The Open Source Consortium (OSC) has slammed the BBC after the news site announced that it plans to lock online TV viewers to Microsoft Windows. The BBC already has an agreement with Real over use of its RealPlayer software for radio broadcasting. The announcement of a tie in with Microsoft will be a boost to the company's visibility as the company is heavily investing in online TV for its worldwide audience. The OSC believes this is anti-competitive, and would be in breach of the broadcaster's charter by using public funds to develop and promote the service.
OSC chief executive Iain Roberts said: "Our members are competing hard in a fast-moving market and winning new customers every day. Seeing their licence fee going to advertise one of their largest competitors is not acceptable, especially from the BBC which has a duty to be unbiased. We want the BBC to reject any moves that restrict consumer choice."
News source: vnunet.com
OSC chief executive Iain Roberts said: "Our members are competing hard in a fast-moving market and winning new customers every day. Seeing their licence fee going to advertise one of their largest competitors is not acceptable, especially from the BBC which has a duty to be unbiased. We want the BBC to reject any moves that restrict consumer choice."
News source: vnunet.com
*nix isn't used by every day Joes at home. So no one cares.
*nix isn't used by every day Joes at home. So no one cares.
Great. OS X users get to pay more to watch something they have already paid for. That is fair, or is the BBC going to cover the cost of Flip4Mac for all OS X using TV license payers in the UK?
1) Pay money to get the platform to view the content that they've already paid for
2) Have to go to the trouble to configure a virtual machine (VMware) under Linux or to dual boot Windows
If the BBC gets revenue from public funds then the public should have the right to choose how they view that content.
*nix isn't used by every day Joes at home. So no one cares.
Great. OS X users get to pay more to watch something they have already paid for. That is fair, or is the BBC going to cover the cost of Flip4Mac for all OS X using TV license payers in the UK?
flip4mac is a free player...
Last edited by deadmonkey on 06 Feb 2007 - 18:07
you have to relise that windows is the dominant OS, like it or hate it thats just the way things are, so thats what they are going to support.
Yet today if you don't have an analog tuner it won't matter what make your TV is.
It's the same thing already, but that's more like an transport protocol, like IPv4 vs. IPv6 if you would like a somewhat good computer analogy.
If the video streams are DRM free I dont see why alternative media players on Linux or Mac couldnt work with Windows Media. And if they cant to be honest BBC has a job to support the majority and not force spyware upon its users (real player). Id sooner them support 95% of the population than to infect every PC with a spyware driven junk of a media player.
It's not like Apple doesn't have a dominating lead over it's rivals in the MP3 market and Apple has been very upfront that they want to lock you in with iTunes, the iPod and now the iPhone. If the OSC is really that credible on the subject of open standards then they should be yelling about Apple too. Otherwise they should just sit down and shut up!
The will send two kozzers and a turnip around your house with a search warrant to check for a TV or receiver.
I use windows and pay my tv licence monthly, so other users that don't use windows and pay a tv licence should get the same service.
Why must this site post articles that bash windows and not check that the article is actually acurate.
this is what the site states
"In respect of the seven-day catch-up over the internet service, the files would require DRM
to ensure that they were appropriately restricted in terms of time and geographic
consumption. The only system that currently provides this security is Windows Media 10
and above. Further, the only comprehensively deployed operating system that currently
supports Windows Media Player 10 and above is the Windows XP operating system. As a
result of these DRM requirements the proposed BBC iPlayer download manager element
therefore requires Windows Media Player 10 and Windows XP. This means the service
would be unavailable to a minority of consumers who either do not use Microsoft or do not
have an up-to-date Microsoft operating system. However, over time, technology
improvements are likely to enable even more efficient methods of delivery. Further, it is our
understanding the BBC Executive are working towards the iPlayer download manager being
able to function on other operating systems.
"
The thing restricting the content is the drm, if a linux player provides the required drm it can be used.
they are not restricting it to windows. Its just that media player 10 has the required drm
If you are going to post an article bashing things make sure the article is actually acurate
And that isn't locking people to Windows? I'm sure Microsoft would happily license the necessary information to a company making a player for Linux
The problem is that Microsoft are not all that friendly with how they license their formats. For this to be implemented on another platform a company would have to pay royalties to Microsoft. Why should you have to pay twice for something?
And that isn't locking people to Windows? I'm sure Microsoft would happily license the necessary information to a company making a player for Linux
No they won't. They'll license the WMA/WMV formats, but when it comes to the DRM, they won't license any general computing platform. Linspire tried already, but were refused (although they did get license the regular WMA/WMV formats). So by using MS's DRM, your only option is Windows.
Microsoft fanbois sure are paranoid. Where does it bash windows? It is 'bashing' the BBC...
Mac OSX can view the content, Windows can view the content. So who gives a **** about 0.006% of home users otherwise.
