PDA

View Full Version : Quote: BBC slammed for Microsoft lock-in



stig
February 7th, 2007, 12:22 PM
"The Open Source Consortium (OSC) has slammed the BBC over plans to lock online TV viewers into Microsoft products." (February 6th 2007, on www.vnunet.com news).
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2174256/bbc-slammed-microsoft-lock

[As I write this, www.vnunet.com seems to be very slow, probably overloaded.]

The Grum
February 7th, 2007, 01:29 PM
That article stops a little short. Check the preliminary conclusions of the BBCs own survey (including a question on how vital non-XP support was) here (PDF) (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review-report-research/pvt_iplayer/iplayer_pvt_provisional_conclusions.pdf)

The most notable part being:


The Microsoft-based DRM strategy for seven-day TV catch-up over the internet
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.

So, it will be XP only for a while, but not as bad as the article made out (unlike Channel 4, who basically said "Not running XP? Get stuffed!").

Cyfr
February 7th, 2007, 01:55 PM
24months?? sigh.. :( Are our licence fees funding this or is it the commerical arm of the BBC?

The Grum
February 7th, 2007, 02:02 PM
Im not sure. There was a mention of a change in the licence fee to take this into account, but I havent found any details yet.

It really should be separate, but in that case Im dreading a "You have a PC, you pay the fee" style licence.

SunnyRabbiera
February 7th, 2007, 03:00 PM
it wont last long, once BBC gets Haxxored by angry non windows users....

Brunellus
February 7th, 2007, 07:41 PM
it wont last long, once BBC gets Haxxored by angry non windows users....
. . . which will open up some tough new anti-terrorist-hacker legislation in Parliament.

SunnyRabbiera
February 7th, 2007, 07:45 PM
perhaps, but it wont last long either way.

sanderella
February 7th, 2007, 07:52 PM
Shouldn't it be reported to the Monopolies Commission?:confused:

daynah
February 7th, 2007, 08:41 PM
Oh jeeze... please don't use the "god-like super l33t linux skillz" to hack the BBC. That will just create a feeling of Linux is for average people and Linux is for people who can hack. Or, that Linux is for bad people, or that Linux is a danger. And if the UK freaks out over terrorism just imagine what Bush is going to do over here...

Brunellus
February 7th, 2007, 08:47 PM
Oh jeeze... please don't use the "god-like super l33t linux skillz" to hack the BBC. That will just create a feeling of Linux is for average people and Linux is for people who can hack. Or, that Linux is for bad people, or that Linux is a danger. And if the UK freaks out over terrorism just imagine what Bush is going to do over here...
The Home Office has a great deal more discretionary power within the UK than the DHS has inside the US.

floke
February 7th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Yes, but they're about as much use as Windows Defender.

Bigbluecat
February 7th, 2007, 11:03 PM
There's a thread in the General category about this although it should really be in the cafe if a kind moderator would care to merge them.

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=353058

I filled out the response to the BBC and if any others would care to join in I'm sure we can start to get our point across.

24 months exclusivity is just too long for Microsoft. 6 months maximum is all that should be allowed.

MonkeyBoy
February 8th, 2007, 07:20 PM
I have been watching this for a while. I get the impression that what is happening is that the BBC Trust is after the cheapest way of doing things but the Public Value Test was pretty firm about being Platform Agnostic.

I believe that the Beeb are currently negotiating with Real in the hope that they can figure out a deal to make Realplayer secure enough for the BBC content. They have suggested that if this happens, it may only take a few months to develop.

Whatever, the full plan won't be announced until 2 May after the consultation finishes so now is a good time to fill in a consultation form online.

I don't think it is quite time to get annoyed about it 'cos we don't know for sure what will happen but I will be seriously p'd off if only Windows users get the service first.

sparky64
February 8th, 2007, 08:25 PM
The bbc have an open consultation questionnaire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/open-consultations/ondemand_services.html


Fill it in and make your point of view.(Q12 is where i complained)

mtn
February 24th, 2007, 11:23 PM
Shouldn't it be reported to the Monopolies Commission?:confused:

I emailed the Monopolies Commission and basically they said can only investigate issues referred to them from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT - www.oft.gov.uk). So, I phoned the OFT and they said they weren't investigating this issue and that I should email them with details of my compliant, which I did. That was 3 weeks ago and I have not had a reply, even to acknowledge my email!

