Spalpeen

Nice to see that the Telegraph continues to concern itself with pertinent issues that very strongly influence the shape of the English nation.

A useless part of the male wardrobe? A useless part of the discussion about the shape of television news in England, more like. Even if I strongly respect Paxman and Snow (and I do!), it’s almost too obvious to see how these guys are taking their eyes off the ball. Maybe in five years Paxman will start blogging about something important (like oh, I dunno: the process behind Newsnight?) and the Telegraph will understand the concept of linking to its sources (Jeremy Paxman has a blog? LINK ME TO IT!).

Right now, talking about ties seems to be the “news world’s” equivalent of blogging about your cat!

I think the bunch of ‘em should take a look at the UK indie music scene. If a bunch of pretentious musicians in their late-teens / early twenties think it’s cool to wear skinny ties straight out of the 70s, then the rest of the “cool” populace will probably come round to that thinking in no short order. A good thing then that people tend not to consider “coolness” an attribute to look for in a newscaster.

Ben Goldacre put together the definitive article on the BBC Panorama WiFi program. Starting with the Independent’s stupid headline the other week, the BBC followed up with a scaremongering report suggesting that WiFi causes illness. Where did they go to measure the WiFi signals? In a school: because they know that anything affecting children is at least three times as important as issues effecting adults…

It may actually turn out that WiFi is harmful to health, but until a study finds conclusive evidence that it is, we probably shouldn’t follow people around who sell tin-hats (as the BBC reporter did) and believe what they say.

Jesus, can the BBC get more cringeworthy? Some dude that has been working on the internet for the past 13 years is leaving, and the BBC has posted a nice little cute parting post for the guy. I would probably summarise the post like this:

“Oh my, how the internet has changed! It’s got all mature and stuff! Don’t you know: the internet is cool because it lets you display text and stuff all over the world? GLOBAL FUCKING AUDIENCE! It’s not a fad anymore y’know — BRITPOP! The early 90s! — We actually use the internet for real, important crap today. It’s like, all reminiscent and stuff. People used to think, like, the internet was for geeks n’shit. Broadcasters actually use computers. Woah. Web two point oh.”

Get with it Beeb. The potential for the internet is so frakin’ huge that I don’t want to see any sort of post like this for at least a couple of decades. A huge proportion of this country has grown up with the internet and doesn’t know what life is like without it. Get that through your publicly funded head! Stop freaking navel gazing and get into THE NOW.

There isn’t a day that goes by without the BBC hitting a “blogosphere” story that was yesterday’s news. Dump the whole process for writing news; stop asking image owners for permission to use images and lobby the Government for a US style “fair use” policy in the UK. Tell your bloggers to stop referring to the journalistic process in their blogs (we get it, you’re better than us). One of the best examples I saw was a BBC blogger writing in his first blog post — at DAVOS — was that the current post was his first blog post ever. Can you get more cliched than that? Take those crappy “headshot” images off of each of your blog posts. I mean, the BBC blogs don’t even have a “next page”: once you’ve reached the last blog post on that page, that’s it. How come only a single section of BBC.com/news has a regular link to what normal people are discussing on the internet?

There are so many bloody problems with the BBC “online”. There’s a reason why a bunch of people with little to no journalism experience are kicking their arses. There’s a reason why the BBC has to ask the public whether or not they should give all taxpayers access to BBC content online. They don’t have time to reminisce.

I’m currently filling in my public consult of the iPlayer on-demand service for the BBC. Please, if you live in the UK and pay a license fee, fill this in and congratulate the trust on recognising the need for a DRM-free solution, whilst also criticising them for not setting out procedures for opening up the entire BBC archive for viewing online. My questions and answers below:

Do you agree with the BBC Trust’s proposal to approve the new BBC on-demand services, subject to the modifications outlined in the Trust’s report of its provisional conclusions?

Yes, I absolutely agree with the approval of the BBC’s on-demand services: it will significantly add to the value of the BBC’s content. The ratio of costs to benefits makes it a complete no-brainer that the BBC should be persuing a video on-demand service. However, I have reservations with some aspects of the proposal.

The concession for a mere 7-day catch up service is insane. Why should British license payers have to settle for this solution? We’ve paid for the content to be produced, so therefore we should have access to the content regardless of when we want to access it! Eventually I’d expect to see a complete archive of ALL the BBC’s content online at no cost to license payers. The 7-day solution cripples the solution by tying users to a specific time frame in order to watch content (i.e. it’s only a slightly improvement over the convenience of normal TV!)

