BBC Planning To Launch Global iPlayer VoD Service

Nifty by AlastairLynn · 2009-10-24 11:07 · Score: 1

Well, it is!

Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 11:09 · Score: 1, Funny

I can watch Benny Hill on the way to work.

Re:Great! by sopssa · 2009-10-24 11:16 · Score: 1

Too bad The IT Crowd is Channel 4's. It's the only UK series I've followed (apart from The Office, but UK version was so short). Otherwise I haven't really found good shows from there.
Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 11:36 · Score: 1, Funny

"The player is are so simple that a grandmother could use it".
This is just agist garbage. They wouldn't have said a grandfather couldn't use it.
Of course they wouldn't. It's not that simple.
Re:Great! by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-24 12:45 · Score: 1

UK version was perfect length, US version should not exist, ITV reimported it and it makes me cring (and not in the good way UK version did), a few popular programs are:
QI
Dr who
Michel and Webb look (makers of peep show)
Mock the week (even without Frankie Boyle it will still be great and probably good enough to get international appeal, like the daily show)
Top gear (actually we all laugh at US cars over here so that probably wouldn't go down well)
Never mind the buzzcocks (well if they find a good presenter)
A fair number of good documentaries (just don't watch the political ones or you'll find out we quite like "socialism")

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Re:Great! by mofag · 2009-10-24 13:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Black books
League of gentlemen (so different from the similarly named the crappy film)
Spaced
Jam
Little Britain
Off you go :)
Re:Great! by El+Torico · 2009-10-24 13:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Top gear (actually we all laugh at US cars over here so that probably wouldn't go down well)
Top Gear is very popular in the US; the series and the magazine are well regarded. Your over-generalizing and "fashionable" anti-Americanism is what doesn't go down well.
So, do all of you laugh at the SSC Ultimate Aero? It is currently the world's fastest production automobile. That's nothing to laugh at.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Great! by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-24 14:42 · Score: 1

This goes down well? how about a review of you #1 car (segment on show was actually harsher but i couldn't find a link).
TBH never heard of it, but yes because it looks ugly and has stupid doors, you would have been better talking about the Saleen because despite the same stupid doors it doesn't look like it was designed by a blind ape, but the Bugatti is by far the worlds best supercar, because its a true engineering masterpiece (not just fast). Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck, and it's not just anti-Americanism we really do think you guys make crap cars.

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Re:Great! by hardburn · 2009-10-24 15:13 · Score: 1

The F150 is the #1 "car" because of fleet buyers, and because Toyota's equivalent too the Hylax here isn't quite as good as the European version (lot of the same parts, but different chassis). Incidentally, the Chevy Silverado would be the #1 "car" if a chunk of them weren't sold as GMCs. Plus, the new F150 released since that review is quite a bit better.
Fleet buyers are the same reason why Vauxhall exists despite being total pants.
Also, most of America is not the Deep South, and doesn't even like the Deep South very much.

--
Not a typewriter
Re:Great! by NoMaster · 2009-10-24 15:33 · Score: 1

Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck

Well, the transit in most incarnations has always been a German / English design, totally independent of Ford US. It's only the most recent ones that've been styled in the US, onto one of Ford's 'international' platforms (from Germany, IIRC, & used everywhere bar the US), but still built in Southampton (not sure if they're still made in Köln).
So, essentially, the UK Transit is the last of the truly 'European' Fords; a hangover from the days when Ford in the UK and Germany designed their own stuff from the ground up.

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
Re:Great! by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2009-10-24 17:02 · Score: 1

I'm curious how you would know the quality of the engineering on any supercar. Do you have actual access to the products in question? Anything can be made to look good or seem pretty fancy, it's one of those things that I would think requires some quality time.
Re:Great! by PachmanP · 2009-10-24 17:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck, and it's not just anti-Americanism we really do think you guys make crap cars.
Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right? Also, if I remember correctly, the F-150 review was of a Lightning which everyone over here thinks is ridiculous, and most of the complaints involved it's size being impractical for the UK. Duh! The road system and fuel prices are dramatically different and cars that work one place don't work in another. I mean I'd be a little bonkers to drive some of the tiny cars that are popular in Europe on an interstate just like you wouldn't try and drive a F-150 through a hamelet...

--
You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
Re:Great! by ardle · 2009-10-24 18:59 · Score: 3, Informative
BBC's sitcoms aren't great but they have loads of great "panel" shows: they're ostensibly quiz shows but participants are usually either comedians or victims.
Examples:
- Have I Got News For You: the first of this type - now has a "rotating" host since the original one had to leave after a prostitute/cocaine scandal (well, of course he had to turn up for one more show so that everyone else could make fun of him). The regular panelists are getting a bit lazy now - but the show has been running for more than 15 years. Think "The Daily Show" with less substance or heart but better insults.
- Mock The Week: a newer version of the same thing but with explicit stand-up parts because it's 100% comedians. Google "Frankie Boyle", is all I can say.
- Never Mind The Buzzcocks: music-oriented show where participants insult pop stars, frequently face-to-face. Chair seems to be rotating for this one now, too.
- Would I Lie To You: quite new, a bit better-behaved than the others - but still entertaining
I regularly watch all the above, even if they are "out-of-date"...
Re:Great! by amw · 2009-10-24 20:54 · Score: 1

Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right?
Used to. He has since referred to it as the most unreliable car ever made.
Re:Great! by slim · 2009-10-24 21:28 · Score: 1

Black books - Channel 4
League of gentlemen - BBC
Spaced - Channel 4
Jam - Channel 4 (I think)
Little Britain - BBC. Deteriorated badly after 1st series.
Re:Great! by TheThiefMaster · 2009-10-24 22:26 · Score: 1

I mean I'd be a little bonkers to drive some of the tiny cars that are popular in Europe on an interstate
I don't see why, most of them are faster than US cars.
Re:Great! by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-24 23:52 · Score: 1

now has a "rotating" host since the original one had to leave after a prostitute/cocaine scandal
To clarify, he only left after the second scandal. He survived the first, more or less, but after the second it was basically impossible for him to continue because all of the contestants were mocking him, rather than the news.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Great! by jamstar7 · 2009-10-25 01:40 · Score: 1

'Spaced' has been out of production for almost a decade. Great show, none the less, but not worth watching for 'ten dollars a show" like Bradley Jones suggests we might in TFA.
We all supposed to get strung out on 'Coronation Street' or something?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Great! by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-25 02:08 · Score: 1

Actually if you watch the link (it's missing the attack on americans for liking such a stupid car which he adds later), he describes it as the worst car he's ever driven, the criticism that i care about are:
It's an "off-road car" without 4x4 or an on-road care that's ridiculously big.
It doesn't have any safety certification a car needs.
The controls are very loose.
The interior is shite (objectively speaking)
"The brakes are the size of milk tops"

Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right?
I should have qualified that with recent, they like many older cars (even US made ones). I also mentioned that there are exceptions, for example some recent Chryslers sell well over here.

I mean I'd be a little bonkers to drive some of the tiny cars that are popular in Europe on an interstate
Erm we do have long interregional roads with speedlimits around the 75mph mark in Europe too, unless American roads are as bad as your cars i don't know why you would need a pickup truck/SUV to use them. Most people that do a lot of highway driver wouldn't opt for little cars, but they get around fine with coupes/sedans.

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Re:Great! by aedan · 2009-10-25 02:24 · Score: 1

This League of Gentlemen film?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052997/
It's great and very much ahead of its time in the way it took the micky out of the English establishment and in its presentation of gay issues.
Re:Great! by gbjbaanb · 2009-10-25 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

If you like Frankie Boyle, you might like Argumental on Dave. quote:

I never thought I'd see the day where Frankie Boyle would be referred to as only the second most offensive ginger haired chap to appear on a stage and make people piss themselves laughing while at the same time leaving them feeling both disturbed and afraid for their own safety.

