Slashdot Mirror
BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak
An anonymous reader writes "The future of iPlayer, the BBC's new online on-demand system for delivering content, is continuing to look bleaker. With ISPs threatening to throttle the content delivered through the iPlayer, consumers petitioning the UK government and the BBC to drop the DRM and Microsoft-only technology, and threatened legal action from the OSC, the last thing the BBC wanted to see today was street protests at their office and at the BBC Media Complex accompanied by a report issued by DefectiveByDesign about their association with Microsoft."
Now I'm just confused. My understanding of the situation is that a corporation wants to release content free (as in beer) for people to view, but people are actually taking to the streets in protest that the delivery system isn't free (as in speech). Or is this something that everyone is paying for, or is the content somehow regulated by the UK government? It just sounds like a company wants to release a product that only works on Windows, and I'm pretty sure that's been done before.
Feel free to blast me for being ignorant of the situation, but I couldn't find any decent info on why this situation warrants protests and such hype. If it pushes OSS, I'm all for it, it just seems a little over the top. The only bad thing I could find was it's delivery system, which would push the net neutrality debate...
I'm still not totally clear on how ISP's can throttle your bandwidth if you encrypt what you're sending..
MABASPLOOM!
There's no DRM solution that works for Linux, Windows and Mac. Or at least no solution that has been proven?
The annoying thing is the DRM just enforces an expiry time, it doesn't stop people without a TV licence (mandatory in UK) from viewing such content.
Well done everyone who participated in the fight against Digital Restrictions Management. Looks like there is really much protest and I hope the BBC will change to free formats. :)
It continues to amaze me that there are still those among us that have yet to realize that there is no difference between "copy protection" and "read protection".
seriously, BBC.. unless the government is twisting your arm to offer your programs online while saying that only UKians should be able to view it for free and the populace complaining that the player won't work on their operating systems and companies telling you to pony up for the bandwidth costs... why don't you just tell them all "screw it, then"; and not offer it at all. There. Everybody happy.
The UK ISPs point isn't about limiting services, it is a fear about the sheer bandwidth of the BBC's peer-to-peer system slowing down the net for all of the consumers. Sure, BBC can distribute it's content through it's own bandwidth that it pays for - fair. The UK ISPS say it is unfair for the BBC to profit from and use the ISP's customers' bandwidth to distribute the content.
P2P bandwidth issues are becoming a severe issue for ISPs and may, on a technical legal issue, violate the terms of service (love it or hate it - don't expect or demand more than you are agreeing to pay for. If you don't like it - start your own ISP with no restrictions and see how far that gets you.)
BBC is getting singled out because it's one clear and large profit-driven business that is using P2P - not something you can say about torrent sharing sites.
The street protests are just stupid mobs getting far more publicity than their point of view deserves. Pay it no mind.
Between the consumers, the BBC, and the ISPs, a market solution will likely solve the issue in favor of the consumers.
While I recognize their desire to protect their content, I wonder what the hell made them choose this pig's dinner of a solution.
They would be better off to deliver watermarked content in an open format such as H264 that plays just about anywhere. They could require users to register their TV licence in order to get the service, after which they can use it from any OS or browser within reasonable restrictions. Basically people should be able to do what they like with the content, short of sharing it. If they share it, use the watermark to look-up their address and send the heavies round.
A few years ago, the BBC seemed to be keen on the idea of releasing content in Ogg/Theora. Then they wanted to help develop and use the Dirac codec. And now they want to use a DRM-encumbered Microsoft codec.
This is an interesting situation because of the BBC's role as a "state-owned but independent corporation". I skimmed the Wikipedia article and it appears that the BBC is a for-profit corporation, but the fact that it's state-owned leads me to believe that its funded by taxpayers. If that is the case, why should taxpayers have to pay for DRM-infested media that was sponsored by their tax money?
After watching some of their documentaries and interesting content, I (as a US citizen) would be willing to pay the British TV-Tax if I could access an unencumbered SD/HD version of the shows they make.
If they don't do that, Ill just bittorrent them anyways. I'm not going to buy crippled software/media when the thieves can provide better for free.
To me, freedom matters more than cost. Capitalism at its finest.
If you want a current example from the _very same market_ in the UK (TV watchers) then glance your eye over Sky vs Virgin.
The number one non-over-the-air channel, Sky One, is owned by the same people who own the satellite broadcast system. (In the UK TV service to households with reasonable disposable income is, or was, split into cable vs satellite. Over the air is probably more common but not really in the same market. Outside London there are no real alternatives yet.)
Sky have denied the Sky One (and a few other not very interesting channels) license to Virgin. This has resulted in a massive exodus from cable. As a TV watching friend of mine pointed out "it's not worth the grief from the missus - and the kids would yell at me too". My choice would have been emigration without kids or wife, but he chose to switch to Satellite/Sky instead.
What does this have to do with internet TV, which has no presence yet to be missed? Well, the BBC has a tendency to plug new services endlessly on their channels. There is no one in the UK who doesn't hear or see something from the BBC every single week. Computer penetration is also very high, it's a small island so broadband is readily available too (cable and DSL, the latter from a number of ISPs). Even the people who won't see TV adverts listen to Radio 4 (available over the internet for free - give it a go! - especially the comedy) giving them a direct and unique line to highly educated and very powerful people.