I’m very encouraged by the report’s approval of a non-DRM solution! This is completely, 100% essential. DRM would completely cripple the BBC’s solution. This is an extremely encouraging development in the report. This HAS to be part of the final iPlayer.

In a market in which most broadcasters are expected to be offering on-demand services, would you agree that it is a priority for the BBC to be investing in this area?

Yes, in fact I would argue that competitors should not be taken into account with the iPlayer solution. It is inevitable that all broadcasters will eventually be submitting their content online, so why not offer the best solution now and pioneer the field?

The BBC Trust has proposed setting a limit of 30 days as the amount of time that programmes can be stored on a computer before being viewed. As this is a nascent market, there is currently no clear standard on the length of the storage window. On balance, the Trust thinks 30 days is the right length of time. How long do you think consumers should be able to store BBC programmes on their computers before viewing them?

Indefinitely. There should be absolutely no limits on when or where British license payers can view the content that they have paid for. Doesn’t this go hand-in-hand with the DRM-free aspect of the iPlayer?

If the Trust cannot accept anything other than a 30-day limit at the moment, then they should make plans for when competitors inevitably get rid of these kinds of limits, and set out plans for increasing this limit until it no longer exists. Again, I think the BBC should be the pioneer in this area.

The BBC Trust concluded that public value would be created by allowing series stacking. This would allow viewers to catch-up with all episodes of a series for the duration of its run. The Trust recognised that although it would provide increased opportunities to view BBC programmes, it could also deter people from buying DVDs or using commercial video-on-demand services. Do you consider series stacking to be a useful feature? What kind of series would you expect to be included? Should there be any limitation on the number of episodes of a series made available for catch-up or the length of time for which they can be viewed?

Why it the Trust paranoid over when or where people watch the BBC’s content? Allow people to watch whatever episodes they like in whatever order they like. Allow them to transfer the content to personal media players and mobile phones without restrictions.

Once the practicalities are out of the way, there should be no limitation on what the public can watch.

How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software?

This is the most important aspect of the iPlayer service. I cannot stress how important it is that the BBC does not go down the WinXP + Windows Media Player 9/10/11 route that other broadcasters are mistakenly taking.

Using a Microsoft DRM solution would be justifying Microsoft’s monopoly over the computer industry and would inconvenience or cut off the users of milllions of Mac, Linux, or other platforms. Content should be provided in an open format, so that it can be played on any platform.

Should the BBC be allowed to offer book readings from its radio services as audio downloads over the internet?

Yes. All BBC content should be made available online.

The BBC Trust concluded there was fine balance between public value and market impact in deciding whether to allow the BBC to offer audio downloads of classical music. While such downloads could help introduce new listeners to classical music, they could also deter purchases of commercial recordings. What is your view on whether - and to what extent - the BBC should be allowed to offer radio broadcasts of classical music as audio downloads over the internet?

I find it hard to value “market value” when the public are already paying for access to this content. I repeat, all content that the BBC has access to should be made available online!

How important is it to you that the BBC provides some means for parents to control which of its programmes are accessible on-demand to children? Is such a facility necessary or is it more a matter for parents to exercise controls over how children use the internet?

Since the BBC seems concerned with how its competitors do things, I wouldn’t be worried if the BBC’s parental control system emulated its competitors: a simple warning that the content is adult should suffice, although I’m not opposed to a login system for children that parents could control.

What are your views on whether the BBC should offer content from non-BBC providers on the on-demand service on its website?

Why not? I don’t see a problem here. The BBC should be encouraging third parties to submit their content for display on the web. The BBC should also create an “indie zone” for valuable content from individuals that would like an outlet for their work.

What are your views on whether and how the BBC should make available on-demand content on services run by other providers - such as multi-channel services or internet-based audio and video downloading services?

What would be the point? If the BBC’s on-demand solution is fully comprehensive and accessible to all at any time on any platform, then what would be the need to syndicate the content? Saying all that, I don’t have a problem with the BBC syndicating content, as long as it’s readily available on the iPlayer service.

Do the revisions proposed to BBC Service Licences to allow the new services to go ahead seem appropriate?

Yes, absolutely. I’d be willing to pay even more for a complete system as I have outlined in my earlier answers.

Are there any other issues you would like the BBC Trust to consider in relation to the proposed services?

I’d argue that this is the most important issue that the BBC will face over the next decade as distribution for video content switches from TV to the internet. As long as the BBC goes the route of comprehensive and complete access to all its archives with no restrictions on what people can watch, when they can watch it, and on what platforms they can watch it on, the BBC will pioneer a new era of television.