Buzzcocks - was brilliant in the early days, Mark Lamarr would tease bimbo contestants by telling them the answers and they *still* wouldn't get it right. Hilarious at times.
Have I got News for You - still good, but not nearly as good as the Radio4 version, the News Quiz. Its kind of a dumbed-down version for prime-time TV audiences who need pictures to go with their comedy.
People have mentioned quiz shows like QI, (even if it gets it wrong occasionally), but we do great stand-up shows like Michael McIntyre's Comedy Roadshow (watch the one with Rhod Gilbert!), and also sketch shows like Armstrong and Miller (love Brabbins and Fyffe)
Or just browser through the archives on the BBC Comedy site.
Re:Great! by h4rm0ny · 2009-10-25 03:57 · Score: 1

because all of the contestants were mocking him, rather than the news.
I remember that last episode and it was by far Paul Merton who really went all out sticking the knife in. He showed a genuinely vindictive side on that episode. He had a special t-shirt printed with newspaper headlines about the host which he wore. He basically didn't let the host get out a straight question for nearly the entirety of the show. The host, Angus Deayton, put up one of the most valiant efforts I've ever seen to take everything in good humour and turn everything into a joke - and he did really well. But you could basically see that Paul Merton was out for blood. I don't know why. Either Paul Merton disapproved of Angus's personal life and set himself up as judge, or he was using the scandal as a chance to take out professional differences on him. But if you watch that show, you can see he was basically out for the hosts blood. Angus Deayton was a really good host and I don't see why someone's personal life needs to be dragged out and interfere with their professional career by judgemental people. And sadly, Paul Merton was one of the worst culprits.

When you have boring shit-heads like Russel Brand and Jonathon Ross using their show to call up retired actors and leave messages about having sex with their grandkids on their answer machines and getting away with it, you wonder why someone very talented who tried to keep their personal life well away from their professional work should have their career wiped out.

Okay - rant over. Sucks to see a fairly long and entertaining television career torn to shreds on national TV right in front of you.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:Great! by Hal_Porter · 2009-10-25 04:31 · Score: 1

> Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right?
Why would Jesus Christ need a supercar?

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Great! by Hal_Porter · 2009-10-25 04:32 · Score: 1

Brass Eye always seemed funnier than Jam.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Re:Great! by ciderVisor · 2009-10-25 22:39 · Score: 1

A Trek 5 paraquote ? Kudos !

--
Squirrel!
Re:Great! by Parts09 · 2009-10-27 03:32 · Score: 1

They recently had an episode (or maybe it was another special) where they road tested a Corvette, a Caddy CTS and a Challenger. At the end of the show it says that they think they are good cars. The CTS-V also got a pretty good review on the show when Clarkson reviewed it.

--
My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices

Sweet! by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 11:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

I have been waiting for a chance to watch BBC streaming, instead of having to wait until someone in the UK records, transcodes, and uploads a torrent...

Re:Sweet! by Phoobarnvaz · 2009-10-24 14:14 · Score: 1

Same here. Actually watch more BBC & Channel 10 AU than I do US stuff they call TV. I would gladly pay a subscription for this...rather than use proxy servers to get downloads & watch it as a native in the UK!!!

--
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia. - Charles M. Schulz
Re:Sweet! by roguetrick · 2009-10-24 14:30 · Score: 1

You could if you paid some guy to set up a proxy.

--
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
Re:Sweet! by Hal_Porter · 2009-10-25 04:39 · Score: 1

Someone should set up a service where people in the US/UK would volunteer their machines as proxies so people in the other country could watching streaming video from sites that won't accept international IP addresses.
Of course the BBC and Hulu would ban proxies by IP address if they found them so there'd need to be a bit of subtlety. Plus you'd need some way to encourage people to not free load. Still it could be done.
Now in some ways Tor attempts to solve the same problem but unfortunately it doesn't really encourage high bandwidth users.

--
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;

Re:Is it still Windows only? by countertrolling · 2009-10-24 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Name one.

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone

Re:Is it still Windows only? by ob0 · 2009-10-24 11:18 · Score: 3, Informative

No, it's (mostly) Adobe only, using Flash for streaming (via RTMP) and AIR for downloaded programmes. The iPhone version uses HTTP streams. get_iplayer is a nice script to download iplayer content a little more permanently.

Re:Is it still Windows only? by bramp · 2009-10-24 11:20 · Score: 1

Nope, works great on any OS/browser with Flash

As a British taxpayer... by Xordan · 2009-10-24 11:46 · Score: 1

The more money the BBC can pull in from stuff that my taxes (TV licence, which I don't object to) have already paid for, the better. I realise that the TV licence won't drop in price, nor will I get any money back, but perhaps the money will go on creating more good stuff for me to watch.

Nah, probably the BBC execs will get big bonuses.

Re:As a British taxpayer... by funkatron · 2009-10-24 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.
Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by Lemming+Mark · 2009-10-24 12:30 · Score: 1

Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.
Indeed. I'd actually say that DVDs of BBC shows (at least the popular ones) are more expensive than those from other channels, given the amount of content. UK series tend to be waaaay shorter than US series (and lower budget per episode, often) and yet somehow I'd be roughly looking at paying the same price for a series of Dr Who as for a US series. Dr Who is good but it's not good enough for me to pay that much, so I never buy any.

Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.
I've heard it alleged that the BBC don't have direct control over the license collection people. But regardless, the TV licensing people behave disgracefully on a continual basis. For those outside the UK who might be interested, the procedure is basically:
If TV Licensing think you might have a TV they will write to you and tell you to buy a license. If you ignore them they will write again. And again. And then they'll start warning you in writing that you may be taken to court. And they threaten to send an inspector round to see if you are watching TV. And eventually they will send an inspector around to check. If you buy a television, I think *perhaps* TV licensing sometimes get notified of the purchase address so they can update their database but I'd have to check that factoid.
You don't have to have a TV license to own an operate a TV but you do have to have it to watch live TV programmes. Even if you never ever watch the BBC, which is where most of the license money goes (which is how come we get to watch programmes for free on the iPlayer - already paid for by license fees - although somehow we're not allowed access to shows for more than about a week after broadcast).
Re:As a British taxpayer... by BiggyP · 2009-10-24 14:22 · Score: 1

Not only that, Channel 4 make a large quantity of their content available on 4od(nasty flash site but still vaguely usable in linux) for 30 days, or indefinitely for stuff in their backcatalogue, such as the comic strip presents and every episode of peep show, whereas the BBC keeps recently aired content online for 7 whole days and expects you to buy the DVD if you would like to watch anything older... If i miss the first episode of a programme and realise this just after the second episode has aired i then have to go and torrent it before watching ep2 on iplayer. Now i keep an eye out for things and just rip everything remotely interesting with get_iplayer, resulting in nice mp4s that i can watch later, as in whenever i like, and without suffering the appalling performance of fullscreen flash.
Another great move by the BBC is to offer drm-free downloads of iplayer content, but guess what, you ordinarily(get_iplayer can retrieve these, thankfully) need to own an iPhone for them to extend this functionality to you, great, huh?

--
Software Freedom Day!.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-25 00:01 · Score: 1

A lot of iPlayer shows are now on the 'season catch-up' model, where they stay online until a week after the entire season has run. Of course, if you're using get_iplayer, you just add the show title to the PVR mode and it will grab each new episode as it comes online.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:As a British taxpayer... by BiggyP · 2009-10-25 01:04 · Score: 1

A lot doesn't equate to nearly enough, and i don't think i've ever seen it happen for radio content. PVR mode in get_iplayer is a great idea, but it still needs me to anticipate the first episode for anything that isn't in catch-up mode. Then there's the issue of older programming, which BBC worldwide have got their grubby hands on and are holding to ransom on paid-for cable/satellite channels, can't we at least have more repeats?

--
Software Freedom Day!.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by funkatron · 2009-10-25 01:31 · Score: 1

tbh, hardly anyone in the UK gets too bothered about "government plans stupid controlling idea $X" stories. They usually just mean that some consultancy is going to be paid a load of money to do nothing until the budget comes around and the plan gets silently dropped. It's mildly expensive but not really scary.

