Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 7 Nov 2007, at 06:00, Brian Butterworth wrote: On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. I guess you can provide some evidence for this? You suggested that the collection costs should be moved from the current operation to the ISPs, you did not provide any reasoning as to why it should be cheaper to move that cost from one dedicated organisation to multiple organisations that exist for a different purpose. So I continue to hold the point that the costs are just moved, not reduced in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Similar hare brained schemes have been suggested for music, they were deeply unpopular with the ISP community, as would this. I care not. The idea of doing it for music is dumb. The idea of moving the TV licence to broadband connections is not. It has been popular since the 1980s for people to act as selfish as possible and moan about taxes, but my suggestion is simply transferring one tax - a hypotocated one - from one device to another! The objection is not paying the tax, it is moving the collection and attendant costs to multiple third parties. As an aside why should I pay to receive TV over my business connections to sites that don't even have monitors installed ? Businesses have to have a TV licence if they have TVs. I can't see why businesses should not continue to contribute to Auntie. I presume from your comments you are a close the BBC person? My point was how do you tell if a broad band or leased line connection needs to pay under your TV licence model. Why does moving the collection to the ISPs that operate with tiny margins in the access business make it a cheaper collection? BTW No I am not a close the BBC person. Perhaps you could take your advice from a later message and cut out the ad hominum attacks? f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. I guess you can provide some evidence for this? The UK couldn't move to such a model. Yet. A BBC Licence collected by Internet ISPs as an idea fine. But what if you don't have an internet connection? Apparently UK internet penetration is 63.8% - 39m ish - in 2006. http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/uk.htm Not all of which is broadband of course. Indeed, it's believed only about 12m people had broadband in 2006 http://www.bizreport.com/2007/03/uk_broadband_penetration_and_online_ad_ spend_on_the_up.html Those on dialup might not be using pay-monthly accounts, but pay-as-you-go. So how to collect the money for a BBC licence? How to ensure those without broadband, without dialup pay their share? That would require a seperate system, which then has to talk to talk to the ISPs to check whether each household has paid their share. Then there's simple matters like handling customer transfers It's sounding more complex by the minute to me! Maybe we could move to it. Maybe it's a levy the government charges flat rate style on number of subscribers - although it still requires greater penetration of the internet in peoples homes. Next time the BBC's funding model comes up for graps will be around 2012. And no doubt the government of the time will think through all this and suggest such a model. But the circumstances would have to be right.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get you kicked if someone complained about your behavior. Also, please don't top-post, it's considered bad form. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
LOL On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get you kicked if someone complained about your behavior. Also, please don't top-post, it's considered bad form. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 07/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. I guess you can provide some evidence for this? The UK couldn't move to such a model. Yet. Of couse it could, you could simply have a licence that covered either a TV OR a broadband connection.There is still a black-and-white licence, there still will be after 2012, there used to be a radio licence that overlapped with the TV one. A BBC Licence collected by Internet ISPs as an idea fine. But what if you don't have an internet connection? Apparently UK internet penetration is 63.8% - 39m ish - in 2006. http://www.internetworldstats.com/eu/uk.htm Not all of which is broadband of course. Indeed, it's believed only about 12m people had broadband in 2006 http://www.bizreport.com/2007/03/uk_broadband_penetration_and_online_ad_spend_on_the_up.html Those on dialup might not be using pay-monthly accounts, but pay-as-you-go. So how to collect the money for a BBC licence? How to ensure those without broadband, without dialup pay their share? That would require a seperate system, which then has to talk to talk to the ISPs to check whether each household has paid their share. Then there's simple matters like handling customer transfers It's sounding more complex by the minute to me! Maybe we could move to it. Maybe it's a levy the government charges flat rate style on number of subscribers - although it still requires greater penetration of the internet in peoples homes. Next time the BBC's funding model comes up for graps will be around 2012. And no doubt the government of the time will think through all this and suggest such a model. But the circumstances would have to be right. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:03, Brian Butterworth wrote: On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. Did you not see the word installed in that paragraph? I think we merely disagree on what the words installed and operate mean. Something that is merely installed and *able* to be operated but isn't actually operated would match the wording for example. (after all the wording is installed OR used not installed AND used) Minor detail, though and I hate pedantry and I think we largely agree anyway since you were saying I was wrong about something I wasn't actually talking about :-D (Someone was saying it was about using a broadcast tuning circuit (essentially) whereas actually its about a television programme service over any mechanism.) Fundamentally, my ADSL connection is not subject to a TV license as a result because it is not installed or used for the purpose of receiving a television programme service. Until the quality I can get over my DSL connection is as good or exceeds that of the broadcast mechanism I doubt that'll change. That's incidentally the problem of saying just add it to your ISP bill btw. The majority of domestic TVs *are* used for receiving a TV service. The majority of network connections aren't. Also, all analogue TVs can receive BBC channels and all freeview TVs in a zone with coverage can likewise. A significant chunk of computer users *don't*, *won't* (until quality/service matches or exceeds broadcast) and *can't* - eg for iPlayer this means users of Windows Vista, 95, 98, ME, XP SP1, Mac OS X, Linux[1], FreeBSD, Solaris, etc OR those who don't know how to upgrade their software. That or else you change the fundamental aspect of the TV license vs a normal tax - that you *can* opt out the TV license by not doing something requiring it. (And I do have friends in that category) In this, are you saying those that don't install/use it for that, won't install/use it for that and those that can't install/use it for that MUST pay a license? Has there been a later act/amendment? Yes, there are a number of SIs that modify this Act. Cool, didn't know that. Don't suppose you know of somewhere that lists them? Seems to be useful on occasion. (eg knowing about the change about timeshifting only being OK on domestic premises etc) Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
I don¹t think it would do us any harm to be a little politer on here to each other sometimes But that¹s just me. In fact I¹m also of the opinion we should go back to signing all our letters with... Your obedient servant, m On 7/11/07 10:29, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get you kicked if someone complained about your behavior. Also, please don't top-post, it's considered bad form. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
I thought I was reponding to do not top post by top posting. It was supposed to be a joke. Sorry, if seemed otherwise. On 07/11/2007, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it would do us any harm to be a little politer on here to each other sometimes But that's just me. In fact I'm also of the opinion we should go back to signing all our letters with... Your obedient servant, m On 7/11/07 10:29, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL On 07/11/2007, *Noah Slater* [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get you kicked if someone complained about your behavior. Also, please don't top-post, it's considered bad form. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ http://www.bytesexual.org/+ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.ukhttp://backstage.bbc.co.uk/ discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9% What's a windows platform? It's the thing that stops PUTs on the Jubilee Line extension? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9% What's a windows platform? - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
