projector. No TV, just a computer, but you'd have all the capabilities.
Although I suppose you could put it in a faraday cage in your basement and just evade the tax -- I heard once that they used to drive around in detection vans, listening for the RF signals of TVs, and then compare that to the list of people who paid. Rather creepy, if you ask me.
I wonder how they would deal with a computer that had a TV tuner card installed? You could definitely 'watch TV' without owning a TV these days
I enjoy the programming created by the BBC, but I also don't live there or pay into the system. If I did, I might feel differently about the whole scheme.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
We all petition for BBC channels to be removed from Sky/Cable and stop paying the license fee, that'll get their attention. There will be no Microsoft anything in my house, that's my choice and choice is a good thing(tm).
Have you told them? The BBC is full of technogeeks, but without some evidence to take to the boss, it's pretty hard to support these 'weird' systems that aren't Windows. Write them a nice letter, 'Dear Mr. BBC, I use XXX becauses it's good, but can't view your video streams. Have you considered supporting YYY video format, which is supported on MS, Apple, most Unix and XXX?'
Hopefully, Microsoft will discover that some of the BBC's licence payers have Playstations, and they need to be included in whatever scheme is come up with.
Just like the ones with XBoxes need to be included.
MOU's are frequently non-binding. Both parties in agreement, but not locked in yet. Sort of like a couple getting engaged.
t anding
for reference for some folks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_unders
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
Linden Labs means Second Life, which could mean some VERY interesting things in the near-future of broadcasts. I know a number of events organised by news studios and bands have already taken place inworld, but this sounds a lot more solid than the minor contracts before. Screw Microsoft, I wanna see the BBC go virtual.
According to Mark Cuban - video on/over the web will be a 7 trillion dollar a year industry once it gets rolling. So no wonder everyone and his uncle is jockeying for position and/or trying to create a monopoly (Gate$+Job$). Right now looks like Job$ is a couple of light years ahead of Gate$ and everyone else (according to Cringley).
But of course some "fat little girl" could come out of a garage somehwere and dominate the whole scene. Be intertesting to see what happens over next 5 years.
or if the memo was signed in Georgia.
Ok, now there is going to be news channel which is going to be *more popular* than BBC itself more because of it underneath philosophy of software usage than its fundamental goal of providing *news* to people. And then its going to realize that it has to provide *news* first, then it would evolve to achieve a balance between right choice of software usage and news. How do I care if down the lane if the community/society is served with the right intention.
Unless you want to infect your system with realplayer, it already is. I think you still need windows DLLs to listen to their internet radio on linux. So much for "public service".
The BBC can be described as a monolopy as it does not have any competition. I say this as it is pubicly funded and does not rely on advertising incomes. It can therefore marginalise other competitors who are fighthing each other to get shrinking advertising revenues as a lot of internet traffic goes to the BBC. Why should it then be in the position to form partnerships like this that can have a profound affect to online content in the years to come?
This isn't troll. The BBC advertises this extensively on its TV stations so that it doesn't get marginalised when analogue TV is phased out. It is in effect abusing it's monolopy status as a publicy funded body.
Won't cost Microsoft much to rename everything MSBBC either. *tongue in cheek*
per year. that's the Beeb's intellectual property contribution ;)
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
I'm sorry, but if the alternative is Fox News, I'll pay the bloody license fee and be damned happy with it. Seriously, the BBC is well worth it. It appears most Americans on Slashdot would kill to have what we have.
In fact, IMHO, Radio 4 is worth the license fee in itself.
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
Whilst the BBC is a cutting edge broadcaster they're slow to take on new technology. Even well established technology like being able to have a national music database (like iTunes for BBC staff) doesn't exist. Then the new stuff is often compromised to fit in with old stuff. The web services are a good example. Good old static html with nothing dynamic anywhere in sight. Where the BBC has bought in web content systems from companies like Documentum... they're crap and don't deliver. Across the BBC you'd be amazed how primitive most setups are... There's a long way to go to make stuff internally never mind to the masses online. There's huge potential with Opensource sofware, and I'd rather see the BBC go that way. But with MS being a huge established corporation I can see the attraction.
A/C for all the obvious reasons:
I'm a staffer, and I've seen this on the horizon.
So, don't panic, but also panic
DP!
1) So what. The BBC signs MOU (memos of understanding) with almost anyone.
2) So what, it doesn't change the other stuff we do with,say, the free software folks, or the GPLd codecs, or the new TV stuff we see on demos when we get down to W12
3) So good - we get on people's desktops at lower-then-OEM level - as in, we might get shipped as default in WMP11 or whatever
P!
1) It kills other commercial non-DRM competition. I could be selling the best codec in the world but if it isn't FLOSS OR it isn't MSFT it isn't going to go very far
2) I sigh at the thought that stuff I make at work won't run on my box at home without hackery
3) It gives other broadcasters the green light to go DRM/MSFT. they might not be as thoughtful as us (see appendix)
APPENDIX
We're doing this to get takeup all over the world. Read the actual MOU, it doesn't prevent us from doing anything similar with, say, fluendo, or the Ogg folks. It's just a carriage deal, like what we do with (spit!) the US cablecos, or the Iranians, or whoever.
