Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Mediaman_12 · Feb 1, 2007, 07:46 PM

If you live in the UK and use a Mac then this is important.

The BBC is planning on providing a Download service, there is/was a trial running which used WMP 10 as a back-end with programmes having WMP-10 DRM placed on them.

The BBC Trust is having a OPEN consultation with various questions about how the service should be run. ONE of the questions is "How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?" As Ms has NO Plans for allowing there DRM to play on the Mac it's important for there to be a strong feeling, as without anyone who chose to use a Mac would be unable to use the service.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consul..._services.html

The form takes 5 minutes to fill in, you don't even have to answer all the questions and is confidential. This could be a defining moment of on-line content delivery in the UK

Peter · Feb 1, 2007, 07:49 PM

submitted

Doofy · Feb 1, 2007, 07:55 PM

*Not* submitted.

1) I know how to use a VCR.

2) If the BBC only do Windows then the upcoming "TV licence required for computers" would be easily bypassed by not having a Windows machine. And then you could carry on torrenting all the worthwhile stuff from the US. I *do not* want the BBC forcefully charging me for having a computer capable of watching their on-line content regardless of whether I actually watch it or not.

nonhuman · Feb 1, 2007, 08:12 PM

I just wish that would work in the states. I'm going to have to wake up at 7:30 on Saturday just so I can get down to the bar in time to watch the opening match of the Six Nations.

On the plus side, I'll be at a bar.

Mastrap · Feb 1, 2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

1) I know how to use a VCR.

How quaint

OK, so I am bragging. My new HD PVR is on it's way right now.

red rocket · Feb 2, 2007, 06:54 AM

I agree with Doofy.

I have no intention of watching BBC television content on my computer, and I'm prepared to make any excuse to avoid being charged for that option, including claiming inability to view such content on my Mac.

Not that I think the Beeb will accept such an excuse, them being a greedy bunch of twats, after all. Beside, users of Intel Macs will obviously be able to view the content in any event, via BootCamp.

nath · Feb 2, 2007, 07:24 AM

This is a joke. UK license payers already pay for everything the BBC generates. The BBC should be making deals with all online sales channels (including iTunes) to the effect that providing a valid licence fee number (which can be validated against credit card address) allows free download of any and all BBC content, in the format preferred by the individual license holder.

They will still be free to sell as much as they like to the rest of the world, but why the f*ck should we pay twice?! Download is analogous to broadcast, not resale on physical media where there are obvious manufacturing and distribution costs, and the BBC has soaked up billions to pay for digital strategies and infrastructure.

Excluding users by utilising a single propietory vendor flies in the face of the BBC's strong accessibility ethos in all other areas.

Mastrap · Feb 2, 2007, 08:56 AM

I disagree. Making content available for download is still very expensive. Somebody has to pay for it and it may as well be the end user. I much rather have the BEEB spending money on programming than on downloads.

willed · Feb 2, 2007, 11:06 AM

Sorted.

philm · Feb 2, 2007, 11:19 AM

Done.

nath · Feb 2, 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I disagree. Making content available for download is still very expensive.

I understood that Apple is covering iTMS on-costs and even making a little profit, with just the tiny fraction of each sale they're taking.

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Somebody has to pay for it and it may as well be the end user. I much rather have the BEEB spending money on programming than on downloads.

I would rather be able to access the content I've paid for on my terms, and in my own time. I don't necessarily object to paying a tiny amount for that flexibility, but it looks from the proposal as if they regardless this as a content-derived revenue stream to accompany DVD sales.

Mastrap · Feb 2, 2007, 11:44 AM

You haven't paid for a download service. You've paid for delivery on the air. Download is separate, it's expensive and somebody has to pay for it. It doesn't just magically appear.

Personally I would love to be able to access and download BBC shows from Canada. Go ahead and bill me already.

nath · Feb 2, 2007, 11:47 AM

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that you should pay for it.

Brits who have already funded the BBC through the kazoo for online services shouldn't have to.

nonhuman · Feb 2, 2007, 11:51 AM

How much does a license cost?

Mastrap · Feb 2, 2007, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by nath

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree that you should pay for it.

Brits who have already funded the BBC through the kazoo for online services shouldn't have to.

