BBC License Payers Unite [Archive]

darrenm

June 24th, 2007, 08:57 PM

The BBC is now only going to be supporting Microsoft operating systems with their on-demand video over the internet. If you pay a license fee but don't use Windows then you are paying for something you are not getting and are being discriminated against.

I've made an official complaint to the BBC:

Hello, I am dismayed to learn that the BBC is going to exclude me from using on-demand services on the Internet because I use a minority operating system on my computer.
I refuse to use Microsoft Windows for various reasons which I won't go into here but by only supporting Microsoft Windows you are discriminating against me and forcing me to have to spend extra money to get the services I pay my license fee for. This is illegal.
If I can't access the service when it is fully released then I will be withholding payment of the license fee and joining any class action court proceedings that happen.

Darren M

If anyone else wants to complain too heres a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

Catsworth

June 24th, 2007, 09:08 PM

How about a link to where it says that they won't be supporting anybody but Microsoft, so that we can read it for ourselves?

Efros

June 24th, 2007, 09:12 PM

It seems that the EU commisioners may be interested in this move by the Beeb. Check out theregister.co.uk and theinquirer.co.uk for more info on this.

diesel1

June 24th, 2007, 09:13 PM

Here is a site that might interest you....

http://www.freethebbc.info/

Diesel1.

koshatnik

June 24th, 2007, 09:15 PM

The BBC is now only going to be supporting Microsoft operating systems with their on-demand video over the internet. If you pay a license fee but don't use Windows then you are paying for something you are not getting and are being discriminated against.

I've made an official complaint to the BBC:

If anyone else wants to complain too heres a link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/make_complaint_step1.shtml

Legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry to break that to you. The BBC can do what the hell they like and support whatever they like. Yes, its against their charter in terms of inclusivity, but hey, **** happens.

Withholding your license fee isnt a great idea either. You'll go to court and you'll lose. There are other ways to complain.

BigSilly

June 24th, 2007, 10:54 PM

How about a link to where it says that they won't be supporting anybody but Microsoft, so that we can read it for ourselves?

Yeah, I'd very much appreciate a link to an original article or report so I can see for myself and complain where necessary. If this is true, it's a disgrace and the beeb should face a crapload of angry press and complaints. In this day and age now where open source and alternative desktops are becoming more prevalent, there's simply no excuse for this attitude.

We need to kick up **** about this as license payers, but please link to the official report. Thanks.

jkblacker

June 24th, 2007, 11:09 PM

floke

June 24th, 2007, 11:17 PM

I've already complained twice. The second time the complaint was about being forced to use proprietary software to access BBC content. The reply directed me, via a link, to a program that covered the issue, but I had to have RealPlayer to open it. So in order to find out the BBC's reply to my complaint about having to use proprietary software. I would have to use proprietary software.

Dumb F%$&*

jkblacker

June 24th, 2007, 11:26 PM

floke

June 24th, 2007, 11:28 PM

One big irony though, is that since getting broadband installed I hardly ever watch TV anymore anyway ;)

(and there's always tv-links.co.uk)

isotonic

June 24th, 2007, 11:31 PM

blastus

June 24th, 2007, 11:34 PM

Submit a complaint to them. Get the word out. Tell everyone who will listen. Don't buy anything from them anymore. The only language corporations understand is a customer revolt. :popcorn: If enough people take their business elsewhere, the BBC will be forced to reconsider their position. Remember, we hold the power, not them. ;)

AndyCooll

June 25th, 2007, 01:06 AM

For those demanding links here are a couple:

BBC gets TV on-demand service OK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6607083.stm)

BBC Trust approves BBC's on-demand proposals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/30_04_2007.html)

:cool:

DoctorMO

June 25th, 2007, 01:18 AM

IMHO, the beeb should be privatised and forced to compete on the marketplace for those who want it like everybody else - why do we in this day and age still need a nationalised media service like this? Is the tax (sorry, licence fee) worth the output we get? And more importantly why should we pay for it if we don't want it?