--
"Welcome to our world. We are the wasted youth. And we are the future too." Yes, I know these are stupid lyrics.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by Lemming+Mark · 2009-10-25 01:45 · Score: 1

That's basically what I've done, although in my case it's also because my current house doesn't have an aerial to receive terrestrial broadcasts and I don't want to pay for a cable subscription. But - don't get rid of your TV, plug your laptop into it so that it's just like watching TV but without the license fee :->
The current government is obsessed with control and can't resist the urge to just poke at anything they can. The TV license isn't an example of this government's craziness, it goes back waaaaay longer. I don't mind paying the TV license, since the BBC is really very good. It's pretty likely that most people will use the BBC, so they'll get their money's worth (not that that's really sufficient excuse for a bizarre TV taxation system!). What I - and everybody else - do mind is the aggressive and intimidatory way license fee collection is done. I think the TV licensing people have recently been told they have to tone things down a bit but they are still really annoying.
I'm hoping if we get a change of government next year (and, barring something extraordinary happening, this seems likely) that they'll be able to resist the urge to have total control of society for at least a little while! The Conservatives (other main party) say they'll scrap plans for a national ID card. I'm skeptical, if the Civil Service is already committed to it, whether it will go away forever. But hopefully a delay will keep us safe for a little longer - and make the thing more likely to die of old age before it's rolled out.
Over the past decade or so the situation here (as I perceive it) has changed from "Ooooh, Patriot Act, scary stuff. The US is becoming very totalitarian. Glad we live in the UK." to "Help, the government wants to control every aspect of my life!". The UK used to operate sanely in practice, despite lots of archaisms like having an official religion, a monarchy, a TV tax, etc. Now the UK is going pretty insane - and interestingly, it has nothing to do with those other oddities, they're mostly just introducing new oddities at a high rate.
That said, depending on your sources you shouldn't necessarily read too much into the robo-trashcan scenario depending on where you read it. Certain news sources (Daily Mail is one in particular!) have an obsession with trashcans. It is true, however, that a few local councils (i.e. town administration) have used anti-terrorism laws to spy on people for stupid stuff like determining what school district they live in and whether they're doing the trash correctly (the latter might just be hyperbole on my part but I think it might actually have happened anyhow).
Otherwise maybe it's time to look at moving to a saner country... if there is one :-S
Re:As a British taxpayer... by xaxa · 2009-10-25 03:28 · Score: 1

If I lived in the UK I'd get rid of my TV rather than pay some stupid ~$300/year BBC fee.
£115.

I can watch my favorite shows on my laptop, and take-up reading to fill in the rest of the time.
But in the USA, you'd still be paying for public TV if you did this.

Your country is really messed up with overzealous government control.
I just heard last night that the UK is measuring trash via some fancy-new chip-embedded cans, which will gradually be distributed to the populace. Purpose? To see how much waste you throw-away and eventually start charging you per pound. It's a way to encourage recycling instead of trashing.
Are you suggesting private waste collection/disposal companies don't change by weight (or volume)?
I'll be happy to pay less for waste collection with this system (I'm certain I produce less waste than average). Similar systems are used in other countries.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by commodore64_love · 2009-10-25 12:29 · Score: 1

>>>But in the USA, you'd still be paying for public TV if you did this.
In the USA television is free. All you need is an aerial. Unless you were talking about PBS? That's only $3 a year - not really a big deal.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:As a British taxpayer... by commodore64_love · 2009-10-25 12:31 · Score: 1

>>>Are you suggesting private waste collection/disposal companies don't change by weight (or volume)?
Yes of course, but the idea is that trash can would have an extra tax (per pound) placed on top of it, while the recycle bins would not. (At least that's how the UK guy explained it to a CNN reporter.) It's a way to encourage people to recycle rather than trash their items.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:As a British taxpayer... by LordSnooty · 2009-10-25 16:07 · Score: 1

Probably not helpful but I've always been intrigued by the Beeb's approach to torrenting, and the blind eye they tend to turn - to the recently aired stuff anyway, rather than DVD rips. There are a couple of good sites that share a lot of up-to-date BBC content. The BBC have only ever got after the person who shared Dr Who pre-air, the sites themselves are left alone. I wonder if, under this rumoured pay model that will continue.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by mdwh2 · 2009-10-26 02:19 · Score: 1

Another example to DVDs would be channels like UKTV Gold, that they flog off their old content to. So, we've already paid for the BBC, but to watch it, we have to pay to watch UKTV Gold. And we get adverts on that channel on top of that.
If TV Licensing think you might have a TV
And just to add, their criterion for this is "If the person has an address in our database".
although somehow we're not allowed access to shows for more than about a week after broadcast
Indeed - personally I think all BBC produced content should be available for free, for licence payers at least. I also find it frustrating that they eagerly send takedown notices to YouTube, when the material that was there isn't available online from the BBC.
And given the UK Government's plans to disconnect people for downloading, I'd like to know how this will work for someone downloading programmes shown on the BBC, that they already pay for.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by mdwh2 · 2009-10-26 02:22 · Score: 1

£115.
£142.50, I think you'll find.
Re:As a British taxpayer... by commodore64_love · 2009-10-26 03:40 · Score: 1

And based upon my previous purchases from the UK, one pound == 1/2 dollar, so 142.5 == 1/2 * $$$ ---> $285. Close to my initial $300/year estimate.
I think this part of the website is funny. Talk about Big Brother - "How do I let you know that I don't need a licence? Answer: Just click here to enter your details. When we receive your declaration, we'll send you a letter confirming the next steps. These are: * We will send a TV Licensing officer to your address to confirm the situation. ** Once our officer has confirmed that you don't need a licence, your address will not be contacted again for at least three years. *** After the three-year period, we will contact you to confirm that you still live at the address, and that your situation hasn't changed. **** If, during a visit, we find that you do in fact need a licence, you'll need to pay the full licence fee. Please note that you may also face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000." (~1900 dollars)
I filled it out with my American address.
I wish I could see the look on the
UK officer's face.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:As a British taxpayer... by xaxa · 2009-10-26 05:16 · Score: 1

(Yep, near enough $300. I'm out of date with the price and the exchange rate.)
It's very much Big Brother: it's fiction designed to cause fear.
If you don't have a TV license they send regular letters. They start off reasonably polite, then become very formal, and eventually arrive in red envelopes written on pink paper. The font changes from Times to Courier to something that's meant to look handwritten. There's lots of language like "you *may* face prosecution" and "you *could* be breaking the law". Presumably this scares lots of people with TVs into paying up.
(It's very British. "Police! Stop! Stop! Or... or I'll shout 'Stop!' again!")
When I didn't have a TV I ignored the letters (they were amusing to read), and we didn't ever have a visit from a "TV licensing officer" (lasted 2 years, then I moved out). I'm sure they exist, but I don't think there's many.

$10 per episode? by fartymenams · 2009-10-24 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”. Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!

Re:$10 per episode? by __aasqbs9791 · 2009-10-24 12:00 · Score: 1

As good as some of the shows are, $2/episode is too much.
Re:$10 per episode? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-10-24 12:12 · Score: 1, Informative

From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”.
Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!
Also the BBC is infamous for rediculously low budgets. They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each. How about proper budgets and actually picking up popular shows for a new season? Hit shows often run one season and more than three is extremely rare. I've often wondered if they canceled shows based on popularity. In the US they seem to cancel them based on quality.
Re:$10 per episode? by ProteusQ · 2009-10-24 12:14 · Score: 1

Who are is this guy kidding?!
Re:$10 per episode? by mftb · 2009-10-24 14:30 · Score: 1

The problem is that most US shows get shit, samey or self-parodying after a couple of seasons. Short runtimes lead to this not happening. What happens instead is teams generally stay together and make something new.
Re:$10 per episode? by commodore64_love · 2009-10-25 00:21 · Score: 1

>>>They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each.
So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly). Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost. I am not shocked.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:$10 per episode? by JohnBailey · 2009-10-25 04:13 · Score: 1

So the BBC is your typical government program (or monopoly). Produces cheap results at exorbitantly high cost. I am not shocked.
By what definition of some other word you are mistaking for monopoly, is the BBC a monopoly?
And as is repeated again and again, the BBC is not a government run broadcaster, it's a publicly funded broadcaster that the government has no direct control over.