So, a large number of people who have already shown that TV is important enough to make them pick up the phone, will get bombarded with adverts for a new service that they can probably access. Until they get home and try to get to it and see:
The BBC can't give you access to the iPlayer because unlike every reputable ISP yours is trying to charge you extra and we said we wouldn't be part of it. Here is a list of ISPs, that you probably can switch to with a single phone call, that are doing the right thing.
Even if the ISP blocks the error page the cost of handling the phone calls to customer support *alone* will probably make the whole thing impossible to maintain for very long.
Now, it won't come to this. A backroom deal will be cut and the whole thing will go away - precisely because the ISPs have no possible way to win.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
Wow. BBC is having street protests? And, this is over a media player? The U.S. invades Iraq on dubious grounds, without warrant wiretaps its people, and suspends the constitution, and what does the people of the United.. OOOOohhhh.. MSNBC says Brittany is being a bad mother and Kevin is being a good guy;although, it may be a shame just to get more money from her. Back in a few minutes.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
this is so completely wrong. The ISPs are selling people bandwidth that actually isn't there. You might have dozens of people running off a pipe a few 10s of megs wide but each person is being charged for the bandwidth of a 5-10 megs. this is referred to as the contention ratio of the channel. However, when people go to actually use the bandwidth they were sold, the ISPs recoil in horror and demand that they be paid to upgrade their networks to a capacity that they are already charging people for. Mutherfuckers
prepare the survey weasels.
The BBC are quite good when it comes to open formats and open standards. The BBC is not being criticised in general. just this very specific decision. It's heading away from the openness that it should be promoting.
It makes no difference to me whether other people are getting our BBC for free. I've already paid for it and I've used it. I don't need it any more, everyone else can have it. Perhaps the BBC do want to make money from international sales. I have no objection over this as long as it doesn't inconvenience me. But this does inconvenience me. Aside from this, the DRM is pointless. The organisation is already broadcasting unencrypted MPEG 2 streams that can easily be captured directly by any home computer with a cheap USB DVB receiver.
If the DRM, the agreement with Microsoft, or the restriction to a Windows player, is in violation of the charter, the BBC could be hung, drawn and quartered by the courts. If all three are acceptable - or even required - by the charter, then the BBC's legally guaranteed independence and freedom mean there is nothing anybody can do. Anybody. The Prime Minister could beg on his knees or order in the tanks, and it wouldn't do any good.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Parent post is generally true: as I understand it, the BBC is required by their partners to make at least some token
gesture towards restricting the redistribution of material which doesn't totally belong to it.
To also respond to the grandparent: the big thing here is that the BBC is not a company in the same sense that (say)
US cable networks are. As Douglas Adams used to observe "The BBC's not in the same business as the other TV stations" (or words to that effect): their customers are not corporate advertisers. The BBC is funded by the UK TV licencing fee, & has therefore already been paid for by every Windows, Mac, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc. user in the UK with a TV licence, so it clearly is unfair for the Beeb to release iPlayer access to their programmes only to Windows users. (In the interests of full disclosure, btw, I'm a British ex-pat who only uses OS X & (GNU/)Linux).
I do feel some measure of sympathy for the BBC about this, though. As has been noted elsewhere, it should be considered admirable that the BBC are trying to make as much of their programming available online as is feasible without charging. Unfortunately, the only way they can think of at the moment to reconcile that ideal with the legal realities of their programme-producing partnerships & so on is to present them with some sort of anti-duplication measure, hence the DRM. However, my sympathy for the BBC on this issue is tempered by the information that one of the senior execs in charge of making the decisions is an ex-Microsoft Windows Media Player guy, which does tend to suggest scope for conflict of interest on his part.
On balance, I think that the pressure the BBC is feeling reflects the fact that it's pushing the boundaries on making their content freely available online, which is a forward-thinking policy in general, & should be applauded. The woes listed in the summary are largely due to some short-term lack of wisdom in the means currently being used to attain those goals.
Nobody is forcing anyone to watch content produced by the BBC
No, but they are forcing me to pay for it. And I damned well want to use it if so.
Cheers,
Ian
from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article22 40427.ece
From The Sunday Times
August 12, 2007
Confessions of a BBC liberal
The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor, who wrote Yes, Minister
Antony Jay
In the past four weeks there have been two remarkable changes in the public attitude to the BBC. The first and most newsworthy one was precipitated by the faked trailer of the Queen walking out of a photographic portrait session with Annie Leibovitz.
It was especially damaging because the licence fee is based on a public belief that the BBC offers a degree of integrity and impartiality which its commercial competitors cannot achieve.
But in the longer term I believe that the second change is even more significant. It started with the BBC's own report on impartiality that effectively admitted to an institutional "liberal" bias among programme makers. Previously these accusations had been dismissed as a right-wing rant, but since the report was published even the BBC's allies seem to accept it.
It has been on parade again these past few weeks on the Radio 4 programme The Crime of Our Lives. It included (of course) the ritual demoni-sation of Margaret Thatcher (uninterested in crime . . . surprisingly did not take a closer interest), a swipe at Conservative magistrates and their friends in the golf club and occasional quotes from Douglas Hurd to preserve the illusion of impartiality, but the whole tenor of the programme was liberal/ progressive/ reformist.
The series even included a strong suggestion that Thatcher's economic policies were the cause of rising crime. So presumably she shouldn't have done what she did?
There is a perfectly reasonable case for progressive liberal reform of penal policy. There is also a perfectly reasonable case for a stricter and more punitive penal policy.
