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
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
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.''
Privatization is not unheard of.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
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.
Actually, it's only illegal to own a receiver on which you receive public broadcasts without paying a license.
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.
You could say the same about road tax. Much like road tax, it is only paid by people who own and use cars on the public roads. However, most of us realise that the roads are a sufficiently useful public service that this is necessary. Many of us also realise that the same applies both to the TV and the radio.
The BBC also does a very good job of keeping down the number of adverts on commercial TV, too. If you don't believe me, come spend some time over here (the US) and watch some cable (which costs more anually than the license fee). A whole heck of a lot more ads than Channel 5, that's for sure.
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. Don't pick up broadcasts, and you won't have to pay the tax. Of course you'll be a bit of a hipocrite if you ever listen to one of the BBCs many radio stations, or ever use its website, but it isn't illegal to be a hipocrite without a license.
And you're also forgetting the final thing. The BBC seems to have the ability to
piss off the Government more than any other organisation in England. That is a public service which would be cheap at twice the price.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
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.
Dude. That's *12* dollars a month... 12 dollars! And it's on a f'ing luxury (yes, TV is a luxury... if you're a single mother who can't spare $12/month, you've got other problems and should probably just sacrifice the damn TV). In exchange, you have world-class media coverage on multiple formats, and online content that's only just being seen in other countries, and most of it without commercials! Seriously, you don't understand how great you have it.
If the alternative is that I have to pay more money for crappier content *and* have to watch 20 minutes of commercials per hour... I'll pay the damn $12, thank you very much.
Parent comment is at best, biased, bordering on lies. For a start, you cannot go to prison for evading the license fee, the punishment is a £1000 fine. Secondly, although growing slightly above inflation, it has only gained £11.50 since 1968, which is fair enough IMO, considering the Internet content and 4 extra TV channels added since then, as well as several Radio channels (the fee pays for radio programming on the BBC as well). Thirdly the BBC is actually the Third largest magazine publisher in the UK, and the magazines are published by BBC Magazines, a subsidary of BBC Worldwide, which is not funded by the license fee in any way shape or form.
However pressure may be placed on the BBC to make it difficult,
....except for all those vague U.S. patents.
or downright impossible for Non-MS software/OS users to partake
in their media experience. Hasn't history repeated itself enough
for our generation to catch on to this?
Microsoft has a bad habit of making other companies proprietary
to suit their own portfolio.
This may be all that MS has to grasp on to, once they are out of the
PC O.S. business.
Becoming their new business model for the next decade or 3.
Most people in the UK like the BBC - It does a good job of providing independant news to a global audience, many of them in the US. Comments like parent aren't representative of the general feeling in the UK, and are most often put forward by those with a hidden agenda. I think the 'jail' coments show an agenda less hidden than most.
Nice rant.
:-)
Have you seen what TV is like in other countries ? It's just awful. Low quality & full of advertising.
Having been outside the UK for 1 year, I dearly miss the BBC and it's programming and would gladly pay the licence free if I were allowed to receive broadcasts overseas.
I think that everyone that complains about the licence fee would soon complain bitterly if the BBC stopped running.
Although I would agree that some kind of lower rate (or free) for pensioners would be good.
That's my rant
Its amazing how many people just don't get it:
Since an organization's revenue stream will ultimately determine its biases, the BBC is funded independantly of the tax system. Charging a license fee in a "one-viewer-one-vote" fashion avoids conflicts of interest in covering both the private sector and state affairs. This helps dispell greed and political interference in how it goes about its job.
If the BBC received significant funds from tax revenue, then it would be a state-controlled broadcaster.
If they scaled the fee according to an individual's means, then their bias would slant toward serving the interests of the wealthy (which is what many anti-licensing activists very badly want).
A flat fee may not be a good model for many services. But for an organization that is supposed to serve the entire public without bias, to reflec that society which it serves, and to serve as a watchdog, IMO you cannot do better.
By just being in the wider broadcasting market, they change it for the better.