__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 14 March 2007 14:14 \__
> [H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Verily I say unto thee, that Rudolph Hooker spake thusly:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Open sourcers wave handbags at BBC
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | "This action from the BBC effectively promotes one operating system
>>>> | vendor at the expense of others," says OSC Chief Executive Iain
>>>> | Roberts. "It is very disturbing that the BBC should be using
>>>> | licence payers' money to affect the operating system market in
>>>> | this way. Imagine if the BBC were to launch new digitial (sic)
>>>> | channels, but only make them available on a certain make of
>>>> | television - there would be uproar."
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38183
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You missed the important bit at the end of the article:
>>>
>>> ---[Quote]
>>>
>>> Perhaps the open saucers are forgetting that the BBC is a public service
>>> broadcaster whose duty is to supply as many people as possible with a
>>> service within a very tight budget. By using WMP as the basis of the
>>> iPlayer, the Beeb will reach 90 per cent of the population with a single
>>> player. It is unlikely that the lack of an iPlayer service for the UK's
>>> 15 Solaris users played much of a part in this particular business
>>> decision.
>>
>> The (obviously bigoted) author's interpretation of this public services
>> company's "duty" is a bit inaccurate, isn't it? The BBC has a duty to
>> provide an *equal* service level to *all* it's subscribers, not "as many
>> as possible".
>>
>> If I pay for a service, I expect to receive it, not be told "sorry we
>> only provide the service *you have paid for* to other people."
>>
>> IMO if the BBC cannot provide an Open Standards solution for this
>> service, they should either withdraw it entirely (until such times as
>> they *can*) or partially refund those subscribers who are unable to
>> receive it.
>>
>>> 15 Users? That many???
>>
>> Regardless of how many users it is, the principle stands; you simply
>> cannot charge customers for services that they can not possibly use.
>>
>> Additionally, in the case of the BBC, it is a publicly funded utility,
>> governed by a charter specifically deigned to ensure accountability and
>> fairness, prevent bias and favouritism, and ensure the BBC does not
>> abuse it's relationship with third parties in such a way as to violate
>> that charter.
>>
>
> As you say, the BBC has to broadcast to everyone, not just a select
> proportion that happen to use a particular version of a particular
> company's proprietary products. In any case, the DRM requirement is
> completely daft - the BBC broadcasts en-clair anyway.
They had some media collaboration with YouTube (Google) and IBM recently. The
two were independent. I wonder how/if it fits the puzzle.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Error, no keyboard - press F1 to continue"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Mem: 514480k total, 397656k used, 116824k free, 24772k buffers
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