Because every other commercial TV network produces utter rubbish that everyone will watch instead of shows that a solid minority will want to watch. think science, maths, music, theatre, drama, things that are a bit risky. The BBC is a world class content creator and we should be proud of it as a nation that we have the forethought to not privatise every little stupid thing into the ground. because from where I'm standing privatisation has ruined (even further) ever single public service it's touched.

darrenm

June 25th, 2007, 07:49 AM

How about a link to where it says that they won't be supporting anybody but Microsoft, so that we can read it for ourselves?

Sorry forgot that one http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/22/iplayer_osc_eu_ofcom/ have a look at the comments too, some interesting stuff.

Legally, you don't have a leg to stand on. Sorry to break that to you. The BBC can do what the hell they like and support whatever they like. Yes, its against their charter in terms of inclusivity, but hey, **** happens.

Withholding your license fee isnt a great idea either. You'll go to court and you'll lose. There are other ways to complain.

I'm sure if its against their charter then I can withhold my license fee. As I'm being forced to pay it then they can't discriminate against me and force me to have to pay extra to be able to use their services. At the very least I and others in my position should be granted a rebate on the license fee.

What about those without a computer? Should they too complain and ask for their money back, as they won't be able to access this service (or, indeed, any of the beeb's online services)? They're another minority who pay for something they don't use - but I don't see any massive revolt.

If they are paying the same as people who do have access to all the services then yes they should get a reduced rate too.

The thing about the beeb is: are we just subscribers (admittedly forced) or are we shareholders, by paying the licence fee?

If we're just the former then the service provider owns the content that we subscribe to; if we're the latter then we should be able to have a say on how the content is packaged and delivered, no matter how small our voice is.

I see the licence as just more tax - and like all taxes we pay we don't really have a say on where it goes and how its spent etc, etc.

IMHO, the beeb should be privatised and forced to compete on the marketplace for those who want it like everybody else - why do we in this day and age still need a nationalised media service like this? Is the tax (sorry, licence fee) worth the output we get? And more importantly why should we pay for it if we don't want it?

Answers on a postcard, please!

As we are forced to pay it (whether we watch the BBC or not) then we can't be subscribers. I can choose to pay for Sky or not.

justifier

June 25th, 2007, 09:30 AM

Don't buy anything from them anymore.

If you want to have a "device that it is possible to recieve television signals on" you have to give the BBC your money in the form of a lisencence fee. This is buying from the BBC. Short of living in a house without a TV or computer you cant avoid it

jclmusic

June 25th, 2007, 09:39 AM

the majority of television is complete and utter drivel, and so i now don't own a TV anymore. whenever something interesting comes up on TV (rarely) it usually ends up on youtube anyway!

however, although i don't own a TV and hence don't pay the licence fee, i do still use the BBC website, and would like them to support open source formats.

purdy hate machine

June 25th, 2007, 09:47 AM

jiminycricket

June 25th, 2007, 10:52 AM

I’m outraged that I can’t receive the BBC’s DAB broadcasts which I’m paying for through my licence as I don’t own a DAB radio. I demand that the BBC immediately cease its digital broadcasts and reverts back to a single FM transmission so that I don’t feel so cheated.

Stupid thread. :roll:

Sunds like DAB is a standard where there are competing players that you can buy.

Windows DRM is Microsoft, single-vendor only. Hello, EU Commission Microsoft antitrust decision of 2004. (http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=en)

DoctorMO

June 25th, 2007, 01:26 PM

I’m outraged that I can’t receive the BBC’s DAB broadcasts which I’m paying for through my licence as I don’t own a DAB radio. I demand that the BBC immediately cease its digital broadcasts and reverts back to a single FM transmission so that I don’t feel so cheated.

As above, DAB isn't a proprietary format; so we have no quarrels with it. if I have broadband and a computer why the hell can't I see the BBCs content; simply because they bought into a proprietary format. nope not good.

cunawarit

June 25th, 2007, 01:33 PM

If enough people take their business elsewhere, the BBC will be forced to reconsider their position. Remember, we hold the power, not them. ;)

No, the BBC holds all the cards. The BCC license fee is in effect a TV tax, even if you do not wish to watch the BBC you need to pay for it. That's how they make their money, they don't run adverts. So even if everybody stops watching the BBC it doesn't affect them one bit, they still get all their license fee.

koshatnik

June 25th, 2007, 02:26 PM

The BBC is governed by the British Government, that's the main problem. However, a more productive route with this complaint might be to take this up with your MP.

coolclassic

June 25th, 2007, 03:54 PM

I am not against the BBC protecting its intrest but I am against the BBC using a single vendor to distribute its programmes.