I don't mean to pick an argument, but I don't get this. When I lived in London I dated a girl who was a producer on Newsnight, then moved over to the online division. They were constantly strapped or cash. I honestly don't understand how you can expect a brand new service to be included in the current license fee. That's like saying you don't want to pay for a starter in a restaurant because you've already paid for the entree.

nath · Feb 2, 2007, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

How much does a license cost?

£131.50. I think it's really good value for what we get overall, although other posters will certainly disagree.

Mastrap, I don't think I'm fundamentally disagreeing with you. My point is that the cost of digital downloads to licence payers should be just enough to cover costs. It shouldn't be a commercial enterprise in the UK comparable to DVD sales, for example.

Doofy · Feb 2, 2007, 03:37 PM

Obviously the best way of solving this conundrum is to completely abolish the licence fee. If folks want the BBC they can then pay £131.50 for a decoder card for their Freeview/Sky/Cable/whatever.

Mastrap · Feb 2, 2007, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Obviously the best way of solving this conundrum is to completely abolish the licence fee. If folks want the BBC they can then pay £131.50 for a decoder card for their Freeview/Sky/Cable/whatever.

That's a suggestion that has often been made. The main reasons why it has never found any real traction is that it would compromise the independence (such as it is) of the BBC.

What is really pissing me off that on BBC Canada I have commercials in addition to the monthly fee I pay to get it on cable.

elrah · Feb 2, 2007, 06:23 PM

Hopefully we won't get screwed like we have been by Channel 4.

They have said a big FU to all non XP users with their on-demand service, 4oD.

philm · Feb 2, 2007, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

That's like saying you don't want to pay for a starter in a restaurant because you've already paid for the entree.

..but an entreé is a starter.

willed · Feb 2, 2007, 08:29 PM

Can I just say... they BBC is ****ing awesome. Radio 4 alone is worth the license fee!

nath · Feb 3, 2007, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by willed

Can I just say... they BBC is ****ing awesome. Radio 4 alone is worth the license fee!

It never fails to amaze me that some people question the value for money. I think the cheapest package you can get with Sky is about £30 per month! What do you get for that - old Star Trek TNG and Dream Team?!?

Thing that pisses me off is when they try to be a commercial organisation at the same time. It also serves to weaken their defence against the accusation of Murdoch, et al.

Strix · Feb 4, 2007, 07:21 AM

Two extracts from the report:

MS-based DRM strategy for seven-day TV catch-up:
" The BBC Executive proposes a digital rights management solution which would require
consumers to be using Windows XP (or above) and Windows Media Player 10 (or above) to
be able to access seven-day TV catch-up over the internet. The PVA noted that we would
expect the BBC to adopt a platform-agnostic approach. The MIA also identified benefits to a
platform-agnostic approach.
We propose to require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach to rights
management within a reasonable timeframe. The MIA notes an expectation that the BBC
Executive plans to develop a Real Player alternative in the near future. Our understanding is
that the BBC Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would enable
Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to identify a satisfactory solution. In
either case, we will expect this to have been addressed within 24 months." [Pages 5-6]

The BBC iPlayer: "In fulfilling its other aims and objectives, BBC iPlayer should aim to contribute to the growth
in the usage of rich media in broadband households. Within a reasonable timescale, it should
aim to make the seven-day catch-up offering available on a platform-neutral basis, or at the
least to be available on all major platforms subject to value for money considerations and as
technology allows." [Page 21]

So whilst initially the service will only be open to Microsoft users, eventually (within 2 years) Mac and Linus users should have access. The question is, is 2 years too long? Yes it is.

Or perhaps we'll be reliant on Flip4Mac to create a WMP10 Quicktime component....

moonmonkey · Feb 4, 2007, 08:00 AM

This is a shame, I used to really enjoy British TV like Cheggers plays pop and Tiswas.
They should sell access to non residents too.

Mediaman_12 · Feb 4, 2007, 02:47 PM

The BBC is getting FAR to friendly with MS for my liking.
I have just noticed that there is to be a 2 part edition of 'The Money Programme' all about Windows Vista, this better be more than a hour long MS infomercial, although I suspect it won't be.