NEVAR JOKE! TEH INTRAWEBS ARE SERIOUS F**KING BUSINESS. On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought I was reponding to do not top post by top posting. It was supposed to be a joke. Sorry, if seemed otherwise. On 07/11/2007, Matthew Cashmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think it would do us any harm to be a little politer on here to each other sometimes But that's just me. In fact I'm also of the opinion we should go back to signing all our letters with... Your obedient servant, m On 7/11/07 10:29, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. That's not an excuse for Ad Hominem attacks - which could easily get you kicked if someone complained about your behavior. Also, please don't top-post, it's considered bad form. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 07 November 2007 06:03, Brian Butterworth wrote: On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. Did you not see the word installed in that paragraph? I think we merely disagree on what the words installed and operate mean. Something that is merely installed and *able* to be operated but isn't actually operated would match the wording for example. (after all the wording is installed OR used not installed AND used) As I understand it, the licence is payable if the equipment is found, under the inspection of an appropriate officer, to be capable of receiving broadcast television. If you have a television set somewhere where a signal cannot be received, or the receiver circuity from the set is physically disabled, no licence is required. But just because the set is powered off, or because a single aerial cable has been disconnected, this would still require a licence. Minor detail, though and I hate pedantry and I think we largely agree anyway since you were saying I was wrong about something I wasn't actually talking about :-D The law is somewhat pedantic. (Someone was saying it was about using a broadcast tuning circuit (essentially) whereas actually its about a television programme service over any mechanism.) Fundamentally, my ADSL connection is not subject to a TV license as a result because it is not installed or used for the purpose of receiving a television programme service. Until the quality I can get over my DSL connection is as good or exceeds that of the broadcast mechanism I doubt that'll change. But, it could be. The Television Licence is one of the few hypothicated taxes. One option would be to simply say that a licence is required in the current TV rules OR if there is a broadband connection. Another option would be to equate a low-bandwidth link with the current monochrome licence. That's incidentally the problem of saying just add it to your ISP bill btw. The majority of domestic TVs *are* used for receiving a TV service. The majority of network connections aren't. Also, all analogue TVs can receive BBC channels and all freeview TVs in a zone with coverage can likewise. I only meant as a collection option. A law could be passed requiring the £12.50 to be taken by each ISP each month and handed over as a tax and you could opt out by providing your TV licence number. A significant chunk of computer users *don't*, *won't* (until quality/service matches or exceeds broadcast) and *can't* - eg for iPlayer this means users of Windows Vista, 95, 98, ME, XP SP1, Mac OS X, Linux[1], FreeBSD, Solaris, etc OR those who don't know how to upgrade their software. True, but my proposal was linked with a non-DRM, non-iPlayer distribution of content. That or else you change the fundamental aspect of the TV license vs a normal tax - that you *can* opt out the TV license by not doing something requiring it. (And I do have friends in that category) But there is an unfairness that is linked to people who do not pay the licence fee being able to listen to the radio and use the online services. In this, are you saying those that don't install/use it for that, won't install/use it for that and those that can't install/use it for that MUST pay a license? The licence fee is almost universal, this would simply provide a way to extend that universality into the future. It is my opinion that a hypothicated tax is good way to fund the BBC as it gives everyone the right to moan about it, which would not happen if the BBC was funded from direct taxation, as John Wittingdale MP wants: http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051282 Has there been a later act/amendment? Yes, there are a number of SIs that modify this Act. Cool, didn't know that. Don't suppose you know of somewhere that lists them?
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9% What's a windows platform? Last time I checked, it was an OS. My question was really, how do you run an OS on top of another OS. Or rather, why would you want to. -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
Noah Slater wrote: What's a windows platform? Last time I checked, it was an OS. My question was really, how do you run an OS on top of another OS. Or rather, why would you want to. For the heck of it, perhaps? (This post brought to you by Nexenta* running under VMWare Server on Ubuntu 7.10). *Solaris kernel and GNU userland - http://www.nexenta.org/os S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NEVAR JOKE! TEH INTRAWEBS ARE SERIOUS F**KING BUSINESS. And here I was thinking that they were just an ordinary series of tubes...