The BBC is a public-sector (read - doesn't make profit) but very agressive (read - wants to win) broadcaster, and we've been being pragmatic for 80 years or more.
Not much to see here, move along now
Auntie.
The BBC is a state funded broadcaster. As such I find it inappropriate that they should consider distributing their content under a Microsoft DRM scheme; I have already paid for this content through my license fees; if it is to be distibuted online then I should be able to access it through means other than MS Windows which in itself entails another license fee. Whilst I can see the point of wanting to protect content, requiring me to use MS windows to view content I have already paid for seems entirely wrong. Will the Beeb provide me with an MS license? I think not. An open solution would seem far more equitable. Unfortunately, I can see this coming to pass. For the majority of the general populance, MS represents computing and thus an MS specific solution would only offend the geeks among us. Shame on the BBC for taking this path.
How is Dirac any better than Theora?
The Gospel according to lolcat
Google has a package
they can drop on any library. Having the content is nice, but most libraries also like an index. Google, in case you have not noticed, is a search engine others don't seem to be able to match.Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Complain to them. Ask for Ogg Vorbis/Theora.
Complain to them.
it's .Net
M$ Windows Vista
M$ Ribbon Office
M$ XBox 360
M$ Zune
M$
M$ IE7
Everywhere you look at, there's M$. Damn, i'm sure there'll be one of these in the bathroom or the kitchen soon enough...
my Big Brother fear come true: i work all day staring at M$Office on M$Windows, with a few moments of fun by reading M$N mail via M$IE, then i come home and watch some M$NBC in my M$TV, quickly turn over to my M$XBox 360, go to my M$ fridge and take a M$ beer and go to sleep. The next day, i take the M$ bus to go to work at my M$-owned firm and put on my M$ Zune to listen to some quality M$-sponsored musicians...
I don't feel like it...
At least the BBC is worth something. BBC is the most reliable news source for me here in the US.
I agree. As someone not paying into the system at all -- at least not directly (I assume the U.S. media outlets which transmit BBC material are paying some sort of licensing fee), I think it's pretty sweet.
I'm just saying that if I were the guy getting shaken down for the "TV Tax" that's used to pay for it, I might feel differently.
Just as an example, right now I send a contribution every year to NPR, voluntarily. It's probably not quite equivalent to what the U.K.-style TV Tax would be for me, because I own a couple of TVs (it's a per-screen tax, right?), but it's not totally trivial. I figure it's fair, for listening to Garrison Keillor and Car Talk and the occasional news program. In other words, while I don't agree with everything they do or say, I don't complain too much. I'm glad they're around and I'll do my small part to support them.
Now, if NPR was sending people around to shake me down for cash and asking about how many receivers I had, and there was a stiff fine for not paying them, I'd probably hold them to a whole lot higher standard. In fact, they could probably broadcast the very voice of God twice daily, and I'd still be peeved at them.
My point mainly was that I think most people hold a service that they're being forced to pay for (particularly one that you have to pay for whether you use it or not), to a much higher standard than one that they choose to pay for. At least, I do, and would.
If I were in the U.K., I'd probably be making sure that when the BBC engages in these sort of contracts with multinational corporations, that they're squeezing the corps. for the greatest amount of cash possible, and using that cash to subsidize the tax bills of the people paying for the system -- in maintaining the BBC system, people in the U.K. are doing an unquestionable favor to the world, and at no small personal expense. I envy their generosity, but not their tax bill.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
"one of the main activities of magistrates courts in the UK is to jail single mothers for not subscribing to the BBC"
... or did you just make this all up....? :-) I got suckered by a troll didn't I?
Have you got the percentage figures there? this sounds made up. Something to help me on the lines of: "Magistrates Courts in the UK undertook 10,000 court cases in 2005 and 5,500 resulted in single mothers being sent to jail for non subscription to BBC" would do me fine...
Bill Gates said: "Microsoft's strength is in driving digital innovation, and our vision is to open up rich, new consumer experiences that allow people to enjoy digital content anytime, anywhere and on any device"
So now Billie Boy can use his influence on a NEWS organisation to rewrite history? When did M$ EVER "innovate"? And if I want a "digital experience" I'll buy a PS2. On my computer I just want it to work, without perpetual infestations of malware. And what's the bet that the coverage of the B&M Gates Foundation's work (aka tax dodge) will suddenly increase?
Bullshit. There are many more poorer people than there are richer. Even if most of their income came from rich people (which it wouldn't) they would still have an obligation to deliver a wide variety of content as long as the license fee was compulsory, especially due to commercial competitors. Our democracy in the UK is far from perfect but there is no way it would allow the BBC to discriminate against any significant part of its audience.
The UK license fee could easily be scaled according to income bands, and it is clearly unjust that it is not.