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Re:$10 per episode? by h4rm0ny · 2009-10-25 07:33 · Score: 1

What will it take for the US public to get their head around big budget != high quality. Red Dwarf had a tiny budget compared to most US sci-fi series. Was dozens of times better than most of them too. The Children of Earth five part series had a special effects department that consisted primarily of some rubber puppets, a few CGI flame effects and a person with a copy of Audacity to do the alien voices (probably). Result = Very Creepy Miniseries.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:$10 per episode? by Macgrrl · 2009-10-25 14:46 · Score: 1

That explains the pricing structure on BBC DVDs at the local DVD store. :(
I keep wanting to buy Torchwood and Dr Who, but it costs 4 times the price I pay for the average HBO series.
Lets not even start on the price of old series like Blakes 7, which have not dropped in the several years they have been out.

--
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Re:$10 per episode? by commodore64_love · 2009-10-26 03:48 · Score: 1

>>>is the BBC a monopoly?
When they ask for your annual TV license fee (tax) can you say "no"? Then they hold a monopoly over your wallet. Even if you never, ever watch BBC, they still get paid. We have the same situation with U.S. government schools, where even if I never went there, and never had any kids that went there (home or private-schooled), the local Uncle Sam school still has a monopoly over my wallet ($3500 each year).
I bet Microsoft and Comcast would kill for such a sweet deal. (No you don't Windows of Cable TV, but yes you still have to pay us $100 each year.)

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:$10 per episode? by commodore64_love · 2009-10-26 03:54 · Score: 1

P.S.
>>>it's a publicly funded broadcaster that the government has no direct control over.
Then how come it's the UK government that throws me in jail, if I refuse to pay the TV fee? You are pointing-out a differences that, in reality, make no difference whatsoever. The BBC is akin to Obama's "public option" healthcare. If it's optional, why is the government fining me $1000/year starting in 2011 (or else I'll be jailed).
This is just like 1984 - redefining words in hopes people will be fooled.
The BBC is "independent" but still uses government-enforced fees.
The "option" is not optional since you'll be fined if you don't take it.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:$10 per episode? by JohnBailey · 2009-10-26 09:35 · Score: 1

When they ask for your annual TV license fee (tax) can you say "no"?

Yes.
Interesting definition of monopoly though.. A company who expects to be paid for products or services rendered.. Sorry.. Not a definition of a monopoly. Try again.

Then they hold a monopoly over your wallet. Even if you never, ever watch BBC, they still get paid.

Nope. You are perfectly entitled to have no TV set, and have no license. It is also perfectly legal to have a monitor without a TV tuner, and have a DVD player attached, which is exempt. I had no TV and no license for several years in my 20s, and nobody broke down the door to demand payment. And unlike the situation with satellite of cable, if you have a TV set, you can pick up the broadcast signal with no way of it being stopped, so you still have the ability to use a BBC channel, and in reality, the number of people who do not watch BBC broadcasting is so small, it may as well be non existent. Devil's advocate arguments do not apply.
I hate sports, so can I get money back from any newspaper I buy for the sports pages I'm not going to read? How about if I return the unread parts of the paper for a refund?

out We have the same situation with U.S. government schools, where even if I never went there, and never had any kids that went there (home or private-schooled), the local Uncle Sam school still has a monopoly over my wallet ($3500 each year).
No.. We have the same situation everywhere. Taxes are gathered to pay for the running of the country, and services that would be unprofitable, but are still essential. Everybody pays for the common good. That includes education, law enforcement, infrastructure production and maintenance, etc. Don't like it, buy your own island, and live on it alone for ever more. You can't avoid the education payment by not having kids, but you can avoid the TV license by not having a TV. So not the same thing.
Monopoly also does not mean "Paying for stuff I don't want to pay for". Try again.

I bet Microsoft and Comcast would kill for such a sweet deal.
I wouldn't. They have difficulty competing in anything approaching a level playing field as it is. And if their profit margins were heavily capped, they would not be the companies they are today. If they were controlled to the extent that the BBC is, they would not be happy at all. They do have some market distorting advantages though.. Are you suggesting that these be removed?
So Microsoft would have to spin off Office into a separate company that was independently run, and independently controlled, which means offering Office to OSX and Linux users too. Not being able to have incompatible file formats or special protocols etc.. Transparent non preferential pricing to OEMS would also sting a bit. And things like paying for advertising with OEMs would also be a bit tricky.
And Comcast would have to provide competition encouraging services like internet access at cost to all competitors for resale under their own branding, with no ability to degrade, cap, or modify it in any way. I'm sure they are just begging for that..
In bad times, the BBC is pretty much guaranteed money. So yes, it is an advantage there. But in good times, privately run broadcasting companies make way more money from advertising, so they can pay for better imported TV series, Big budget popular movies, Highly profitable sporting events, and charge more for this programming when they can pretty much guarantee the viewing figures. But many don't make much new programming themselves. The BBC does. The BBC is also bound to provide a more varied schedule than other channels.
The BBC is a service. As such, it is obliged to offer programming that is not profitable. So public information, party political broadcasts etc..

(No you don't Windows of Cable TV, but yes you still have to pay us $100 each year.)
Do yo want to rephrase that into something that actually makes sense?
So I ask again, how exactly is the BBC a monopoly?
You might want to look up the definition before you reply this time.

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Re:$10 per episode? by JohnBailey · 2009-10-26 10:01 · Score: 1

Then how come it's the UK government that throws me in jail, if I refuse to pay the TV fee? You are pointing-out a differences that, in reality, make no difference whatsoever. The BBC is akin to Obama's "public option" healthcare. If it's optional, why is the government fining me $1000/year starting in 2011 (or else I'll be jailed).
No..
You get fined for using a TV without a license. You are not legally compelled to have a TV set. And if you have no set, you need no license.
And unless there was an extradition agreement with American and the UK I didn't know about, you are not going to get imprisoned for not having a UK TV license.

This is just like 1984 - redefining words in hopes people will be fooled.
Agreed. so stop redefining "Monopoly" and "Tax", and it will stop being like 1984.

The BBC is "independent" but still uses government-enforced fees.
Yep. Independent means that the government do not get to tell the BBC which issues it covers in the news programs, or stop it broadcasting anything embarrassing to the government with any more power than an ordinary citizen. If the government wants to stop a story in anything but very extraordinary circumstances, they have to go through the courts like anybody else.

The "option" is not optional since you'll be fined if you don't take it.
Wrong.
I can decide to not have a TV set, and not have a license. I have taken this route in the past. And I have never seen the inside of a prison. I can get a video display device with no ability to receive broadcast TV signals, and hook it up to a device that outputs pre recorded video signals, and I am exempt from any legislation to extract a license fee.
IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV.
THEREFORE, IT IS NOT COMPULSORY TO HAVE A TV LICENSE.
No TV no license. No problem.
I don't have a ham radio license, but I don't have a ham radio either.
I don't have a driving license, but as I don't own or operate a car, no problem.
I don't have a firearms license, but then I don't have a gun either.
And I am still at large in the community.. See how it works?

--
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

QI Please by Adrian+Lopez · 2009-10-24 11:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope they include QI in their international lineup. I've been waiting for that show to become available here since I first saw it on YouTube, but no US station has agreed to carry it. These days such videos are taken down pretty quickly, so a legitimate feed of BBC programs would be very welcome indeed.

--
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."

Re:QI Please by gbjbaanb · 2009-10-25 02:18 · Score: 1

If you have a multiregion DVD player, you can always buy the DVDs, or the books if you don't.
Re:QI Please by VoltageX · 2009-10-25 11:31 · Score: 2, Informative

It just started airing in Australia (series 6), so maybe the BBC have started to do deals with other networks.

--
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times

Re:hugely popular? by ZERO1ZERO · 2009-10-24 11:50 · Score: 2, Informative

shrug. Works great for me. Find program I like. Click play. Enjoy.

Re:hugely popular? by Xordan · 2009-10-24 11:53 · Score: 1

Works fine for me... Usually I run it on my PS3 so I can watch stuff on my TV (so I haven't noticed it being CPU hungry).