This programme was quite clearly on the side of the former and the producer/writer was a member of BBC staff. Can you imagine a BBC staff member slanting a programme towards the case for a stricter penal policy?
The growing general agreement that the culture of the BBC (and not just the BBC) is the culture of the chattering classes provokes a question that has puzzled me for 40 years. The question itself is simple - much simpler than the answer: what is behind the opinions and attitudes of this social group?
They are that minority often characterised (or caricatured) by sandals and macrobiotic diets, but in a less extreme form are found in The Guardian, Channel 4, the Church of England, academia, showbusiness and BBC news and current affairs. They constitute our metropolitan liberal media consensus, although the word "liberal" would have Adam Smith rotating in his grave. Let's call it "media liberalism".
It is of particular interest to me because for nine years, between 1955 and 1964, I was part of this media liberal consensus. For six of those nine years I was working on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme. My stint coincided almost exactly with Harold Macmil-lan's premiership and I do not think that my former colleagues would quibble if I said we were not exactly diehard supporters.
But we were not just anti-Macmil-lan; we were antiindustry, anti-capital-ism, antiadvertising, antiselling, antiprofit, antipatriotism, antimonarchy, antiempire, antipolice, antiarmed forces, antibomb, antiauthority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place - you name it, we were anti it.
Although I was a card-carrying media liberal for the best part of nine years, there was nothing in my past to predispose me towards membership. I spent my early years in a country where every citizen had to carry identification papers. All the newspapers were censored, as were all letters abroad; general elections had been abolished: it was a one-party state. Yes, that was Britain - Britain fr
Easy on the hate....
I am not stating nothing new, plenty of previous post, state a similar comment, therefore as plainly as possible, the ruckus is that BBC content is in part funded for, via taxes, therefore their, UK citizens, complain is that the BBC's implementation poses an implied double tax to UK viewers; due to limited OS and Media Player availability.
With all good intentions there is an implied test of due diligence that your implementation will be equitable to all; problem is that is rarely possible.
You can't take the sky from me...
Many, eh? I bet you wouldn't be able to find a handful? Why would the average Brit care whether or not the BBC can make a little bit more money when they've already got their hands in everyone's pockets.
This is PUBLIC television we're talking about here.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I really don't see what the problem with launching the iPlayer using M$ software is, the BBC have a way of distributing their content to the vast majority of licence paying computer users right now, and the BBC Trust have said "the broadcaster must open up the iPlayer as soon as possible and plans to review progress every six months" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6922024.stm ).
Sure, it may have been better to use Flash Video (but certainly not RealPlayer or Quicktime), but in reality the percentage of licence payers who don't have access to a Windows P.C. is small enough that can get the iPlayer up and running to the vast majority now, and fill in the gaps later. They have made attempts to make their own open format (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/), but obviously it's nowhere near ready for large scale use, so why not use something that is ready now?
The idea that the BBC is going to start releasing their content in a DRM free format is totally absurd, given that they make a sizeable portion of their income selling it to other broadcasters and releasing DVD box sets. If you can watch DRM "infected" media, then you can probably crack it, but the BBC a hardly likely to give away their content in a format that can go straight onto a P2P network. And why should U.K. licence payers fund the Worlds entertainment anyway?
I also think the ISP think will blow over, as the BBC are working with Virgin Media (the U.K.'s cable T.V. provider and largest home ISP) to bring the iPlayer to cable TV. I'm sure the other ISPs will think again when their biggest competitor starts making a big deal about their unrestricted access to iPlayer content.
I think they should launch it not, and not let a few whiners ruin it for everyone else
I download the BBC programming that I want to watch with Azureus an hour after it airs in the UK and watch it shortly after using VLC on my PC. Sometimes I'll burn a DVD and watch it on my TV. The quality is excellent.
Alternatively I can catch the programming 6 months to a year later on BBC America or the SciFi Channel with commercials and reduced resolution.
Whatever they do on their web site is a non-issue, although I'm a bit annoyed that I have to use a UK based proxy server to access some of the program guides.
I don't need real-time streaming for a lot of my cable video. I'd be satisfied to initiate the download, eat dinner, then go back and enjoy the desired program without interruption, and at a higher resolution or less of a compression ratio. That option seldom seems offered, although it would be so much faster than Netflix US Mail delivery.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If there's a survey on this, I'd just like to say that I'm in the UK and I DO NOT want DRM
Adobe currently has web video locked down; Apple, Real, Java, Xiph, and of course Microsoft are all in very niche use compared to Adobe Flash. Adobe Apollo is a direct competitor to Microsoft Silverlight, and with the inertia of Flash video and a large group of web designers already familiar with Flash, plus cheaper a licensing model than Microsoft, it looks like its in with a chance. The typical Microsoft response to fair competition is to compete unfairly. iPlayer, and a number of other high profile 2007 BBC projects, are based on Silverlight technology. Highfield's reponse on the Backstage blog points at the other proprietary technologies the BBC foists on the public, but these are based on previous technology decisions; the new stuff is all Silverlight based. 100,000 iPlayer sign-ups in a week, Martin? That's 100,000 more Silverlight installations. Given Microsoft's other major play to deploy Silverlight is Vista, and we all know how well that's working out for them this year, its outrageous to me that the BBC has paid Microsoft _anything_ for forcing license fee payers to install this key piece of strategic technology for them. Then UK is, afterall, one of the most broadband-saturated and media-consuming audiences, leading the way for other nations - Is the BBC likely to open up a non-zero-price iPlayer to international viewers at somepoint? So this is a big win for Microsoft's bid to control the next stage of web development with Silverlight. The BBC is committed to shipping a cross-platform iPlayer, and its a shame that this becomes the sole focus of the reporting on this issue. An iPlayer for 3 or 4 platforms is 3 or 4 times as worse as an XP-only iPlayer, because it is imposing DRM on even more people, and implying that DRM is acceptable. When it does ship a cross-platform iPlayer, I expect it will be based on Novell's Mono Moonlight for GNU/Linux, probably doing the media codec stuff with the GStreamer framework given that Fluendo, its sponsor, sells Windows Media Codecs already - https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products _id=45 - and the Mac OS X one might be Mono or Microsoft based.
