BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to watch to catch up with their favourite shows

[C E Macfarlane]

Please see below for further OT discussion, otherwise please ignore ...

www.macfh.co.uk/CEMH.html

>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: get_iplayer [mailto:get_iplayer-bounces at lists.infradead.org]On
>     Behalf Of Jim web
>     Sent: 16 May 2016 13:53
>     To: get_iplayer at lists.infradead.org
>     Subject: Re: BBC iPlayer viewers now need a TV licence to
>     watch to catch
>     up with their favourite shows
>
>
>     In article
>     <PHEAIHCMJKHMHMOFBPOGGEDLCOAA.c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk>,
>        C E Macfarlane <c.e.macfarlane at macfh.co.uk> wrote:
>
>     > :-(	The number of recent BBC changes that have broken
>     or withdrawn
>     > 	THEIR OWN services such as iPlayer even on
>     comparatively recently
>     > 	purchased consumer equipment tells you that
>     habitually they fail
>     > 	to plan ahead.
>
>     Or that the makers of said "consumer equipment" fail to keep
>     up having been
>     given opportunities to be informed/involved. The BBC don't
>     make or sell
>     smart TVs, etc. They *have* had discussions, etc, with makers
>     in advance
>     about iplayer changes. If the BBC had never changed until all
>     the makers of
>     'smart' (sic) TVs, 'net' radios, etc, did we'd probably still
>     be stuck with
>     low-rate WMA and Flash.

You've raised this before, and you were as wrong then as before.  The BBC
seems to be living in the past of twenty or more years ago where what it
said, happened, but everyone else can see that this is no longer the case.
The UK audio-visual equipment market is now a tiny drop in a global ocean,
and no manufacturer can be expected to be continually making adjustments to
their equipment for the sole benefit of the BBC and/or UK consumers.  The
NUMBER, note that particular word, of changes introduced by the BBC over
recent years that have broken consumer equipment is way beyond what any
global manufacturer can reasonably be expected to allow for.

>     But once again, you're using this list for purposes different
>     to why it is
>     provided.

As are you, and, worse still, you are going over ground that has been more
than adequately covered before.