The article is unclear... by damn_registrars · 2009-10-24 12:01 · Score: 1

... it says that they will

The international edition of the iPlayer would include host of popular shows from the BBC's array, such as Torchwood, Doctor Who, and Top Gear, along with historical stuffs from the BBC archives

However it goes on to say

However, the international iteration of the iPlayer wouldn't show domestic content

One big difference between BBC and BBC America right now is commercials and their impact on what we see in America. If the international iPlayer still gives Americans the sliced-up 40-minute shows (as opposed to the 1-hour versions seen in the UK), then they aren't offering anything that isn't already offered in the US on cable (this could be considered "domestic").

Furthermore, those of us who are fans of Top Gear also know that we have missed a lot of episodes and seasons that have been shown; just not in the US. If we could view it through the iPlayer, that would be a win.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

British TV Production by __aazsst3756 · 2009-10-24 12:03 · Score: 1

I really enjoy many British TV shows over their American counterpart. For example Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares in the US is produced as a reality show, and keys in on the personality conflicts and yelling. The British version of the same show keys on what is wrong with the business and food, and shows Gordon's softer side. The difference is night and day. British movies on Netflix actually have a plot, and not the same formula movie's the US audience has to eat.

That said, would not pay money to watch the channel, but would go along with a localized ad supported version.

State run TV Stations. There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea?? Yikes!

Re:British TV Production by ZERO1ZERO · 2009-10-24 12:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ughhh - Kitchen Nightmares USA - shudder.
As a brit, watching that reminds me of all the is bad about US TV. It's over produced, badly edited, misconstrued action (for dramatic effect), constant 'dramatic' sound track, 'dramatic' voice over, all about the confrontational aspect....
Compare to the UK version and as you say, it's more about the business, more 'factual' there's no dramatic voice-over providing unneeded 'tension'.
It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer 'grabs her can' gummi venus de milo, or something.
Re:British TV Production by ZERO1ZERO · 2009-10-24 12:34 · Score: 1

Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was
sitting on [splice] her sweet [splice] can. [splice] -- o I grab
her -- [splice] sweet can. [splice] Oh, just thinking about
[splice] her [splice] can [splice] I just wish I had he --
[splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] can.
Jones: So, Mr. Simpson: you admit you grabbed her can. What do you have
to say in your defense?
Homer: [looking lustful in a clearly-paused VCR shot]
Jones: Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further.
[paused shot of Homer grows larger]
No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me. Get back! Get
back! Mist -- Mr. Simpson -- nooo!
Man: [quickly] Dramatization -- may not have happened.
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F06.html
Re:British TV Production by Rising+Ape · 2009-10-24 12:40 · Score: 1

I remember when the Americans made a version of Scrapheap Challenge called Junkyard Wars, and the difference in style was very noticeable and grating - much more loud and obnoxious. But most British TV isn't so good these days - the comedy has been mostly dreadful for the past decade, with Peep Show being an honourable exception.
The BBC isn't "state run" really, and it *is* a good idea, particularly for news and current affairs, as it has much stronger requirements for balance and fairness than typical American commercial news stations (Fox News anyone?). It isn't just a government mouthpiece, if that's what you were worried about.
Re:British TV Production by drsquare · 2009-10-24 17:29 · Score: 1

State run TV Stations. There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea?? Yikes!
Yeah, on this side of the Atlantic we haven't been subjected to decades of right-wing brainwashing about the evils of socialism so we can actually enjoy public services.

Re:hugely popular? by Jawju · 2009-10-24 12:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Not popular? It accounts for 5% of all UK network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer). Considering the other 95% is porn, that's still significantly popular.

Where do I sign? by spaceyhackerlady · 2009-10-24 12:13 · Score: 1

Good quality? No ads? Reasonable price? Uncut? Where do I sign?

I just can't see the Beeb redistributing imports like the excellent Spiral, the English title for Engrenages. Most of this stuff ends up on DVD (I bought Spiral on DVD from Australia, complete with SBS's Aussie subtitles), but not always.

...laura

BBC is a weird beastie by Lemming+Mark · 2009-10-24 12:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

The BBC is a really weird organisation. It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece". The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself. The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions. This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.

This independence can fall down a bit; when the BBC aired allegations that the government had exaggerated evidence in support of the Iraq war, a whole complicated scandal resulted including the suicide of the civil servant who made the allegations (after he was basically abandoned by his department and hounded by the media). The government set up an enquiry called the Hutton Report, which viewed a lot of evidence (including a draft where a political advisor / spin doctor suggested changing "may have weapons of mass destruction" to "has weapons of mass destruction") and came to the conclusion that nobody was really at fault but the BBC should have done better. A bit mystifying to many of us. Anyhow, some say that the BBC has been a bit more cautious about government criticism since then. Nevertheless it (appears to) remain a fairly comprehensive and unbiased source, compared to many of the other major players in news.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-24 13:24 · Score: 1

I believe they also forced Greg Dike (head of the BBC when it was critical over the bullshit that was the Hutton report) out. IMO they managed this despite the rules, because one of the BBC trust board members was married to a labour MP. However one thing that is interesting is that none of the commercial stations really pushed the government on this bullshit which suggest they are just as controlled by the BBC (well C4 sort of did but ITV & five just rolled over IMO)

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by mcrbids · 2009-10-24 13:37 · Score: 2, Informative

The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions. This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.
unless you are an American Republican. I mentioned the Beeb as a fairly unbiased "outside" news source to a Republican friend of mine and the venom was immediate. Yes, I think they do a pretty good job. But it does seem that the Republican party today is somewhere to the right of the Nazi party.
PS: Godwin's law, blah blah...

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by JackDW · 2009-10-24 14:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's always good to get the news from sources outside your own country, as it is less likely to be influenced by your own politicians. This applies to Brits just as much as it applies to Americans.

--
You're an immobile computer, remember?
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by Angostura · 2009-10-24 15:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Weird beastie it may be, but you make two errors. It is not state-run in any meaningful sense and the state does not collect the money. Wikipedia has a decent summary of the licensing and collection regime here.
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by slim · 2009-10-24 21:32 · Score: 1

You call it "state run", then go on to explain how it is not state run.
The state gives it authority to collect a license fee, on condition that they abide by their charter. And there the relationship with the state ends.
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by Baki · 2009-10-24 22:01 · Score: 2, Informative

In fact a similar situation exists in many european countries: The german ARD and ZDF are are also state channels and by law all groups in society are represented and have influence. The same for dutch (although the details work differently) and swiss state TV.
For example in dutch state TV, political, religious or other groups get a # of hours depending on the number of members they have. There are strict limits regarding programming: a max. amount of advertisement and the nature thereof (not misleading, not hidden advertisement incorporated inside shows etc.), the division of time of entertainment, culture, news and politics etc.
I like this system because it ensures that next to commercial pulp a certain amount of guaranteed quality TV exists that is affordable for everyone (i.e. no need to subscribe to pay TV) and objective information (news, political commentaries of various opinions) is available to everyone, not dominated by big money or lobby groups, next to commercial and pay-TV offerings.
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by laughing_badger · 2009-10-24 23:47 · Score: 1

The BBC is a really weird organisation. It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece". The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself. The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.
It wasn't until I read it put in these terms that I realised that this is really a model that we should be looking at for providing education and medicine in this country. It would stop political interference and ensure that decisions on curriculum etc. were made by experts in the fields rather than as the latest government knee-jerk reaction.

--
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by Ma8thew · 2009-10-25 00:26 · Score: 1

That should indicate to you just how far right the american right wing is compared to the rest of the western world. But I'm not sure I agree with you anyway. The BBC does a good a job of being neutral as it is as possible to do. They report facts, and don't mix editorial content with news.
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by gbjbaanb · 2009-10-25 02:33 · Score: 1

If the beeb isn't saying what these politicians want said, then it has to be doing a sterling job. You can tell just how good a job its doing by measuring the amount of vitriol said politicians and supporters spew when confronted with it :)
Re:BBC is a weird beastie by barberousse · 2009-10-25 07:05 · Score: 1

Just a side-note here. I'm from Canada and more specifically the province of Quebec. Radio-Canada (the French speaking side of the CBC) is really popular here. It is still state-run and one of only 2 general programming station. There's a 3rd one called V but it doesn't really count.
Furthermore, there's still cultural content so it still has a mission. The fact that many French-speaking Quebequers speak little or no English really shields from the domination of the US in content and channels.