One of the arguments here is where is the alternative, we can't complain unless we can offer something that will satisfy the BBC

Why can't Opensource come up with an alternative that will allow the BBC to distribute material with time bombs. This is not beyond the realms of opensource and may actually strengthen the model of opensource.

Tomosaur

June 25th, 2007, 04:04 PM

The alternative is that the BBC doesn't put stupid restrictions on their media when unrestricted media has served them so well in the past. The only alternative to DRM is 'no-DRM', and it seems fairly obvious to me that since the BBC isn't currently at the brink of being axed, there is actually no current problem regarding 'illegal' use of the BBCs content. By putting DRM on the content, it forces us who are LEGALLY allowed to watch the content (by paying the TV licence) to break a contract and thus put ourselves at risk of a legal battle. The only alternatives for us non-DRM people are:

1) Stop paying the TV licence, thus REALLY endangering the BBC (provided enough people take part, of course).
2) Circumvent the DRM illegally.

Either way, by putting DRM on their content, they are effectively criminalising Linux users who want to watch said content.

EDIT:
Coolclassic:

You're right in the sense that it is technically possible, but good luck finding an open-source developer who will accept this task. The whole point of open-source software is that the user is in control. An open-source timebomb removes this control.

It also means, of course, that the timebomb is essentially useless, because if anyone knows how the timebomb works, and they will, given that it's open-source, then it will take only a few hours (or even minutes) by a dedicated group for the timebomb to be disabled completely. DRM can only ever work if the method by which the DRM is implemented is unknown to the users (ergo: propietary).

PartisanEntity

June 25th, 2007, 04:15 PM

Because every other commercial TV network produces utter rubbish that everyone will watch instead of shows that a solid minority will want to watch. think science, maths, music, theatre, drama, things that are a bit risky. The BBC is a world class content creator and we should be proud of it as a nation that we have the forethought to not privatise every little stupid thing into the ground. because from where I'm standing privatisation has ruined (even further) ever single public service it's touched.

Sorry this is not quite on the topic, but I must say I'm in full agreement with DoctorMO. I too find the privatisation of social services to be, not only a lunatic idea, but also one that brings great evil to society.

Luckily I live in a country where it is still a big issue and where enough people complain about the mere utterance of privatising social services.

The new documentary by Michael Moore, Sicko should be required viewing for proponents of privatisation.

I am also shocked every time I visit London at the condition of various subway lines, the more frequented lines appear in better shape, whereas the less frequented lines seem battered and tattered there is not standard of quality and services.

Anyway, enough from me :)

coolclassic

June 25th, 2007, 05:17 PM

The BBC has a right to protect its product it is the same right that opensource developers also have, they protect there code through various licences.

The value of any protection has also proved useless over time with most codes being constantly broken including DRM. The BBC seem to think they are protecting there product for commercial reasons but in reality this useally is a false assumption and this can be supported by pirated software.

My point is that the BBC wants to appear to be protecting its content by using DRM we all know that this will be circumvented illegally. If the BBC wants to retain someform of controll then why can't opensource offer this or why can't software be developed by the BBC which supports every OS but keeps controll with the BBC.

My guess is that this type of software is allready about but MS is doing the pushing.

bonzodog

June 25th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Out of sheer curiosity, I wanted embedded video playback in my zenwalk, which comes with all the codecs by default for wma and .mov. I installed the xine-lib, and xine-plugins, and now I can use xine to play embedded video content in the BBC site, by simply telling it that I have windows media player, it sees the codecs attached to the plugin and it works like it should do.

rek2

June 25th, 2007, 06:38 PM

Here is a site that might interest you....

http://www.freethebbc.info/

Diesel1.

Very good site I join it.