That's going to really help the widespread adoption of Silverlight as the Rich Internet Application platform of choice.
In 2007, Google has maintained the dominant position for monetising search and advertising - of the text web. Their purchase of YouTube suggested they were serious about monetising the emerging video web, but the DRM aspects of Silverlight video delivery mean that their ability to provide search and advertising for web video is going to be undermined.
So the BBC hasn't just helped Microsoft pull a Adobe-killer, it's also helping Microsoft pull a Google-killer.
You can get it. You can watch TV.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
So out of interest, where should the BBC recover the money it currently gets from selling series to foreign TV stations? Because they aren't going to pay anywhere near as much when the BBC gives the files out for free over the internet.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
It's generally known that good foreign sales are paying a substantial part of the budget for the new Doctor Who series. If you wandered around and asked if we should give Doctor Who to the rest of the world for free, I bet you wouldn't find many people who said yes.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
Not only is this an interesting post, but the parent is bang-on about Radio 4, it's a fantastic station. Am particularly looking forward to: Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, it's starring Harry Enfield too.
Good thing is the DRM hasn't infected radio at all yet, so listen all you like!
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
The DRM isn't to boost export sales, it's to stop the existing sales to foreign networks collapsing to nothing when people can get the programs off the internet.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
The problem with the iPlayer fiasco is nepotism. Erik Huggers is Group Controller at BBC Future Media & Technology. Erik was previously Senior Director at Microsoft Corporation and before that a Director of Business Development at Microsoft Corporation. Also the UK government in the form of the Labour Party is in thick with Microsoft for all kinds of projects including the Health Service.
Having worked on some of these kinds of projects it is all nepotism. Erik gets a nice job at the BBC, someone from the BBC goes to Microsoft, an ex Labour Minister gets a job on one of Microsoft's Partner companies.
I reckon the BBC will abandon the Linux iPlayer the second it can.
The DRM stuff is a load of guff too. People as far as North Africa can pick up the BBC for free by sticking up a 130 cm satellite dish and aiming it at 28.2 degrees south as the Astra 2 satellite. Wonderful, crisp, digital downloads in realtime.
why don't you just tell them all "screw it, then" .... unless the government is:
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...except that the iPlayer content is funded by the British “TV tax”. Free (gratis)? Hardly.
If I lived in the UK and was forced to pay for a TV license (instated by the BBC), I would expect to have equal access to the programming for which I payed, regardless of my operating system and browser of choice. I choose freedom by using free software, so I would be ineligible to make use of a service for which I've already paid.
Government agencies forcing people to do business with monopolistic corporations? Yeah, that's definitely protest-worthy.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
While I recognize their desire to protect their content...
I don't. What restrictions are reasonable for state monopoly content that you have already paid for? Why should the BBC keep people from sharing when there's no loss of revenue and it reduces their costs by using networks more efficiently?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It's all about money. I bet MS paid BBC to use their stuff.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
It's not a choice between DRM and no DRM, it's a choice between DRM or (say) an extra 80 pounds on the license fee to make up for lost export revenue. Given the giant bitch-fest that occurs when the license fee goes up by 5 pounds I wouldn't even bother asking most people "Would you be willing to pay an extra 80 pounds a year so 4% of the computer using population can avoid buying Windows?" - I'd know the answer ahead of time.
DRM is snake oil. It can't stop anything: It's cracked, it's circumvented, it's preempted. The only thing this folly of the BBC accomplishes is that it makes it a crime to view otherwise free BBC content on a machine not running Windows.
You can't take the sky from me...
The main reason they aren't is a lack of DRM on those other platforms.
By letting the Dirac project die on the vine, the BBC has essentially demonstrated that it has no real interest in developing its own cross-platform codec (and almost certainly cross-platform DRM). Fundamentally, it's a broadcaster so it probably won't pay someone else to come up with something either.
This leaves only one option. Wait for someone else to write a cross-platform DRM product they can use. But such a thing already exists - it's called Flash. Flash can support DRM and is reasonably cross platform. But that's been the case for some time, and yet the BBC didn't use Flash.
Now, most TV companies (and I'm sure the BBC is no exception) have a fair mix of IT. Most of the creative types will almost certainly be using Apple Macs, for starters. So it's not like the BBC as an organisation is unaware of the existence of platforms other than Windows.
Others have said "give them time, it's a beta". I say "get real, nobody prepares a beta product with a view to completely redesigning it from the ground up when they go live".
There is therefore only one sensible explanation. The BBC is lying. This was intended as a quick, easy, cheap project which could gain them brownie points from the general public and the BBC Trust - nothing more, nothing less.
What we need is a solid open source DMR project that is cross-platform. Now, couple this project with an open source media player of your choice and all the problems with proprietary DMR goes way. The added benefit of open DMR is that when someone cracks the protection scheme, we have the source at our disposal to fix the problem quickly.