Give me this: by Hurricane78 · 2009-10-24 12:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

- Doctor Who and Top Gear :)
- PayPal micro-payment as an alternative to watching ads, or where you can't get any ads for.
- A price that is somewhere in the range of what you'd get from advertisers.

Why that price? Because I know what you get for ads on the web. And those prices are so low per individual viewer, that BBC would still make a better profit, by asking 5 cent per show, or something like that. A price that nobody can ever think of as too expensive.

I would be happy to pay for something that deserves that money.

Comedy Central should do the same with The Daily Show. Come on. Those prices are like nothing! And you still make a hell of a better profit, as when advertising! And people still can choose to watch the ads, if it's not worth money for them.
It's a no-brainer! A win-win!

You could also let us buy a whole season at once. 65 cent for 13 episodes.

Oh, and of course I expect to be able to save it right from the player. Because I can save it anyway (After all, it already had to be transferred to my computer, to be watchable!), and using my Firefox add-on is not even any hassle. But the gesture of letting me save it right in your player, will show a friendliness that crates important sympathies.

P.S.: I'm a bit ill today, and not that fit. so sorry if my sentences look a bit weird to read. ^^ I hope it all makes sense anyway.

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.

Re:Give me this: by wrook · 2009-10-24 14:47 · Score: 1

Personally, I would pay the normal license fee for access to all of BBC's content. Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen. For some things they simply don't have the rights for redistribution outside of the UK. A good example is football. On the odd occasion that they broadcast a football match, there's just no way they will be able to negotiate rights outside of the UK.
Still, if I could find a legal way to watch Dr. Who that would be a tremendous step forward for me. Living in the country side of Japan next to a mountain, I'm left very few alternatives (no cable or satellite...) Hmmm... I just noticed that NHK released the first 3 seasons of the new series here finally. I suppose it's time to exercise my credit card...
Re:Give me this: by dwater · 2009-10-24 19:36 · Score: 1

Please, not paypal...that's too restrictive to non-US countries. I wouldn't mind paying micropayments on my phone bill, and that's probably where I would watch them anyway.

--
Max.
Re:Give me this: by maxwell+demon · 2009-10-25 00:27 · Score: 1

What we really need is a micropayment system which is not bound to a single company. Just like bank transfers work even if sender and receiver are on different banks, those micropayments should work the same. Currently if you want to pay per micropayment, both the sender and the receiver have to sign up on the same service (e.g. both have to use PayPal). This causes a market split (e.g. if you have Web.cent, but the receiver only accepts PayPal, you're out of luck), and leads to "natural" monopolies (you are pressed to go to the biggest provider, because that way you have the best chance that whoever you want to pay resp. whoever wants to pay you can do so; but by going there, you make that provider even bigger, increasing the pressure). With an universal micropayment system, you wouldn't care which company the other side chose, and you could choose the one you trust most yourself, instead of having to care how popular it is.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Nasty habbit by Animaether · 2009-10-24 12:44 · Score: 1

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little habbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

Re:Nasty habbit by commodore64_love · 2009-10-25 00:18 · Score: 1

>>>Sneaky little habbitses.
Nuns? Check out this hot little number (Audrey Hepburn) http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTE5MjgxMDcxMF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwNDU3MzQ2._V1._SX259_SY400_.jpg

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Nasty habbit by Animaether · 2009-10-25 12:54 · Score: 1

haha - NICE!
The world needs more classic beauties :\

Re:hugely popular? by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-24 13:10 · Score: 1

No just people from the UK.

Nobody likes it. Nobody wants it.

Obviously not true

We the public hate its DRM

The public don't care, those that do don't hate the iPlayer because it has no DRM

and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain

Bullshit, we paid for the content, we want BBC worldwide to make some money off you foreigners, so it can put on more quality programming without us paying for it.

we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

I quite like the fact they dropped the P2P idea because it was silly to expect people to install a program to get VOD. As a linux user I'm also glad they moved to air+flash instead of windows only+drm.

because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

He couldn't be trolling more if he tried, especially given that the BBC's track record dirac,freeview,etc

we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface

Well even a troll gets something right, the CPU-hungriness isn't great on linux. Personally i do like the interface though, its better in most parts than 4OD.

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!

About time by stokessd · 2009-10-24 14:05 · Score: 1

I emailed them years ago asking how to pay for their service. They responded that they have no way to let me pay for the service, or more importantly had no way of providing my content. So I had to go another route. I pay for a UK proxy; specifically the VPN service:

http://www.ukproxyserver.co.uk/

IF the BBC has VOD, that still won't help with ITV, SKY, and Channel 4 etc.

In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1. Review: it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.

Sheldon

Re:About time by stokessd · 2009-10-25 01:33 · Score: 1

They often have free trial weekends. Head to the website and check from time to time.
Re:About time by FonzCam · 2009-10-25 02:17 · Score: 1

For those looking at doing this it's worth knowing that as well as iPlayer there is now 4OD, Demand Five and ITVPlayer for all your C4, 5 and ITV watching needs.
They've all ditched their paid for P2P based systems for advertising supported Flash players.

Re:Is it still Windows only? by JackDW · 2009-10-24 14:20 · Score: 1

And Linux is most definitely supported.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/download_programmes/desktop_linux

Since December 2008, apparently.

--
You're an immobile computer, remember?

Forgot the most important part by damn_registrars · 2009-10-24 15:01 · Score: 1

Give me the full episodes

Those of us who have BBC America are getting, generally, 2/3rds of the programming per show that our British counterparts get. This can be especially egregious in some Top Gear episodes where 20 minutes is removed to make room for commercials. And then to make matters worse they sell those same butchered episodes to us in American stores as well.

I would happily pay to see the full Top Gear episodes that I am missing, especially from the seasons that have never been shown in America. Are you listening, BBC?

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Forgot the most important part by dwater · 2009-10-24 19:39 · Score: 1

Yes, all those ad break are incredibly annoying.
I seriously don't know how you put up with them. When I lived in the US, I bought a Replay TV, which skipped the ads very nicely...wonderful device.
Now I'm living in Finland, the US shows I watch on TV have half the number of ads, so we have the show 'going to ads' and then coming right back again....better than actually having the ads, but still very annoying.

--
Max.
Re:Forgot the most important part by dwater · 2009-10-24 19:41 · Score: 1

...oh, and I now remember *why* they're so annoying...it's because the shows have a tendency to summarise what happened before it broke for the ads, so when you don't have any actual ads, the summary is completely unnecessary...so we keep going...come on..we know all this...get on with it! Tsk.

--
Max.
Re:Forgot the most important part by TBoon · 2009-10-25 00:07 · Score: 1

The precise reason I stopped watching Mythbusters. So, here you have this "1 hour" show, which is 40 minutes long. Fair enough, as I downloaded it with the commercials cut away. But as they after every break have to get people up to date, or inform new viewers who recently joined, and in general don't feel like producing actual content rather than "tease, show, repeat", there really wasn't more than 25 minutes worth of material.
(Funny, how the US habit of shortening european shows to make space for commercials, would also be needed to make US shows watchable with less commercials... Apart from NatGeo and Discovery being on cable and not subject to the same rules regarding commercials...)
Re:Forgot the most important part by damn_registrars · 2009-10-25 00:43 · Score: 1

...oh, and I now remember *why* they're so annoying...it's because the shows have a tendency to summarise what happened before it broke for the ads, so when you don't have any actual ads, the summary is completely unnecessary...
No, the problem is worse than that. As I mentioned, the BBC shows are a full hour of content in the UK. When they come over for American broadcast, they trim out over 20 minutes of the show in order to make room for commercials. Sure, the ads suck, but the fact that we never get the content over here sucks even more. If you go to your favorite place to buy DVDs in America and buy Top Gear on DVD, you'll get the butchered version we see on BBC America (40 minutes per episode). If someone buys the same season of Top Gear in the UK, they get the full 1 hour episodes. Why BBC has decided that they won't sell us the full episodes at any price is beyond me.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Re:Forgot the most important part by dwater · 2009-10-25 01:15 · Score: 1

> No, the problem is worse than that
*Your* problem might be worse than that, but I'm talking about a different problem...that of watching US shows outside the US.

