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."

Comments

Re:I'd welcome WMA

[mallardtheduck]

Most BBC content is available in both Real and Windows Media formats.

Issues of access?

[6031769]

From the BBC's own coverage of this story, there is a quote from Mr. Gates himself:

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.

"This vision fits squarely with the BBC's charter to lead the industry in delivering content that is compelling and accessible."

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?

how annoying,

[joe 155]

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.

Re:Who the BBC is

[serviscope_minor]

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.