BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak

An anonymous reader writes "The future of iPlayer, the BBC's new online on-demand system for delivering content, is continuing to look bleaker. With ISPs threatening to throttle the content delivered through the iPlayer, consumers petitioning the UK government and the BBC to drop the DRM and Microsoft-only technology, and threatened legal action from the OSC, the last thing the BBC wanted to see today was street protests at their office and at the BBC Media Complex accompanied by a report issued by DefectiveByDesign about their association with Microsoft."

Re:Encryption

[Creepy Crawler]

Then I guess you've never used tools like "Ethereal" or whatever it's called now.

Run iPlayer. Watch what it talks to in Ethereal.

Download restricted media a bunch of times. Note what servers you download from.

Now on router, throttle all machines that iPlayer talks to down to 3 KB/s.

I dont care about encrypted crap and all. If you use regular IP with TCP (yah, no tunnel blocking and all), I can see your to/from information. I dont care about payload.

Filter it all and let the sysadmin sort it out.

Re:Huh?

[zlogic]

If you live in the UK and own a television you have to pay a special tax, some part of which goes to the BBC. So most people DO pay for BBC programs and have the right to actually watch them on a non-windows computer.

Re:DRM is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's no law saying stuff has to be cross-platform, but (almost) all Brits pay a TV tax, and this covers the online content as well. So, people object to paying a tax and then being told "Oh, you don't use Windows, so this online content is useless to you."

          Plus, last I checked, Realplayer was cross-platform and supported rights restrictions, along with flash. Of course they can and have all been cracked, but so has Windows' rights restriction system. And, yes, as a practical matter, people want this DRM-free; the current content on TV can be tape (Tivo, etc.) recorded and watched whenever, so having the computerized version have additional restrictions placed on it is a step backwards, removes far use rights, and is something noone but the big media is interested in.

What Happened?

[organgtool]

A few years ago, the BBC seemed to be keen on the idea of releasing content in Ogg/Theora. Then they wanted to help develop and use the Dirac [slashdot.org] codec. And now they want to use a DRM-encumbered Microsoft codec.

This is an interesting situation because of the BBC's role as a "state-owned but independent corporation" [wikipedia.org]. I skimmed the Wikipedia article and it appears that the BBC is a for-profit corporation, but the fact that it's state-owned leads me to believe that its funded by taxpayers. If that is the case, why should taxpayers have to pay for DRM-infested media that was sponsored by their tax money?

Re:DRM is the problem

[Shrubbman]

The BBC receives its funding from people in the UK paying an annual license fee mandatory for anyone with a TV. It's programming is funded by the people, for the people, so I think you can see the problem people are having when access to that content through a new channel places proprietary restrictions on access to said content. So yes, the whole furor is that this is NOT just a private TV company, it's a public institution.

Re:Huh?

[farmerj]

The BBC [wikipedia.org] is relatively unique as broadcasters go. Unlike most broadcasters its market is not selling air time to advertisers but as a public service broadcaster. There are no outside adverts on the BBC network (though they do advertise their own programmes, similar to other broadcasters).

All funding for the BBC comes from the UK tv licence [wikipedia.org] and the sales of programming and other commercial activity (e.g. selling Dr. Who and publishing magazines such as the Radio Times [radiotimes.com])

The BBC is controlled by the BBC Trust (formally the BBC governors) and according to its charter is "free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners" [bbc.co.uk]

The BBC added free to air distribution of its programming over satellite in order to provide maximum access to its services to its viewers. One of the side effects of this is that the BBC channels can be received with standard DVB-S equipment across most of western Europe.

This is the reason that people are angry with the iplayer situation. It artificially restricts the service to Windows users and prevents full access by all of the licence paying population of the UK. This is completely the opposite of the satellite case where reception is open to others extremely outside the borders of the UK to ensure that UK licence payers have access to the service (note it is possible to receive this as far away as Bulgaria and beyond, so we are not talking about a small over-spread here!

Re:DRM is the problem

[VJ42]

but does that TV tax actually cover television programs distributed over the Internet?

Yes, infact, if I didn't have a TV, but was to watch a BBC programme live on the web (note the live, if it's not broadcast simultaneously, it doesn't matter), I would technically be in breech of the law if I didn't have a TV licence.

Re:What Happened?

[Chris_Jefferson]

No, the real problem is that some UK taxpayers don't understand that it costs them the same whether or not anyone else watches the shows too.

No, it doesn't, as the BBC currently makes money selling content to foreign stations, which would dry up if the BBC gave the content away for free.

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING

[LordSnooty]

does that TV tax actually cover television programs distributed over the Internet?

The simple answer is to read the BBC's Royal Charter [bbc.co.uk] - scroll to point 5, "How the BBC promotes its Public Purposes: the BBC's mission to inform, educate and entertain", and make what you will of this:

The BBC's main activities should be the promotion of its Public Purposes through the provision of output which consists of information, education and entertainment, supplied by means of (a) television, radio and online services; (b) similar or related services which make output generally available and which may be in forms or by means of technologies which either have not previously been used by the BBC or which have yet to be developed.

Since the online output is already generally available via television that commitment is fulfilled - there is no extra content on the iPlayer to my knowledge. But, the point about tech which is 'yet to be developed' makes it unclear. Ultimately they may have a responsibility to be fair, but there's no actual obligation to provide it at all.

One thing is clear, in the real world this ground-breaking project was never going to get off the ground without some form of DRM to stop casual copying, for two simple reasons - many of the BBC's shows are supplied by independent producers, and the BBC itself has an interest in the post-broadcast DVD market. Neither would want to allow their exploitation of the product to be killed by multiple high quality copies al over the Internet. Yes I know this happens already, but it's not on a massive scale yet, and it would be naive to think that profit-seeking companies would want to sign up to a scheme that would only increase it.

Re:DRM is a Non Issue - Just Don't use it

[bbtom]

The iPlayer is basically a distraction. It keeps the BBC Management from realising the rampant use of BitTorrent for BBC content. The folks at the BBC have their hands tied behind their back by legalities. That said, a huge chunk of people who work at the BBC are tech savvy and use BitTorrent to download their shows. The iPlayer is just fine. Everyone will just use BitTorrent instead. The BBC have pretty much adopted a "live and let live" policy with regards to BitTorrent. Unless you do something really stupid (oh, you know, break into Television Centre, steal and leak a new Doctor Who ep), you will have no trouble from the BBC Legal Department.

So, feel free to open up Azureus and enjoy. You may find the websites uknova.com and thebox.bz quite educational, entertaining and informing. Which is funny, because that's exactly the motto of the BBC. ;)

Re:DRM is the problem

[VJ42]

Here you go [tvlicensing.co.uk]

You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV.

Bold is mine

Re:The BBC's Core

[halfcuban]

Except, oddly enough, that people do tune in. From looking at ratings charts, a large measure of the British public is tuning into BBC's channels to be entertained or informed at some point in the day or night. Does this mean that watching means automatic agreement, or a universal consensus of values? No, but it does mean that the Beeb, and hence the people who work for it, must be doing something right. You can't seriously believe that only fellow "elitists" are the ones watching the the BBC posts ratings of 9 or 10 million viewers? This kind of errant lobbing of "elitism" simply doesn't wash then.

This is not say that any institution doesn't have faults, and I have read some persuasive arguments about various problems with BBC News and its entertainment programming, many of which I agree with. But that does not mean, as you build up using straw men arguments, that the Beeb is some multi-headed, unwatched giant, unaccountable, and this is especially absurd, irrelevant to the British viewing public.