I dont know what the people complaining about bandwidth are moaning about, so limit the downloads if you feel you have to make a fuss about it. You cant stream the content to the iPlayer anyway, it's a straight download and then watch. As far as I can see its another way for the UK ISP's to grab more money from the UK consumers. We get a really bad deal here compared to the US market, and the ISP's use any excuse to wring even more money from us. They just want to excuse another price hitch.
While Flash supports streaming DRM, it doesn't support "download then timeout"-style DRM, which is what the BBC iPlayer uses.
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
>>> "The BBC has said multiple times that they intend to support other OSes in time."
... not what you expect of an enterprise supposedly run solely for the benefit of the license paying public.
Unfortunately the BBC now thinks it's a commercial enterprise - paying presenters by the million when any half decent presenter of the thousands could do their job for maybe at most 80-100k; copying other channels rather than providing an alternate choice; quantity over quality, etc. - part of this commercialisation has been a lack of real honesty IMHO. Check out the recent revelations about their ripping off people who phone in to their shows
I don't trust the BBC when they say other OS will follow shortly - partly because they're not choosing a platform agnostic solution and partly because I don't think the DRM solution they want (for unsound reasons*) is even possible.
---
* they say the DRM protects the interests of other broadcasters - that however is not the BBC's remit. We pay for the programs, I don't care if Sky, Virgin, whoever makes less money for their shareholders because I was forced to pay for something else.
Netflix is offering live video content over a Windows PC through Internet Explorer. I love NetFlix and have a PC but my primary home PC is a MAC and if I can't use FireFox and can't use a Mac it's game over.
For media distributors, get the message. Your customers don't want lock in by platform, OS, or browser.
One thing is clear, in the real world this ground-breaking project was never going to get off the ground without some form of DRM to stop casual copying, for two simple reasons - many of the BBC's shows are supplied by independent producers, and the BBC itself has an interest in the post-broadcast DVD market. Neither would want to allow their exploitation of the product to be killed by multiple high quality copies al over the Internet. Yes I know this happens already, but it's not on a massive scale yet, and it would be naive to think that profit-seeking companies would want to sign up to a scheme that would only increase it.
People can already get the programs off the internet. Have you been asleep for the last 10 years?
DRM DOES NOT WORK.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Time for BBC for Buy some Fiber and some new peering arrangements.
And I for one wouldn't mind paying a reasonable fraction of the UK TV license fee to be able to download the shows I like (DrWho, Spooks) and those I might like (Torchwood, Dr Who Confidential), but that's not even an option...
Everyone was warned about this quite some time ago. If they had pushed in earnest for Net Neutrality, none of this would even be possible. Save the Net has been actively trying to prevent this for MONTHS in the US. But too many dopes with their heads in the sand got fed the line "this is purely theoretical - there's no proof any ISP is planning to throttle or censor Internet content" (take the extremely vapid nonsense being spewed at handsoff.org for instance) and now the chickens have come home to roost. This is only the beginning - and the folks in the UK are getting exactly what they deserve for sitting on their fat arses while a handful of business men began debating what the public should and should not have free access to. I'm very pleased that this is in the public arena now. Perhaps people will FINALLY stand up, take notice and take the steps necessary to prevent things like this from happening again in the future. I highly doubt that will happen though. How sad. The solution IS more investment in Internet technologies, but that should be a matter of public debate to ascertain where the monies will come from. I certainly know where it's going right NOW...and it's not in new technology. It's going into the pockets of the same few businessmen who are complaining about broadband shortages. I pay dearly every month to have access to the fastest technology available right now. Where the HELL is MY MONEY going??? Or everyone else's for that matter?? By the end of 2007, China will have 57 million broadband subscribers and the U.S will have 54 million. 111 million people times, let's say 30 dollars a month on average, for broadband. That's over 3 BILLION dollars...A MONTH available to various ISPs from just 2 countries to manage and invest in Internet infrastructure. I am deeply sorry, but the stated justification for "taxing" entities like the BBC because they provide free services that are overwhelming existing Internet bandwidth resources is a load of hogwash. There's already plenty of money in the pipeline to pay for the necessary upgrades and supply should follow demand. I demand the right to have unfettered access to resources like iPlayer, I pay through the NOSE to have those demands met and now it's up to the ISPs to SUPPLY IT utilizing their ENORMOUS revenue streams in a less greedy fashion. And that's all I have to say about that.
Yes, because a youtube video is just so much more enjoyable than a real love tv broadcast or the dvd.
There is a place for everything.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
"Why would the average Brit care whether or not the BBC can make a little bit more money when they've already got their hands in everyone's pockets."
Because the government frequently restricts the licence-fee raises that the BBC asks for, based (partly) on how much they think the BBC needs. More profit for the BBC means the licence fee can be kept lower, so the average Brit ends up paying less money.
That means the foreign licensing only contributes roughly 5% of the budget (actual BBC Worldwide income is roughly £800million, which means roughly £600million of overhead).
So if BBC Worldwide closed shop (the absolute worst case assumption, and really not so likely), the increase to the TV license fee would be roughly £7 per year, not £80. And that's only to maintain parity, a 5% budget cut to cull a couple of lesser quality programs, or reduce some of the £1,100million that goes to "external spend in the UK creative industry," would probably pass without notice. "Would you be willing to pay an extra 80 pounds a year so 4% of the computer using population can avoid buying Windows?" - I'd know the answer ahead of time. A much less biased and much more accurate question would be:
"Would you be willing to pay an extra £7 a year so that anybody on a computer anywhere in the world can watch BBC programmes without any extra hassle?"