--
Max.
Re:Forgot the most important part by gbjbaanb · 2009-10-25 02:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Probably because BBC America isn't the BBC, its a commercial entity set up to screw you out of as much $$ as they can get away with (the American dream, right?). The BBC itself is not allowed to fund any programmes not available to UK viewers, so these corporates have to be legally and organisationally separate, and entirely self-funded.
So the BBC will be selling the full hour episodes to BBC America, which then 'reformats' it for domestic viewing based on the current environment - ie adding loads of ads.
I suppose the trick is to buy video equipment that displays region 2 DVDs, and buy them directly from the UK. Alternatively, write in and complain that you wouldn't mind these programmes being broadcast separately (maybe during the night) in th extended version. We're doing that over here now - programmes like QI are now shown as repeats with extra bits or material that were cut from the original half-hour episode. They're called "QI XL", or "Have I Got a Bit More News For You" and contain another ten minutes or so, so the network isn't adverse to doing this.
Re:Forgot the most important part by Rising+Ape · 2009-10-25 04:02 · Score: 1

The Mythbusters style drives me up the wall. Instead of having the myths presented in sequence, you have 2 minutes of one, switch to the next, two minutes of that, switch..... what the hell is all that for? Do they think viewers would get bored if they had to spend more than a couple of minutes on one subject? It made it extremely difficult to follow exactly what was going on.
Re:Forgot the most important part by TBoon · 2009-10-25 15:19 · Score: 1

Do they think viewers would get bored if they had to spend more than a couple of minutes on one subject?
They might have proven gold-fish to have more than a 3-second memory, but they clearly either think their viewers don't, or expect that they are channel-surfing at a rate that they will get the coverage of exactly one of the myths and not the others... (now, if there would just be someone with enough time on their hands (and an acceptable minimum of editing-skills) to post Mythbusters Recut to some torrent-site, at a regular basis...)
Re:Forgot the most important part by Parts09 · 2009-10-27 03:44 · Score: 1

I bought the region 2 DVDs direct from Amazon UK and use my HTPC to view them. It has two optical drives so one is set to region 1 and the other to region 2. Worked like a charm.

--
My opinions are completely my own and do not reflect those of any entity I may be associated with - including the voices

Re:Adidas board man Shoes Online Sale Now ,Don't W by friendofthenite · 2009-10-24 15:20 · Score: 1

Commenting to remove a bad mod.

VOD - profit vs. use by earlymon · 2009-10-24 15:40 · Score: 1

I don't mind VOD / pay for new movies. I can see people paying for latest-run TV shows, I guess.

And there's a lot of BBC stuff I'd like to be able to stream, legally - with some sort of reasonable model.

I'd like to see Doctor Who and whatever that series was that had the British flying around trying to sell franchises, as well as many others - any of the early BlackAdders come to mind as well.

But these are OLD tv shows. You can make a few bucks selling ads and selling ads for DVD / Blu-ray discs. Consider the following VOD:

http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5 (yes - all five seasons)

Next ones go without saying:

http://www.hulu.com/

http://www.crackle.com/

And here's the best content manager I know:

http://getmiro.com/

Note to BBC - I hear your iplayer is working now. Great. We don't need the DRM or the extra charges for shows that will come around in rerun on the same non-tiered channels we saw them on outside of your country in the first place - cheers, thanks a lot.

--
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.

Don't say we by Snaller · 2009-10-24 16:04 · Score: 1

When you mean *I*

(And you do mean *I*)

--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating

Re:Don't say we by tirnacopu · 2009-10-24 16:53 · Score: 1

The British, and their old habit of trying to invalidate a controversial opinion by nitpicking on grammar or the accuracy of phrasing. The DRM present in iPlayer is not a subjective annoyance, and the people affected are not I. I can find my way to the nearest torrent tracker quite easily. Other people, with whom I was trying to work got bitten by it while trying to present the oh-so-glorious solution to an outside (outside of the UK, or out of network coverage) audience. For *me*, it was just a god laugh.

Re:hugely popular? by tirnacopu · 2009-10-24 17:00 · Score: 1

No just people from the UK.

Bullshit, we paid for the content, we want BBC worldwide to make some money off you foreigners

Nice opinion, thank you for being such a sport.

The public don't care, those that do don't hate the iPlayer because it has no DRM

What?? 5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management security. - from here

I quite like the fact they dropped the P2P idea because it was silly to expect people to install a program to get VOD.

It is of course reasonable to expect people to install the Adobe AIR runtime and the iPlayer AIR application.

If this is true, then about time too by AlexandrDmitri · 2009-10-24 20:37 · Score: 1

I'd certainly pay to watch on demand, or even a fixed rate for unlimited BBC viewing. But as dwater says, NOT PayPal please folks. I can only get BBC World on satellite here in Morocco, and that is appalling, truly, appalling. The BBC should be ashamed of putting their name to the drivel they broadcast most of the time-though I will admit that some slots are bearable-and as for the number of breaks! They spend more time self-promoting their programmes than actually showing them, and I really don't need a timecheck in all of the timezones every fifteen minutes (yes I know, it's so they can show their sponsor's name). Don't get me going on the weather - has the BBC forgotten that Africa and Europe exist as continents? Is it really necessary to focus so much on the Middle East and India?

Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by SmallFurryCreature · 2009-10-24 21:20 · Score: 1

This is one of those quotes that has to be remembered. Paying 10 dollars (and most likely 10 euros) for a SINGLE tv episode...

This guy is not just out of touch with reality, he might actually be classified as insane. Imagine having to pay that for something like well, Torchwood. It has 3 seasons, each 13 eps long, so lets make it an even 30x 10 is 300 dollars for this show alone.

Season 1 on DVD costs 47 dollars (on amazon) and 2 costs 57. Lets assume season 3 costs 60 and you have to pay on the iPlayer DOUBLE the price but without any physical production costs.

And I thought iTunes was a ripoff (same price, massicaly reduced production costs === fat profits for someone), but iTunes only charges the SAME price as the CD. Not DOUBLE!

The great "If content produces were in charge of other industries" list

Frozen pizza from a supermarket would cost more then pizza delivered to your house. A pizza recipe would cost more then either one.
Reading the back cover of a book would require a fee.
Libraries would be outlawed.
Repairing your own car would be a criminal violation.
You could only put your petrol from Shell into vehilces approved by Shell and only if you don't take passengers with you. Putting petrol in a lighter would see you in jail.
Reading a book to your child would require you to pay a performance fee.
Coloring books would be outlawed, unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to use a derivative product.
Any advances that lead to savings will result in a price increase.
There would be no classic coke. The recipe for new coke would be "improved" each year with taste-testing done only on 12yr old girls and people who think full house if a comedy.
Your car would show a message every 10 miles, telling to make sure you buy the car, that you just bought.
A high priced hooker you payed to show you a good time, would go to bed with a headache, just like your wife and say "it is reality prostitution!"
When you quote, "640k should be enough for everyone" Bill Gates charges you a performance fee. Paraphrase it and you are sued for illegal use of his copyright work.
If you commit three traffic violations, you would be banned from the streets.
If you are caught lying to your customers three times, you would be banned from doing business.
If you made three bad tv shows, you would be banned from making tv ever again... bye bye BBC.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-25 00:11 · Score: 1

Their DVDs are priced at similarly silly levels. I own quite a few Blake's 7 VHS tapes, and I was considering picking up the complete series on DVD until I saw the price. I'd just bought the whole of Babylon 5, so that was my price comparison. Each season of Babylon 5 costs £13 and contains 22 episodes (around 50p/episode). Each season of Blake's 7 costs £25 and contains 13 episodes (around £2/episode). Given that Blake's 7 was made much earlier (1978 vs 1994 for the first season of each) and they've had more time to exploit it commercially (and it had much lower production values to start with), it's just a rip off. Sure, it's cheaper than the £6/episode that they were charging for the VHS tapes, but back then that's what the competition was charging too.
Oh, and by the way, Season 3 of Torchwood was only 5 episodes (in a single story arc). Unlike the first two seasons, it actually succeeded in its goal of being a grown-up version of Doctor Who.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by jamstar7 · 2009-10-25 01:54 · Score: 1

Well, if you have a tv tuner card in your computer, you can just hook the vcr to it and stream the shows onto your computer, then make your own dvds from that. Oh, wait, you're talking pounds sterling, you're British. Sorry. The solution would work, but you're taxed into bankruptcy there if you have a tv, a tv card, or anything the Beeb could possibly make a shilling on...