DoctorMO

June 25th, 2007, 07:19 PM

My point is that the BBC wants to appear to be protecting its content by using DRM we all know that this will be circumvented illegally. If the BBC wants to retain someform of controll then why can't opensource offer this or why can't software be developed by the BBC which supports every OS but keeps controll with the BBC.

My guess is that this type of software is allready about but MS is doing the pushing.

It's at times like these that I wish I was involved in the crafting of the DMCA and EU version; what they've done is criminised the act of breaking the encryption (which IMHO was protected enough already) when what they should have done is made the act of breaking the agreement illigal such that the rules set forth in the software where a legaly binding contract. if you make software that breaks the rules then you put yourself in legal jeperdy. open source or not it doesn't matter.

If these laws where built with open source in mind instead of proprietary software we wouldn't be doing daft thing, trying to hide information from people in obscure ways. any first year network tech will tell you that security by obscurity is no solution. we could do with sane laws that accommodate the creation of open source content players.

I might add that it would also help those who want to point out the comical rules that some media corps want to enforce; by codifying them they will allow the courts to decide which rules are and are not allowed to be broken; so a player only has to abide by rules which the courts say are fair not just what ever rules a corp thinks is fair.

isotonic

June 25th, 2007, 09:12 PM

H.E. Pennypacker

June 25th, 2007, 09:19 PM

I hope British people will not stand this, and will fight it. I don't live in England (obviously), but I am pretty sure you all pay taxes that fund BBC. It should stay open and available to the public.

floke

June 25th, 2007, 09:22 PM

Here is what the BBC said in reply to my complaint:
--
Thank you for your e-mail.

Firstly, I apologise for the delay in our reply. We know our correspondents appreciate a quick response, and it is a matter of regret to us that you have had to wait for so long on this occasion.

This issue was addressed by our 'Newswatch' programme. The item can be viewed at the link to the right of the webpage below:

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?scope=all&edition=d&q=newswatch+microsoft

The video is entitled 'Is the BBC too soft on Microsoft?"

In the meantime rest assured that your comments have been registered for BBC Management.

Thank you again for contacting us.
--

Since you need RealPLayer or somesuchthing to watch the damn link I have never actually got a proper 'response' - so if anyone wants to watch it can you let me know what it says ;)

puppy

June 25th, 2007, 09:42 PM

Well I have posted my complaint - it's ticked me off no end that RealPlayer is the only way to replay radio programs etc - very annoying!

H.E. Pennypacker

June 25th, 2007, 10:43 PM

Since you need RealPLayer or somesuchthing to watch the damn link I have never actually got a proper 'response' - so if anyone wants to watch it can you let me know what it says ;)

I am on PCLos right now, and I assume it comes with RP support, but it's not working. Here's the error:

403 - Forbidden.
This might be because:

* Access to this page is forbidden. This page cannot be displayed.
* An unexpected error may have occurred.

Please click the back button to try another link.

It won't even allow me to go back and select WMP.

floke

June 25th, 2007, 10:45 PM

Maybe they upgraded it so you need Vista ;)

kelvin spratt

June 25th, 2007, 10:46 PM

Slyck.Com are running with this with several links and comment from the BBC

Redache

June 25th, 2007, 11:25 PM

ugh, typical. I knew the BBC would never launch a player that would work on anything but windows. They promise they'll have a Mac one ready, but how long will that take, day's, months, years?. Forever probably.

Britain's turning into this amalgamation of American culture that picks out all the bad bits but throws in some pompous staggering to make it seem OK.

Ofcom are worse than bloody useless. The best thing they have done is not destroy most of the communications infrastructure (not that there's anything worth destroying) if they did their jobs BT wouldn't be allowed to bully other ISP's, We'd have a better Telecommunications infrastructure and the BBC would not have an OS specific media player.

I get the radio problems, obviously there's copyrighted material on it so they have to be very careful with how they allow users to interact with it but when it's the BBC's own content I don't see what commercial investment they are protecting. In essence we all own parts of the BBC's programmes through the 100 quid or so we pay a year. I own 1/150000 of EastEnders and I want to be able to watch it on-line.