I also emailed OFT about the fact I could not (I mean it is impossible) buy a new laptop in the UK without Windows pre-installed...no reply!


This is an interesting article about the BBC/DRM issue http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000183


My response to the BBC...

Response to question 12

Broadly I am in favour of the proposal with a number of exceptions:-

1) The project will, at least initially, not be cross platform and will
thus lock out a significant number of licence fee payers
2) The reliance on a single software vendor's products is
anti-competitive and is thus not in line with BBC's stated responsibilities
3) The reliance on a single software vendor's products leaves the BBC
vulnerable to the whims of that software vendor
4) The reliance on a single software vendor's products leaves the whole
project vulnerable to deficiencies/vulnerabilities with the software
5) Is the use of a DRM like system necessary? if not would this reduce
costs and potential problems?

I will now expand on these issues/concerns.

As a Linux/Ubuntu user (and advocate of the use and benefits of open
source software) the proposal, at least initially, to provide content
tied to the Microsoft Windows XP (and above) operating system and
Windows Media Player 10, would exclude me from using core elements of
the BBC on demand service. In particular the locking of content to
Microsoft products would seem to be contrary to at least three of the
BBC charters stated responsibilities as set out in article 23, namely to
“represent the interests of licence fee payers” , “secure that the
independence of the BBC is maintained” and “have regard to the
competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market” (Public
Value Assessment: BBC On-demand Service Proposal,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review-report-research/pvt_iplayer/ondemandpva.pdf,
p5).

Quite apart from locking out a significant number of BBC licence fee
payers, there are potentially worrying consequences from relying on one
software vendor for fee payers ability to access BBC on demand
(Internet) content. For example if there where problems, such as
security vulnerabilities, found with Microsoft software the BBC could be
adversely effected with little or no control over circumstances. If
however the BBC founded, for example, the development of an open source
media player and content management (DRM like) project the BBC would be
able to provide a cross platform solution form day one, as well as
providing an open standard and have tight control over the software
licence fee payers use, and the option to allow competition for support
of the software.

As large numbers of computer users switch to using Linux, and with the
benefits of open source software becoming increasingly evident (as
recently noted in a UN report focusing on this issue), the proposal to
lock content to Microsoft products would seem to sit particularly
uneasily with the BBC's stated objective to “have regard to the
competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market”, where
“wider market” is understood to include software markets.

In general I would be against the use of a DRM like system. I have not
seen any evidence to suggest that the video recording of broadcast
television programs has negatively impacted DVD sales etc, and find it
hard to see what the fundamental difference is between setting a video
recorder to record a program that can then be held indefinitely and even
lent to family/friends, and allowing that same program to be
downloaded and held indefinitely. I believe there is evidence to support
the suggestion that wider access to, and even sharing of, BBC programming would increase DVD sales as people recommend programs to others and then those second level people, having enjoyed a program, prefer to own the boxed original/whole series. I would strongly urge the BBC to investigate this issue thoroughly.


This debate on the BBC backstage blog was kind of interesting...

http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/bbc_backstage_p_1.html
"The first ever BBC Backstage podcast kicked off in fine style on Wednesday 7th February.
"We invited some of the most vocal backstagers in the long running debate over DRM, to come and join us at the BBC to discuss face to face what they felt about DRM and the BBC.
Link to ogg: http://blip.tv/file/get/Matthewcashmore-backstagebbccoukDRMPodcastOGG289.ogg


I watched a presentation by Mark Pesce The Future of BitTorrent (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7943417698180428255, also available via torrent network!) in which I thought he made some interesting points. Basically saying that the availability of TV programs via BitTorrent has lead to a kind of viral advertising that has ultimately been beneficial to the traditional distribution networks - the BBC etc. He argues that the TV networks should embrace what is happening rather than spend time/resources fighting it. I thought it was pretty compelling stuff.