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by Rising+Ape · 2009-10-25 03:58 · Score: 1

No, the licence fee only applies if you use equipment to receive broadcasts - *owning* the equipment doesn't need a licence. So transferring from VHS to DVD via a TV card would be perfectly acceptable.
Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by jamstar7 · 2009-10-25 05:09 · Score: 1

I'm sure the licensing people would consider the fact of owning a tuner card to be 'evidence' of the owner actually watching tv in realtime as the show is being broadcast.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are by Macthorpe · 2009-10-25 06:52 · Score: 1

Actually, if it's not hooked up to an antenna, they tend to be fine with it.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien

And subscription is compulsory in the UK because.. by Budenny · 2009-10-24 22:05 · Score: 1

Its excellent value, its a national treasure, everyone loves it.

So why exactly does it have to be legally compulsory to subscribe to it if you want to watch any TV? Why is this the only subscription TV that you are obliged to subscribe to? Why, if we really want to make it compulsory to subscribe to some TV, do we not allow you to pick the provider of your choice? Why is it, that if you want to watch the English cricket team go down in flames yet again, you are obliged to subscribe to two TV broadcast services, only one of which provides cricket coverage?

Try writing to the BBC and telling them you want to cancel your subscription, because you are choosing to use Sky as your premium content provider. Or you don't want any premium content, you are happy to watch only ad funded TV.

Why exactly can you not do that? What would be so terrible if you could?

The BBC desperately needs competition, and that does not mean other channels that you are permitted to subscribe to in addition to it. It needs competition on equal terms, where you can subscribe to the BBC, to Channel X, neither, or both, as the mood strikes you.

Re:hugely popular? by teh+kurisu · 2009-10-24 22:18 · Score: 1

we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

Actually, "we the public" hated the P2P idea because the BBC was using "we the public's" bandwidth to distribute its content instead of providing its own. The P2P iPlayer was only liked by people who read Slashdot.

Why do you care whether P2P is used or not? As long as your downloads complete in a timely manner, what difference does it make how it got there?

ITV News by turgid · 2009-10-24 22:53 · Score: 1

Have you seen ITV news recently? It's like a cross between the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Heat Magazine.

The BBC1 news is going the same way. The only TV news I watch now is Channel 4 News. Channel 4, although partly commercial is a public service broadcaster so its news tends to be reasonably independent.

The best news is on Radio 4 twice a day.

--
Stick Men

Re:ITV News by VJ42 · 2009-10-25 01:16 · Score: 1

The best news is on Radio 4 twice a day.
This. Radio 4 alone is worth the licence fee, AFAIK there's not even a commercial station that tries to compete.

--
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Re:ITV News by gbjbaanb · 2009-10-25 02:27 · Score: 1

I'd say the World Service does try, its a bit like Radio4 International Edition, so that doesn't really detract fromR4 being *the* best radio station anywhere.
And don't forget the comedy on R4, all the best stuff you see people raving about on the TV started life as radio broadcasts, and they were better on the radio.

Re:Is it still Windows only? by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-24 23:56 · Score: 1

If you've got a slower computer, I'd recommend investigating get_iplayer. It's a fairly simple command-line Perl script that can download videos from iPlayer, in any of the available formats. I've found that VLC uses about half as much CPU as Flash playing them back. It also has a nice PVR mode which you can invoke via cron, where it will automatically download new episodes for programs for you.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:hugely popular? by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-24 23:59 · Score: 1

I don't care about the DRM because, effectively, it doesn't exist. It's only on the downloadable content, not the streaming content. If you use get_iplayer, you can grab the .mov or .flv files and play them back with VLC on any platform.

You don't need to install anything to get at the streaming content; just go to the iPlayer site and click play. I don't have a TV anymore, but I have an old laptop connected to a computer, which I use to watch BBC shows.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:And subscription is compulsory in the UK becaus by TheRaven64 · 2009-10-25 00:18 · Score: 1

You don't need to have a TV license to access BBC content, you need a TV licence to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television signals. The iPlayer is on-demand streaming, and so a TV license is not required. Some of the online sports coverage is streamed live, so you do need a license for that. I don't own a TV, but I do use iPlayer a lot.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:hugely popular? by thetoadwarrior · 2009-10-25 00:35 · Score: 1

You'll have to install something and AIR is better than some other options.

Re:hugely popular? by Goffee71 · 2009-10-25 02:02 · Score: 1

You are kidding right, If my kids want to watch Cbeebies, I can just pop them on the spare laptop and off they go! They don't care about DRM, they can use the interface. I think you're just too set in your old-fashioned ways

--
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?

Re:hugely popular? by RiotingPacifist · 2009-10-25 02:25 · Score: 1

Nice opinion, thank you for being such a sport.

Just saying it like it is, take a look around the majority of people think we should.

5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management security - from here [bbc.co.uk]

meh i was wrong, but
1) The public still don't care
2) It doesn't apply to the flash version
3) I'd rather have it with DRM than not exist at all (or spend more money on content)
4) Most objection to DRM is when it restricts something you have paid to own, DRM is an acceptable evil when used properly (such as pay to rent)

It is of course reasonable to expect people to install the Adobe AIR runtime and the iPlayer AIR application.

When they launched the P2P version it was not alongside its flash based streaming. AIR is based around the flash service, you only need flash to stream (well anything that implements flash RTMP)

--
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!

Micropayments for REAL news. by crhylove · 2009-10-25 10:11 · Score: 1

Like many parent posters I would pay 5 cents an episode for news without commercials. However, I would be much more inclined to pay 5 cents per show for news completely without corporate sponsorship:

News about how Monsanto could be potentially devastating the entire food chain with genetic experimentation that has already cross-pollinated into the wild.

News about how Aspartame and other chemicals commonly put in corporate food are toxic and cause cancer.

News about how both the British and American governments are completely run by corporations, generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man.

News about how the rest of the corporate news is also generally at odds with the welfare and interest of the common man, and in addition at odds with any factual information or truth whatsoever.

In fact, PBS, and BBC should both be running these news pieces on government subsidy for free to the populace and without corporate sponsorship. Further, they should be offering all video online and for free in open formats like .OGG or .xvid, and easily downloadable via an open source torrent app, like Deluge.

Then we could finally be getting REAL information, FCC be damned. Like who killed JFK? Back and to the Left. Back, and to the Left. Back.... and to the LEFT!!!

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.

About time by sixsixtysix · 2009-10-25 13:51 · Score: 1

It's about time someone makes the smart play. The internet should have gotten rid of all traditional regions, zones, etc in the media markets years ago. Global network should equal global licensing, instead of bullshit maneuvers to raise the bottom line.

--
...

Re:And subscription is compulsory in the UK becaus by jamesbulman · 2009-10-26 02:49 · Score: 1

This is not entirely correct. You don't need a license to view catch-up programmes but you do need one for live simulcast programming.

Do I need a TV licence to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer?

Re:And subscription is compulsory in the UK becaus by Stormx2 · 2009-10-26 03:29 · Score: 1

iPlayer does offer live streams of every BBC channel, which requires a license, apparently. Live or near-live requires a license.

The Beeb Becomes a Global Entity With This Move by jbus07 · 2009-10-26 08:54 · Score: 1

I welcome the expansion of the BBC into the global entertainment scheme. They've been choked off from the rest of the world due to licensing quirks and their stance that entertainment and programming they produce needs to remain with their license-paying audience in Britain. If they do this right, the Beeb will be one more reason I might end up dropping my cable TV altogether and joining the online-only VOD audience.

Slashdot Mirror

BBC Planning To Launch Global iPlayer VoD Service

136 of 179 comments (clear)