The BBC seem to be getting more unaware of what the shareholders really want. We don't want an OS specific media player, we want to be able to use it on whatever OS we choose and I hate those marketing assessments, they're never accurate and they are usually governed by ignorance of all the facts.

Sort it out BBC.

Swab

June 25th, 2007, 11:37 PM

Where is the need for DRM?

The BBC is beaming out it's programming unrestricted via freeview, on bskyb, and apparently they'll have their own freeview satellite soon. This stuff is already paid for by us and its already out there.

The beeb say they don't have the right to put some of their own content online without DRM because some of the content was made by third parties. And this is not foreign programming. This is British stuff that they farmed out. But wait, if they commissioned it then they should be the ones dictating the license! The whole thing is total BS.

Sadly, I fear nobody will care. We can scream all we like. The Windows using world will enjoy this new service without a moments thought. It'll just be one more reason to never leave the Windows platform.

beercz

June 26th, 2007, 10:21 AM

The situation may change ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6236612.stm

darrenm

June 26th, 2007, 12:09 PM

I'm getting sick of the popular media ignoring there is such thing as Linux. The BBC are the worst offenders. Its like in that story:
"It is not possible to put an exact timeframe on when BBC iPlayer will be available for Mac users. However, we are working to ensure this happens as soon as possible and the BBC Trust will be monitoring progress on a six monthly basis." There are quite definitely more Linux desktop users in the UK than there are Mac users but it just gets conveniently ignored.

DrMega

June 26th, 2007, 01:06 PM

What about those without a computer? Should they too complain and ask for their money back, as they won't be able to access this service (or, indeed, any of the beeb's online services)? They're another minority who pay for something they don't use - but I don't see any massive revolt.

I think these people should make a fuss. If you've ever been in a situation where, for perfectly legitimate reasons, you don't have a TV license (for example if you've moved house and cancelled your license because you've moved in with another license holder), you'll know that they give you hell and threaten all kinds of legal action against you, even though you're in the right.

What the BBC is doing is effectively forcing people who are not keeping up with technology, ordinary folk, peoples parents typically, to contribute to the funding of services they don't want and have no use for. If you went to buy a new computer and you opted out of pre-installed Windows, choosing instead to just pay for the hardware that you want and have a use for, and then the seller threatened you with legal action on the incorrect assumption that you're probably going to use Windows illegally, would you stand for it?

The thing is, we'll all just whinge and then let the BBC, and other organisations (such as Sky with its OnDemand servcie) do as they please, and they'll get away with it, then we'll all complain some more.

DrMega

June 26th, 2007, 01:17 PM

There are quite definitely more Linux desktop users in the UK than there are Mac users but it just gets conveniently ignored.
We get ignored because the general Linux community refuses to be counted. Nobody wants to on any official stats, and there are only very general guesses as to how many of us there are.

DoctorMO

June 26th, 2007, 01:55 PM

Hmmm, considering everything the BBC has been saying. they just want some platform agnostic DRM thing right? doesn't seem to be beond the wit of man to do the following:

Ogg container format, Vorbis (sound) + Theora (video) streamed over torrents, seeded by the bbc; encrypted per show with chunks missing as random intervals. (thus bulk of data is transmitted over torrent)
Pre agreement with key signed from TCM chip or dongle for older computers (so one computer per license fee) where the computer hand shakes with the BBC for decrypting keys and the missing bits as required during playback; agreements can be handled as part of the license fee billing if required.
(this is the radical part) where someone has through wit for what ever reason to overcome all obsticals, we can a) let them get away with it, b) find out the leaker with the missing chunk info and aid... c) the courts and their due legal process over the matter of copyright infringement.

"Boil my brains, it's not like someone has asked us to eat 10 raw pigs for breakfast"

This requires two compromises from each side, 1) that the corps should not expect full control or technical firepower and 2) foss makes use of encryption and the tcm chip (already in the linux kernel) to implement a drm scheme that is open source.

The fact that you could change the source code to break the agreements does not mean that it would be right to do so or that the software community in general would support such hacking. it's all about how easy you make it for people to access the content legally.