Your NOT forced to pay for the TV license.
Your NOT forced to pay for the TV license.
Please show me a way to own a TV in the UK without having to pay for a TV license. Sadly you can't. Not only do I not watch BBC I do not even have an ariel on my house and only use Sky (which I pay for separately). Ergo I AM forced to pay for a license which I do not benefit from. Should I choose not to own a TV (which I did for several months a few years ago) I can avoid paying the license (and rightly so) however I was accused of breaking the law twice because "everyone owns a TV".
Your NOT forced to pay for the TV license.
You are if you want to watch TV in the UK, unless your TV/computer runs off its own power supply (ie, you can't watch TV on your laptop if it's plugged in at the same time)
Them's the rules...
Mac OSX can view the content, Windows can view the content. So who gives a **** about 0.006% of home users otherwise.
No OS/x can't play the content because of the DRM. This means it 100% windows only.
Your NOT forced to pay for the TV license.
Please show me a way to own a TV in the UK without having to pay for a TV license. Sadly you can't. Not only do I not watch BBC I do not even have an ariel on my house and only use Sky (which I pay for separately). Ergo I AM forced to pay for a license which I do not benefit from. Should I choose not to own a TV (which I did for several months a few years ago) I can avoid paying the license (and rightly so) however I was accused of breaking the law twice because "everyone owns a TV".
You are allowed to own a TV as long as you don't use it to receive a tv signal (ie plug an aerial into it).
If you have a tv just for use with a dvd player or console, then thats perfectly fine and you need not pay the fee.
Sky is a different matter, as you're still receiving the channels that are payed for by having a TV license (the BBC ones).
i don't have a tv license, but I have a pc with windows xp,,, looking forward to some free tv
In this statement, the following was said:
"Platform-agnostic approach: As proposed, the TV catch-up service on the internet relies on Microsoft technology for the digital rights management (DRM) framework. The Trust will require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach within a reasonable time frame. This requires the BBC to develop an alternative DRM framework to enable users of other technology, for example, Apple and Linux, to access the on-demand services."
Source: BBC Trust
My question is: What do the BBC class as a reasonable time frame?
My other question is: Why have the OSC neglected to take this into Consideration before blasting the BBC - If the BBC had straight up said "No, we refuse to make it compatible with anything except a new version of Windows", then yeah, I could understand it, and being an OSX user myself, and a British License Payer myself, I would be furious ... But this is not the case. If I also had to buy software to watch it too, I also would not be happy.. If they provided a free Codec to watch the content, then yes, I would be happy.
I think VNU (the source) have got confused too.. what the hell has it got to do with BT?
"The Trust decided that BT's proposed iPlayer service would be of value to the public as patterns of media consumption shift from linear broadcast to on-demand viewing." LOL
As for what someone said above about watching free TV - I really doubt you will be able to - They will probably adopt the same technology as Sky, where if you aren't a registered user (i.e. hold an account - whether that be a t.v. license [with a unique ID on the license], or a viewing account), you can't get access to the service.
Last edited by DeanClinton on 06 Feb 2007 - 19:59
With the BBC stating that Windows Media Player 10 with XP (and Vista I assume) are the only systems at present that support the required DRM and that when alternatives become available they will use them to ensure every OS is useable.
So all those Linux users that want it badly, why dont you code a decent DRM format / system for your OS?
Don't agree with DRM, well you got no choice at present but thats another issue.
BBC says DRM is needed, and only Microsoft to date have the DRM thats required. Seems they had no choice and Apple users can only complain at Apple and Linux users better start coding.
Well, I imagine there will be a lot of complaints once the software is released later this year, if it doesn't have Mac support.
I'm generally very supportive of the BBC, but this is one thing that annoys me!
The DRM thing is not limiting what UK citizens can see, it is PREVENTING non-UK citizens (such as myself) from viewing content broadcast over the Internet. DRM allows geographic and time content blocking. In other words, I will either have to reconfigure my XP to be using UK-English all over the place (including time) to mascarade as an UK user, or I must use a reliable non-XP machine that supports the same DRM requirements of locking non-UK citizens out.
Simple. Americans are NOT privy to BBC content, and this decision reinforces such.
The BBC will be launching a service for non-UK residents where their programmes are supported by ads. You'll get that and you should be happy we give you that much.
The BBC will be launching a service for non-UK residents where their programmes are supported by ads. You'll get that and you should be happy we give you that much.
Hmm, arrogant much? I didn't notice the OP suggesting that non-UK residents *should* have access to all the BBC's content... you're picking a fight where there was none, and doing so in a singularly up-yer-own-arse manner. Kudos.
To the OP: I suspect switching your Windows settings won't help much. The checks are probably based on your IP address, like those that prevent software containing SSL (or other strong encryption tech) being directly downloaded from the US because of export restrictions.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.