Slashdot Log In
BBC Threatened Over iPlayer Format
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Jun 22, 2007 03:11 PM
from the and-watch-out-for-apple-with-that-name dept.
from the and-watch-out-for-apple-with-that-name dept.
greengrass sends us to coverage in The Register of the Open Source Consortium's threatened anti-trust challenge against the BBC over its use of Windows Media format in its on-demand service, iPlayer. From the article: "The OSC will raise a formal complaint with UK broadcast and telecoms watchdog Ofcom next week, and has vowed to take its accusations to the European Competition Commission if domestic regulators do not act. The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
Related Stories
[+]
BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak 369 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The future of iPlayer, the BBC's new online on-demand system for delivering content, is continuing to look bleaker. With ISPs threatening to throttle the content delivered through the iPlayer, consumers petitioning the UK government and the BBC to drop the DRM and Microsoft-only technology, and threatened legal action from the OSC, the last thing the BBC wanted to see today was street protests at their office and at the BBC Media Complex accompanied by a report issued by DefectiveByDesign about their association with Microsoft."
[+]
BBC's iPlayer To Be Crossplatform 232 comments
craig1709 writes "10 Downing Street has responded to the petition to open up iPlayer access for those on other operating systems. While the wording is confusing, near as I can tell, they say they will make the iPlayer available to users of those operating systems. 'The BBC Trust made it a condition of approval for the BBC's on-demand services that the iPlayer is available to users of a range of operating systems, and has given a commitment that it will ensure that the BBC meets this demand as soon as possible. They will measure the BBC's progress on this every six months and publish the findings.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Glad to see this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can't play DRM-encoded windows media anyplace you don't have windows media player. You are asking an irrelevant question, "What platform can you not play Windows Media on?", the actual question is "What platform can you not play DRM-restricted Windows Media on?" And the answer is "most places" - you can't play it anyplace that doesn't have a recent windows media player. And that turns out to be quite a few places.
I have a better question or two,
Re:Glad to see this. (Score:4, Insightful)
And the BBC would want to protect it's content because it sells quite a bit of its content to other countries; plus sells DVDs of some stuff too. This money goes back into making programs.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Needs to go further. (Score:5, Insightful)
Governments, funded by the PUBLIC should put their stuff in PUBLIC format.
and when software patents get in the way, the PUBLIC should demand that law serve the PUBLIC interest. Software patents are bogus and they are the only reason there's a format problem in the first place.
Parent
The BBC shouldn't need to be told. (Score:2, Insightful)
I like to at least have a choice of media formats available...
Re: (Score:2)
It also chokes on a large section of WM9 files. They do work on it, but it's hit or miss sometimes. and don't even think about DRM encrusted files.
Re: (Score:2)
Typically I tell clients to place video on the web in Quicktime if you're looking to hit the largest market segment with only 1 format. But from what they are saying, they want a time bomb that would disable content after x number of days and I'm not sure there is anything
Blogs... (Score:2, Informative)
Real Player (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The OSC compared the situation to the European Commission's prosecution of Microsoft over its bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows."
they just consult with the EU commission and make a new website www.bbcN.co.uk website without media player files [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No it's okay (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, from a view across the pond (Score:3, Interesting)
Now on the flip side, these are private enterprises and can do pretty much whatever the hell they want in terms of formats, which usually means finding a way to reach the largest audience possible while still protecting the content. But it seems to me that as conventional TV dies, from DVR's and competition from cable/sat channels, they are trying to expand viewer ship and trying to find what works online. I'm not sure anyone's got it quite figured out yet, but are trying.
Sign the Petition (Score:3, Informative)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/iplayer/ [pm.gov.uk]
Where's Dirac? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems that the Beeb is concerned about DRM -- it's easy to validate this argument as a content provider if it is not a free service.
What choices are out there if the main concern is vendor lock-in? What "open" DRM alternatives exist?
Parent
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, open vs. closed may have nothing to do with robustness. But logically sound vs. fallacious seems like a more important factor in selecting a robust design.
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ahem posted from IE6 in windows - at work, honest!)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear. Mod up +About A Thousand insightful.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You pay the same TV licence regardless of whether you have a radio or freeview decoder.
Did you complain when BBC3 and radio 6 were transmitted in a format that made it impossible to receive with standard equipment?
The BBC is a multi format platform. They are not required to deliver all content in a form every single TV owning person can receive. Otherwise everything from RSS feeds, to DAB, to enhanced podcasts to
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Other ways of handling it... (Score:5, Informative)
The iPlayer, on the other hand, requires you to watch the programs on one piece of software running on one operating system produced and sold (and not cheaply) by a single company. Sure, it's currently, the most common operating system, but the two things are not comparable.
I'm not sure what the "enhanced podcasts" are. I think they're
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd recommend reading this [roughlydrafted.com] for a good overview of how Windows Media and QuickTime grew out of the muck.
Bluray and HD-DVD will decode VC-1 if the material is encoded with VC-1. Most disks use H.264 because it's a better codec anyway and Hollywood is very skeptical about allowing Microsoft technologies to encapsulate "their" media, so it's lightly used. Most corporations have learned that any agreement with Microsoft is treacherous territory. Given the chance, they'll devour you from the inside and spit out
The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:2)
Re:The beeb is a GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While you are correct AFAIK, the BBC is effectively a government agency because if you own a device capable of receiving a terrestrial broadcast you are required to pay them the licensing fee or you will see them in court.
State-sponsored monopolies, especially mandatory ones, should be subject to the same s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a good set of links: http://www.bbccharterreview.org.uk/seminars/semina rs [bbccharterreview.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What BS (Score:5, Insightful)
I see, and do you happen to be an elected government that pays for running that Website by collecting tax dollars from the people (at gunpoint if need be)? I didn't think so.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
should be forced to broadcast in NTSC also for me.
