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."
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?
Most BBC content is available in both Real and Windows Media formats.
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.
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.''
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.
If you have a TV tuner card, that counts. If you don't have a licence then you can be prosecuted. The TV licencing folk are like pitbulls, and they have some similar rights as baliffs the way I understand it.
I hate the TV licence. When I first moved out from home, I did not own a TV but the licence people still sent me letters saying "You don't appear to have a TV licence, please get one." I phoned them and said I don't have a TV, they still sent letters. I replied to these letters, but there is no convincing them you don't own a TV. A few more letters and they were threatening to send the inspectors round. I found this link which has some various experiences of the TV Licencing strategies.
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.