If you wandered around and asked if we should give Doctor Who to the rest of the world for free, I bet you wouldn't find many people who said yes.
No, but I bet you'd find a huge number of people who think we should pay them to take it.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Most folk in the UK will grumble about the price of the licence fee. On the other hand, most people in the UK really like the BBC not having commercial breaks and really enjoy being able to watch a whole episode of "Heroes" or "Dr. Who" or a feature length movie without a break, and realise the money has to come from somewhere. Most people are pretty happy with the idea that the BBC sells on the programmes it produces to broadcasters in other countries and uses the money to turn out more high quality programmes. We don't mind if you like our programmes and want to pay us some money to see them. Gives us more money to do more cool things. I think it's quite a substantial earner, as well, not just a little bit.
Folk aren't too stupid - they know it's public broadcasting but they realise it still needs money. And to be selfish, if foreign sales can keep the licence fee down, most people would approve of that! There's a belief that Auntie Beeb still turns out high quality drama and sometimes off-the-wall humour and bringing money in allows a freedom and quality that isn't always possible in some countries with more commercial broadcasters. Folk are proud that seemingly uncommercial programmes can get given a chance.
That, and the Canadian broadcaster that also funds it (or is that another program? I think it's Dr Who, but it's the best example anyway) might just object to having content they paid for given away to free to people who haven't paid for it.
My opinion on this is largely neutral, since I'm not (technically) a UK citizen and therefore it's not really my business.
If only the folks in the USA would get that through their thick heads too: it's none of their business.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
OK, fair points. The spend on "UK creative industry" probably includes all the money spent on small indie production companies that produce some of the best BBC programming though, so I doubt it makes sense to cut that. I'd have been willing to pay more money to make the BBCs output (specifically news) available for free to people, but that's orthogonal to the DRM issue and is more a political statement.
The Beeb is heavily dependent on its relationship with Virgin Media for the UKTV channels and will depend on them to kickstart demand for iPlayer-to-the-TV. Microsoft has a significant stake in Virgin Media, which is constantly working with Microsoft on various projects and depends on them to swell the capital for various developments and services.
..." and also, after months of responding to calls to produce a Linux version of the iPlayer with (paraphrasing) "the BBC is committed to releasing a version for Mac" finally said it would release a version for Linux - but that would depend on the actions of third parties, which I assumed meant that the BBC would release a Linux version if Microsoft agreed to permit Linux to be an option for the British license payer.
Ultimately, the BBC thinks it needs Microsoft because it thinks it needs UKTV and it will do what Microsoft wants as long as that is true.
We are fortunate that Virgin Media is having its spat with BSkyB over Sky One because it makes the BBC slightly more important to it than it would otherwise have been since it needs the UKTV channels to make their basic service as valuable as it is just that little bit more. That in turn slightly decreases the BBCs dependence on Microsoft - probably not enough.
It is interesting that the BBC recently referred to "... the popular Linux
Quite so. The BBC is acting like a private company, and not just on this issue.
It saddens me to say it, but when the BBC is not bothering to even pretend to be independent any more, I think it's time to get rid of the BBC licence tax and make them a wholly commercial enterprise instead.
It's a brand, you can get it on Amazon, there's also a 'British shop' that stocks it near here. T'was recommended to me by a tea taster!
Agreed, coffee is good first thing in the morning to get you going. Tea is good for the afternoon, along with some nice Digestive biscuits dunked-in. It's all a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. :)
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
It's pretty obvious that anyone with a UK TV license should have full access. And they could sell internet only licenses pro-rated for your country of origin. But why should anyone get DRM infested crap? It's not like they've ever cared about UK Nova.
DRM free was a major opportunity for pushing British cultural exports.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
You mean like all the links and peering they have on their network diagram...
The BBC used to have an ISP, but they sold it off to some other company because it wasn't worth their while to run it, iirc.
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
The BBC is not a state monopoly. And you claim you've paid for the content, but how does the BBC know you've paid for that content?
If you have to pay a fee because you own a television and BBC gets to use the money collected, BBC is a monopoly power. It would be easier on everyone if they just taxed each house instead of pretending to be fair to people who don't own a TV. Internet provided TV makes the old model look even sillier.
If that's done, why bother to restrict the files? You still have not explained to me why someone who's paid their fees should not be able to share their shows with their friends, so I still don't understand.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You could just write a kernel module to grab whatever is being "protected".
Apparently Linux and Mac UK users are pissed that their taxes go to the BBC yet they can't use iPlayer because it's currently a Windows only thing.
Here's the solution:
Divide the cost required to support a particular platform among the users of that platform.
For instance, let's say it takes two million dollars to support iPlayer on Windows, two million to support it on Linux, and two million to support it on Mac. OK, so the obvious solution is for the BBC to charge all of its Windows users a combined two million dollars in fees/taxes, charge all of its Linux users the same, and its Mac users the same. Of course, since Windows has 92% userbase share, Mac has 5%, and Linux as 1%, each Linux user would pay 5 times as much as a Mac user and 92 times more than a Windows user, but fair is fair. If you don't go along with this, then what you're asking the BBC to do is to go out of its way spending tax dollars paid by 92% of its users (Windows users) just to satisfy 1% of its users (Linux users). Let Linux users pay the amount it takes to support Linux.
