Live TV pining for the fjords

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <545F6D8A.4090307 at gmail.com>,
 [snip]
> Jim

> I suspected when I asked the question that your relationship with HFN 
> might be as you describe.

> Bit OT here but I used to get all the printed Hi Fi Mags back in the 
> day, but like everybody else I just read such things online.  A complete 
> other discussion not appropriate here but I'd put in a personal plug for 
> Stereophile on line.

I also read Stereophile but find it real PITA to re-subscribe to the print
version. For some reason this tends to be an obstacle course!

> My problem in the context of this debate is that you appear to have 
> something to say and I and others can't read it.

Understood. The column is mainly aimed at drawing attention to the area and
asking for views / experiences from readers. Curious to see how many audio
fans are concerned or affected. It explores the issue that there is an
apparent conflict of interest for the BBC between its duty to its
fee-paying viewers/listeners who pay for the BBC made/commissioned content
and the legal vultures of the commercial companies whose films, etc, they
want to show. And invite readers to express their views.

Beyond that I can only give some views of my own separate from the column
as such. (Some of this may end up on a webpage. :-) )

Personally, I feel that for BBC funded/made/commissioned content they
should make the material as freely and flexibly available as possible. i.e.
including access via get_iplayer, etc, or suitable updates of them.
Although they may have to limit access to items they are 'hiring a
broadcast of' like a one-off showing of a feature film because otherwise
they can't show it at all, or it would cost far too much.

I'd agree though that this is fundamentally daft given that anyone with a
clue and the kit can do things like capture the transport stream from, say,
a Freeview broadcast. Its the usual clash of cultures between 'engineers'
and 'lawyers' to use simple labels. Been going on since the days they kept
trying to make it impossible to tape an LP. :-)

My impression is that 'engineers' at the BBC are working towards making as
much content as possible as widely accessible as possible. There is a
declared long-term aspiration to approach eventually *all possible* content
being available as an archive on line. But the lawyers/suits are concerned
with income from non-fee streams and the costs of showing material that the
BBC didn't make or own. Particularly as the fee continues to be under
political threat and the income is squeezed. There is also, of course, the
sheer costs of the ever-bigger server systems, etc, required. (Note that
the first attempt to make things available for 30 days lead to the system
constipating and it had to be backed out.)

I can therefore see both sides, but am by nature and nurture an engineer
not a suit. :-)

For that reason I do have sympathy for people working at the BBC. What they
can say in public isn't always what they may wish to really say. Ditto for
what they do. I guess that's the reason some of the actions look odd and
the statements are sometimes rather 'bullshit bingo' worded. And many of
them really do want the system to get better in ways I suspect we'd
welcome.

I've skated around my actual column, but I hope that helps in terms of my
own views, etc. I would like get_iplayer, XBMC, etc to stay operational in
user terms, so hope a decent way forward is found. That may mean some
polite persuasion of the BBC and giving them some elbow-room though, to
enable those inside with one view to in turn persuade the other.

The aim is probably better served by trying to get the BBC 'on side' in
terms of having get_iplayer/etc seen as useful for 'ordinary' fee-paying
users or special groups in terms of disabled access. Angry arguments from
people they see as 'nerds' probably wouldn't help. This is politics with a
small 'p'. 

I do speak with some people at the BBC, and get some info from them. But
can't be specific here. The above comments are my views in my words, not
theirs. And at times I'm as baffled as anyone else by some of the actions
of the BBC. e.g. ending the feeds with no warning at all seemed unwise to
me, regardless of the reasons.

Jim

-- 
Electronics  http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc  http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html