BBC to Try TV On Demand 533
Shevek writes "The UK Independent newspaper is reporting on a new BBC trial: 'Later this month, the BBC will launch a pilot project that could lead to all television programmes being made available on the internet. Viewers will be able to scan an online guide and download any show. Programmes would be viewed on a computer screen or could be burned to a DVD and watched on a television set. Alternatively, programmes could be downloaded to a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) ... By launching iMP, the BBC hopes to avoid being left at the mercy of a software giant such as Microsoft, which could try to control the gateway to online television.' Yet more proof that the BBC license fee is an unmitigated Good Thing(TM)."
Trouble is (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt they'll use XVID or other open standards. Would be fairly neutral if they released MPEG-2 files, however these would be gigantic.
Not likely to be Worldwide... (Score:5, Insightful)
The article refers to this being a challenge, but one they plan on getting over...
Freedom of Choice (Score:4, Insightful)
It is great to see a company that is willing to provide choice to its customers.
Perhaps this will force American media companies to offer a few better options to their customers.
putting media/news in the hands of proper citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if we get the rest of them to go along. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm ready for this any time... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would love to be able to just watch the shows that I want, when I want them, and pay strictly for what I watch. I don't want to pay for a bunch of crap I don't want. Why should I be forced to buy HGTV when I'm an overweight fat slob who spends 99% of his day behind a keyboard? All I wanted was Tech Tv (although it's gone downhill bigtime).
I would happily pay the license fee (Score:5, Insightful)
Broadcast flag (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need no restrictive technology to make money out of media content, just find an easy-to-use distribution vector and a fair price. Who will want to sweep through a couple of hundreds of low-res DiVx files on Kazaa to download a show when you can get it premium quality for a price this low?
I wonder what is the ROI (Return on Investment) of the boradcast flag when compared to this...Re:Not likely to be Worldwide... (Score:2, Insightful)
Will the content be Free or Owned? (Score:4, Insightful)
"If we don't enter this market, then exactly what happened to the music industry could happen to us... everybody starts posting the content up there and ripping us off."
What would be wrong with the public freely sharing the content? They are subsidizing the creation of it with their tax payments.
Why don't allegedly "public" broadcasters, like the BBC in Brittan or PBS or NPR in the US, produce and release content under Creative Commons type, or other Free licences? That way the public could use, share, and redistribute the content freely. People could even re-edit the content and create new and interesting works. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Isn't the idea behind public broadcasting to serve the public, instead of seek profits?
Instead, the "public" broadcasters have developed the same control-freak mentality of the rest of the media that effectively opposes the very idea of a public domain and favors every byte having a DRM restricted ownership sticker. If that is the case, what is the point of the public subsidizing these broadcasters... and why should they even exist?
Re:Me first (Score:3, Insightful)
WHY OH WHY are the only fuckers who realise this not resident in the UK? the public tide in this country (UK) is more anti than pro, and Labour/TB have been doing their level best to destroy the BBC's credibility*.
I on the other hand am very pro-BBC. The only slight problem I have with it is that the fee is the same for everybody (i.e. a poll tax).
* Whether or not Andrew Gilligan exaggerated his story, the government (and Alistair Campbell non-gov) made an enormous issue out of it in order to discredit the BBC, as the charter is coming up for renewal soon. The bastards.
Re:putting media/news in the hands of proper citiz (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, it isn't a "company" bringing us this innovation it's the socialistic government enterprise of an advanced european welfare-state.
No, this isn't a communist vs capitalist troll, it's just an area where capitalist media organisations (in their current incarnation) just have too much inertia to innovate like this.
And it's worth remembering, sometimes paying taxes to a government body (a properly set up one) gets you a kick-arse service, and a whole heap of kudos and nods from the rest of the world. Why go for laize-faire capitalism or stalinistic dictatorship.... when you can have the mix of both as you choose. And the evidence seems to be that it's better to pay more taxes than most of us do.
RULE BRITANNIA!!
Re:Will there be a converter (Score:3, Insightful)
And, "Who Wants to be a Millionaire," "Men Behaving Badly," "Dear John," etc. Then you could add failed Americanized pilots of British shows such as "The Office," "Red Dwarf," and "AbFab." Wasn't there an American version of "Faulty Towers" too?
Why the grass seems greener on the other side (Score:4, Insightful)
Where's the Capitalist Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the BBC some kind of socialist, government supported thing?
I thought only free-market, capitalist companies in competion innovated? That's what I was taught in my American public school. There's just no reason to improve if you've got a steady, government supported income. You have to be in blood thirsty battle for market dominance to justify doing anything other than resting on your laurels and IP rights. Right?
Where's the innovation in product from the American networks?
Where's customer focus from American media?
Where's the desire to satisfy customer desire in America?
(It's sarcasm. I love my country.)
Re:bit torrent (Score:3, Insightful)
As a proof of concept and way of overcoming leeching it rocked, but it is not a mature P2P app, it is only half-finished...