Or, let the BBC refund to each Linux user the handful of pounds of his taxes that went into iPlayer.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
It's almost as good as taping it... on tapes that self-destruct after a week.
Is that they have obligations with all kinds of 3rd parties and they have to take steps to make sure that iplayer content is NOT viewable by anyone without a TV license and is NOT viewable after however long the service lets you view content for. Which generally means DRM. And right now Microsoft Windows Media DRM is the only viable solution for video DRM (unless you count DRM from Real Media which is just as bad and installed on far less computers than Windows Media DRM)
The funny thing is, with some of these DRM systems, even if you have the platform that it is supposed to work on, many people still can't make it work. I downloaded a legal FREE download of a TV program from AOL and found that it just wouldn't run on my Windows XP box due to some DRM issue with the computer (now, this is a FREE download, mind you). I'd like the program bad enough to actually PAY for a DVD of it if one were available. Whoever the content provider is can actually get MONEY out of me for this if what they provide isn't defective, but given they haven't I'm spending this weeks media budget on someone else's content. Doesn't matter if it's FREE, it's useless if it's defective. Ya gotta laugh at the arrogant and clueless minds that conceived of this stuff.
In my book, it's not about free stuff. I'm perfectly happy to pay for content. But, it must have these characteristics for that to happen:
1. Not just downloadable. I want something physical for my money-- a disk in the mail, primarily. Frankly, if I'm paying, one of the things I'm paying for is something that preserves the value of my purchase-- my purchase must be resaleable, and that legitimate disk is that resaleable entity. Etherial datastreams have little percieved value, and the media corporations insistence on it in the face of new distribution and replication technologies is IMHO the reason for the drop in their sales.
2. No time limit. It can't "stop working" after awhile, either based on elapsed time since purchase or the number of times it's been watched or listened to.
3. In an OPEN format. A format that can be made to play on future devices that don't even exist yet, possibly on a different media, that can be converted and that can be backed up.
4. Reasonable cost. DVDs <$20, CDs < $10 (don't ask me about HD, I'm in no particular hurry to go there and it doesn't yet meet #3).
Note that most of these criteria are about preserving value. I rarely go to the movie theater because the experience does not justify the cost for me. I will go to a live concert or live theater performance, and there the cost is justified-- I can't see paying $8 or whatever movies cost these days to sit in a too-small theater and have to pay inflated prices for unhealthy snacks when I can buy the DVD and watch in the comfort of my own home and pause it when someone has to take a leak or refill their snack dish. Even at home though, I'm not willing to pay $5-$20 for media that I can only watch for a limited time, won't work with the next generation of playback systems, that I can't let friends borrow or can't resell.
Can such a combination be abused? Undoubtedly, but that's the age we live in-- even without P2P music trading, college students can still convert their CDs to MP3 and trade them en-masse to their local circle of friends, which can significantly propagate the content. Welcome to the information age, guys. GET USED TO IT. The RIAA isn't gonna fix it, and their pathetic attempts are *really* bad PR. And DRM doesn't stop the abuse, it just pisses off those who try to legitmately access the content and motivates them to look for alternatives that actually work.
That's my criteria for spending $$$ on content. I buy quite a bit of media that fits all the above criteria (though DVDs only do because of deCSS, and not all DVDs because many are overpriced). But I don't buy ANY media that does not, and waste no more time on supposedly FREE media that's simply, broken.
Want my money you big media corporations? It's simple-- all you have to do is EARN it.
First off I'm both a Windows and Linux user, in business and home life. I have no axe to grind one way or the other, I use each OS on its own merits.
That said I think the whole BBC/iPlayer furore has more to do with DRM than any "Windows only" agenda. As has already been remarked (and unless I'm mistaken) DRM isn't achieveable through open-source players. The BBC will have a mandate to enforce licensing restrictions on the programmes it places on its iPlayer service - they're not "free" for everyone to view, they're only intended for people who have otherwise already funded it in the first place (i.e. UK licence fee payers).
The BBC have already stated that a Mac version is coming - and you can be sure that this will implement whatever DRM methods Apple media players support.
The argument about the security (or lack thereof) of DRM implementations is academic at the end of the day. The BBC have to at least show that they have taken steps to protect their "clients" (for want of a better word) interests. If, how and when the DRM is cracked on it at least they can say they tried, and it was ultimately "Microsofts fault".
There is a difference between implementing something you know is ultimately going to be cracked anyway - like pretty much any copy protection on a game or application - and not putting any copy-protection at all in place, and this is the same.
And there I thought everyone paid a license fee to pay for the BBC. Surely someones dropping a ball (or a globe) and somehow forgot to commision advertising to "profit".
The question is: Does the BBC have the right to wall off this content which has already been paid for just to guarantee future profits on DVD sales? If the programming is paid for by government mandated TV Licenses (which it appears to be), is it fair -- or even legal -- for the BBC to even charge money for DVDs? The public already paid for those shows. Why should they have to pay again?
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
I can understand why the ISPs are worried about P2P traffic affecting all customers.
One of the great things about P2P is that it reduces load on servers. Servers are bottlenecks. However, P2P doesn't necessarily remove the bottleneck, just move it. I think ISPs are discovering that their pipes are now becoming the bottlenecks, and they're trying to protect their pipes.