Indeed, what BS (Score:5, Informative)
The "Enhanced Podcast" appears to be an MPEG-4 container with an AAC "track" and a still image "track."
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviously they aren't or they wouldn't be going with windows media with DRM which they have no business putting into the files in the first place. They're a state-sponsored, court-enforced monop
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly named bittrollent asks:
Is this really your idea of freedom?
I'm not sure what the question means, but a government agency publishing things in a format that's owned by one company is pushing that company's fortune at the expense of all others. Why should governments cede control of their media and who watches it to a private company, especially a foreign one? People who pay their taxes deserve to be able to watch the results without having to pay the M$ tax.
If there's a problem with software patents involved here, the problem should be taken care of directly. Software patents lead to nonsense like this and should be abolished. There's no justifying the social cost of business method patents, which is what software patents ultimately are.
Parent
It's closed, and it's broken (Score:5, Interesting)
It started badly - it refuses to accept registrations via firefox (no technology issue - just a browser check which barfs). Once I switched to IE, it let me go further - registration followed by the download of a
So I tried again, and after much mucking about, finally got in. The UI is very very bad - but I navigated to my favourite programme, which claimed it had episodes available - but once clicked stated none. So I went for my second favourite programme - same again. And so on.
So - two weeks after first receiving an invitation to give up; after switching browsers, downloading software, installing it, changing my media settings, registering multiple times, and clicking through a clunky interface multiple times, all to no avail, I gave up.
If the bbc were working in an open way - maybe, just maybe, they'd have access to a wider range of talents - or perhaps competing suppliers and technology platforms - and have delivered a usable product. As it is, we're all subject to two monopolies, who'll slowly and cumbersomely work towards a semi-acceptable solution at great cost. And in doing so, the BBC will help Microsoft maintain its hegemony - remember - it wouldn't let us use Firefox just to register and download the software.... defend that.
Parent
Re:No, and that's what the complaint if for. (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the market for downloadable TV shows. There are two reasons for doing it:
- Time shifting.
- Location shifting.
The former is trivially done with VCRs, DVRs, etc. Now let's look at the second reason. How many people are going to want to location-shift their TV viewing from the big TV in their living room to their computer screen? A few maybe, mainly geeks and students (or student geeks). Now, how many are going to want to location shift to a mobile device?My mobile phone, and any relatively recent phone, can play video. It has a 1GB memory card, which at the resolution of the screen is more than enough for a number of TV shows. I also own a Nokia 770, and an iPod (my iPod is pre-video, but the point stands). Any of these devices can play DRM-free MPEG-4 video. The 770, or a modern iPod would be a great device for putting TV shows on to watch on the bus or train (for example).
The decision to go with Microsoft's DRM is that Microsoft have the largest chunk of the desktop market, but they have very little presence in the mobile arena. There are a few MS Smartphones, and maybe a few Zunes (I don't think they're released here yet, but someone might have imported one). Now, imagine how this landscape would change if the only mobile devices that could play BBC TV for the next two years were those with a Microsoft OS. Where do you think Nokia/Sony Ericsson/etc phones would be if the Microsoft ones could play BBC TV shows but theirs couldn't? What about the iPod? There isn't much legal video content around (the iTunes store in the UK has very little). Releasing BBC shows in a Zune-friendly format would very rapidly mean that there was a lot of (taxpayer-funded) content for the Zune that wouldn't work with the iPod (or any other players).
Microsoft is already being prosecuted by the EU for attempting to use its desktop monopoly to gain a media format monopoly. It beggars belief that tax-payers' money from an EU member state would be spent re-enforcing this monopoly.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, the BBC did a deal with Microsoft regarding the distribution of digital content via its web sites. As usual, they trumpeted it as if it were a great breakthrough on news.bbc.co.uk. I'm sure google can find it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What would be stupid is to continue supporting the microsoft monopoly and helping them expand it onto the Internet. This is about the long-term quality of computing, something microsoft is a very real threat to.
Re:So what SHOULD they use? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC already broadcasts their programming, in MPEG-2 at more or less DVD quality, unencrypted, over the public airwaves, all over the UK - in the form of digital terrestrial television. This is their primary reason for existence. There is no sight or sign of DRM anywhere near it. It is utterly trivial to record this with a computer and DVB capture card, hardware which is cheaply and widely available. Most popular BBC programmes are already recorded in this fashion and posted on thepiratebay.org within 12 hours.
This is the same content that they are now releasing onto the internet. It is quite obvious that if they didn't need DRM to broadcast it over radio in the first place, they don't need DRM to broadcast exactly the same stuff again over IP. It is further obvious that the simplest thing for them to do would be to use exactly the same codec that they are already using. There is no apparent reason why they should suddenly propose a far more limited and ineffective system just because the carrier system is IP rather than radio.
It is pretty obvious that Microsoft is involved in this one somewhere, and that's almost certainly illegal.
No amount of DRM on the IP version is going to have any effect at all on the material available on TPB, because all the content is already on the net and will continue to be posted there from the digital terrestrial broadcasts (no proposals are currently being made to post any of the BBC's considerable archive of material on the net, only some of the things which are currently being broadcast). The quality is better in the terrestrial broadcasts than in the iplayer system anyway, so iplayer is never going to be used as a source for TPB when the far better DVB version is readily available. The entire proposal is retarded: they are seriously suggesting a service which is lower quality, less convenient, and already less popular than TPB, with DRM crippling thrown in just to make it entirely unwanted. It's a complete waste of time and money, because everybody with an interest will just keep using TPB instead.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry, are you from another planet? The BBC is not a business, it's a public service operating under special charter from the UK government. They don't make disposable profits, because they don't have any owners to pay them to: every p