As for broadcasting BT is in no way suitable. Sure the BBC could solve the root node (going down) problem but if they want to get good throughput on a mass scale just use a broadcast protocal. Even better, team up with ISPs (a la BBC Broadband) and deliver content at ISP node level rather than originate it from their own servers.
Re:TV on demand is the future... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:TV on demand is the future... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, we have this entire ad based economy that works off of estimates of how many people see an ad. Estimates, because they know how many people watch a show (the Neilson ratings are accurate enough for that) but they don't know how many people actually watch (and pay attention to) the ads. The same goes for magazines and newspapers, where subscription numbers feed the advertisers fantasy of how many eyeballs they are reaching. Compare that with the Internet, where you can know exactly how many people clicked though to a web paged based on a banner ad. In the latter case you know that someone was interested in your product (or not). You can even know how many people went on to buy the product as a result of the ad. That certainty I think actually hurts Internet advertising, since it gives the seller of the ad very little wiggle room about how much to charge for the ad.
The reality is that most advertising is relatively ineffective. Content on demand dispels the myth, and there are quite a few people who don't want that myth dispelled.
The flip side is this: If we had media on demand everywhere right now, and advertising built into the content, you would select a program, and while watching it see ads, just as you do now. But would you record the program on Tivo in order to watch the program later without the ads? I don't think most people would. The ability to watch something exactly when and where you wanted to would be too compelling to going back to the TV-guide sort of planning process that people do now.
The trick is, finally, to educate people who pay for ads about how valuable those click throughs are compared to a nebulous subscriber count. I don't know if the BBC experiment will do this, but I hope adoption of content on demand elswhere will convice the relatively thick skulled people in Hollywood that they may be missing out on a good thing. That will release a lot of lawyers to do more productive work perhaps.
Re:Socialized Entertainment (Score:3, Insightful)
And you think the quality of programming is better and fair? Last time I checked online, we had a great show on the WB Network that was cancelled despite increased ratings and a rabid fan base. That show was called "Angel." The American system is a joke. 6,000 homes participating in the idiotic Nielsen's system is considered more accurate (when they write things down by pencil and paper) over 1 million homes with TiVos that report even show (and commercial) watched? I would gladly pay fees to make sure my programs remain on the air instead of watching the entire TV land become the 24 hour bastion of "reality" programming. If anything, its us Americans who are being robbed.
Re:The BBC is example corporate power (Score:4, Insightful)
The BBC is operated under two constitutional documents: its Royal Charter and the Licence and Agreement. The Charter defines the BBC's objects, powers, obligations and the sources and uses of its income, while the Licence and Agreement sets the terms and conditions under which it must operate.
"Subject to the general law of the land and the provisions of the Charter and the Licence and Agreement, the BBC has full editorial and managerial independence in its day-to-day programme and other activities"
For more information visit this terribly informative site [vaxxine.com], which will doubtless also explain all about impartiality and public service broadcasting for you.
Re:Where's the Capitalist Innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Where's the Capitalist Innovation? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is still a huge problem to be solved. It costs over $1M an hour to produce quality TV. If there is no way to recover that cost why would anybody invest the money?
Perhaps a compromise is in order. Drastically reduce the copyright period (say to 7 years without exception) and in return put up with a working DRM for material still in copyright. Any material older than 7 years becomes public domain and free to re-distribute.
Of course, this assumes that someone can innovate a real, actual, working, DRM
Re:Where's the Capitalist Innovation? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're guaranteed at least some money no matter what they do, they can spend some of it trying out new stuff. Now, this was long before the net became a household word, and they were specifically referring to new programs, but the same applies.
Because they're not entirely beholden to fickle viewers and advertisers, they can afford to experiment sometimes, and without experimentation, there can be no innovation.
For the record, though, they are beholden to the Government, who occasionally make threatening noises about the licence fee (as do the Opposition). They also have to abide by a charter, although I've not read it, so I can't comment as to what it says.
Re:Yeah, (Score:2, Insightful)
Not everything that is watched should be paid for. You should be happy that a lot of people can share quality British broadcasting, even though they do not pay for it.
P.S. I am Russian, I like BBC and I even worked for it a bit. I don't (and I can't) pay the BBC tax, but I am really thankful to you Britons.
Re:Nanny State (Score:2, Insightful)
The western world includes the US, Canada, Western Europe and (probably) Australia and New Zealand. Of the above, how many don't have socialised healthcare?
Re:Channel 4 shurely (Score:1, Insightful)
I may be wrong. But last I heard Channel 4 was also owned by the British Government.
End of the BBC? (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely there is a major risk the BBC is exposing itself to here... if the trial is successful, and the BBC decides to go 'on demand', who will need a TV anymore? If people can just download a program, then they don't need a TV to watch it. If people stop needing TV's, then no licence fee is payable in the UK, and the BBC stops receiving most of its money.
How would the BBC solve this? Argue for a PC Licence?!? This would be very untenable as a PC has so many more uses then a TV.
Would the BBC website become a members only pay site, and then be in breach of its charter?
Re:It's socialist (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Ok then. (Score:1, Insightful)