Perhaps a solution is a relatively simple modification of P2P clients: modify them to favour peers that are closer (in network hops) over peers that are not. This would mean that most traffic would be *within* a network, rather than *between* networks, thus reducing load on the pipes between ISPs...
As for the DRM issues, I agree that BBC should drop DRM.
As for those who bitch about excluding the It's a pity that a well-intentioned, poorly reasoned perspective ("make the technology available to everyone or no one") may keep the BBC firmly out of the internet video age.
That is a part of this I'm not 100% sure about, I know you can just pop onto the bittorrent site of your choice and get everything off the BBC. However, in the eyes of people who might pay for BBC content, there is I'm sure a difference between "This stuff is pirated" and "The BBC actually gives this stuff away to people, for free"
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
You can get Yorkshire Tea in the US. It's my cuppa of choice and when I'm based in El Segundo, LA County, I buy it from the local Ralphs. I can even get marmite! The interesting thing is trying to make a decent cuppa once you have proper tea and milk but you only have a coffee machine...
I use iPlayer, I dont care what format they choose to deliver their content in or if it has DRM. If I want to watch it, thats the flavour it comes in, if you dont like it then dont watch it. What does annoy me is the Kontiki P2P service, its constantly eating into my bandwidth by uploading my downloads to other clients. My bandwidth costs me money, why should I be paying to help the BBC redistribute its content ?
Any BBC viewer should have the right to:
1) See the BBC content without having to buy MS Windows (or any other OS for that matter). BBC therefore should make its contents available using open formats such as OGG, openly available to free operating systems such as GNU/Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg)
2) Record a BBC program for personal use, as BBC viewers have been doing since the invention of VHS recorders. Therefore, no DRM should be used, since it doesn't restrict the bad guys (just see DVD's DRM fate) and it just cripples legitimate viewers rights of doing personal copies.
==
== Having to buy MS Windows to watch BBC is the same
== as having to buy air to breathe.
==
BBC, wake up!!!
There is no difference.
Oh, hold on yes there is! The difference is I can't play it if I get it from the BBC, so I'm forced to "pirate" it myself even though I have already paid for it.
Artificially crippling the iPlayer service that paying customers receive, solely to prevent those that don't pay from getting as large a benefit from the service is rather like breaking your own leg so that you get better value from the NHS.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
So the BBC is basically showing the finger to anybody that has decided not to make Uncle Bill richer.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Sorry, no refund. I'm paying for all kinds of shit I don't want to pay for. How do I get my refund for paying for some lazy whore to pop out 5 kids and have them taken away and taken care of by the state?
First, a little education for you, courtesy of Wikipedia: (emphasis mine)With that out of the way...Why should people who do business with Microsoft get it “free twice”, as you put it, but everyone else shouldn't? Tax dollars/license fees are still paying for the online hosting and distribution of this content.I personally wouldn't see an issue with that. The key phrase you used is “calling it even”. Everyone would have the same access to the re-aired content, regardless of their personal commercial and political preferences regarding computing. However, I'm not a license-fee-paying BBC viewer or listener, so my opinion on that doesn't really matter. I'll bet there are viewers and listeners who do pay the license fee who do want content to be available and accessible for no additional fee. These are the people the BBC answers to.
When a government agency introduces outrageous requirements that force people to do business with a single corporation in order to get access to a service, that is an example of either corruption or incompetence. The BBC are punishing people who aren't Microsoft customers by denying them access through technical means to the content that's distributed through their Web site and playable with iPlayer. Like it or not, the British populace has no choice but to fund the hosting of the iPlayer content if they own televisions.
Does that sound like the BBC is being “free from both political and commercial influence” to you?Do you also think the issues surrounding ODF usage in government are stupid, or fueled by cheap, lazy communists? It's the same issue, just packaged differently. I pay my government through tax money. Therefore, I have a right to any service the government furnishes to the general public for which I've paid. As a government agency, it is the BBC's obligation to cater to every person who pays them the TV tax, which is pretty much everybody.
It all boils down to equal taxation without equal consideration and representation. The BBC's viewers and listeners have spoken. As a corporation that “answers only to its viewers and listeners”, the BBC needs to be held accountable, one way or another.
The American Revolution was started over these same principles. Petty? Communist? We'll let history answer that question.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
One that could be supported amongst multiple platforms?
You are "proposing" (and here, I use the word generously) a solution taking the stand that Linux users are leeches.
IF we were going to use the same methods of reasoning any minority would have to pay more taxes in order to receive equal treatment by any tax funded agency. I am sure you don't want to go down that alley of reasoning.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Because there is no solution that works in all devices.
If the BBC needs to introduce DRM then they should invent their own distribution methods that would be platform independent.
If they had asked the help of the FOSS community I am sure that a solution could have been reached.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Microsoft is entirely capable of hiding secret, protected paths to and from hardware in it's closed code. In an open source OS, you can just redirect those paths.
Have you driven a fnord... lately?
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
I would venture to say that you're not one of the people who care...you Microsoft shareholders are like that, I suppose.
*rotfls*
Nope, sorry, don't hold any Microsoft stock. Don't actually hold any stock in any company at all. But hey, nice ad hominem attack there, buddy.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I know they think they are covered by the fact that the programmes have already been aired on TV, but the cost of creating the iplayer is coming from license fee payers. Now intentionally leaving out a cross section of fee payers is simply wrong. And they'd been using RealPlayer just fine until whats his name from microsoft took over at their online media wing. I don't want to be paying them to develop a product that I will never be using.