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again [off topic]
On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/11/2007, Noah Slater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Google OS (windows platform) 53.9% What's a windows platform? Last time I checked, it was an OS. My question was really, how do you run an OS on top of another OS. Or rather, why would you want to. Windows 95 contains the whole of Windows 3.11 with a Thunking Layer; Windows XP contains all MS operating system back to DOS. (Run command rather than cmd, for example). -- Noah Slater http://www.bytesexual.org/ Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. - R. Stallman - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it. I sometimes wonder what these sites are that still need spoofing cos I haven't been visiting them. I don't think I've used browser spoofing for about five years. Perhaps this says something about the websites I go to. winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote: The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Brian Butterworth said * Everyone currently has to pay the licenece fee, as long as they have equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts (from analogue terrestrial, Freeview, Sky/Freesat, cable or IPTV). Mr Highfield, as the BBC's representative, is breaking the trust of the Licence Fee payers HE has determined to ignore. The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. So you can use the iPlayer without paying the license fee. Kevin. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote: The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. My point was not what is currently the case. I am just pointing out that if the BBC content were distributed on the Internet in the same way as it is done via terrestrial analogue broadcasts (from 1074 transmitters), Freeview (from 81 transmitters, well done Whitehaven), satellite (http://www.lyngsat-maps.com/maps/astra2d.html) and cable (Virgin Media) ie as a non-DRM broadcast then as a political decision, it would be quite logical to argue that possession of an broadband Internet connection could be linked to having to pay a TV licence. Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. Actually if you re-read I was hypothesising, not claiming on the basis that the data was incomplete and therefore the claims were possibly unsubstantiated.. In fact I put up various DISCLAIMERS saying i knew various things probably weren't the case but that I still wanted to see the data to be sure. In the best of spirits, perhaps you would like to reread my email. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. Please tell me when I have passed any of these figures off as fact! I think you will find they are Theory all the way. You must be confusing me me with Ashley Highfield, he seems to do that sort of thing! You're not a homeopath are you? Sire, to say the least I am getting a little fed up of your attitude in regard to these comments. You are taking it a little bit far. Without having to point out that, medical(?) opinions have nothing to do with views on software. In fact, I find it quite depressing that someone such as yourself, engage in this sort of activity because I had previously thought it was not the way in which business is conducted on this mailing list, as I had anticipated a much more mature attitude from it's users. I don't think at any point I have been unreasonable or offensive in the least, but let me stand corrected if you can show how: - I have been offensive and deserved that comment. - I have written hypothetical figures off as fact. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Title: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. Similar hare brained schemes have been suggested for music, they were deeply unpopular with the ISP community, as would this. As an aside why should I pay to receive TV over my business connections to sites that don't even have monitors installed ? f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the whole blooming point. I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software developers ought not to have power over software users, which is the whole point of GNU/Linux - truly matters. It is a real shame that the BBC Trust and Management don't understand this principle. -- Regards, Dave Opinion expressed above is wholly my own and doesn't represent any employers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service. Has there been a later act/amendment? Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
At 01:36 + 7/11/07, Michael Sparks wrote: Has there been a later act/amendment? If the apparatus is not installed or used to receive television programme service then no licence is required. Unplugging the aerial and detuning the set are sufficient to render the apparatus un-installed and unable to receive the television programme service. Unplugging it and putting it in the attic would also be sufficient. f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Tim, The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. On 06/11/2007, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. Actually if you re-read I was hypothesising, not claiming on the basis that the data was incomplete and therefore the claims were possibly unsubstantiated.. In fact I put up various DISCLAIMERS saying i knew various things probably weren't the case but that I still wanted to see the data to be sure. In the best of spirits, perhaps you would like to reread my email. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. Please tell me when I have passed any of these figures off as fact! I think you will find they are Theory all the way. You must be confusing me me with Ashley Highfield, he seems to do that sort of thing! You're not a homeopath are you? Sire, to say the least I am getting a little fed up of your attitude in regard to these comments. You are taking it a little bit far. Without having to point out that, medical(?) opinions have nothing to do with views on software. In fact, I find it quite depressing that someone such as yourself, engage in this sort of activity because I had previously thought it was not the way in which business is conducted on this mailing list, as I had anticipated a much more mature attitude from it's users. I don't think at any point I have been unreasonable or offensive in the least, but let me stand corrected if you can show how: - I have been offensive and deserved that comment. - I have written hypothetical figures off as fact. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. I guess you can provide some evidence for this? Similar hare brained schemes have been suggested for music, they were deeply unpopular with the ISP community, as would this. I care not. The idea of doing it for music is dumb. The idea of moving the TV licence to broadband connections is not. It has been popular since the 1980s for people to act as selfish as possible and moan about taxes, but my suggestion is simply transferring one tax - a hypotocated one - from one device to another! As an aside why should I pay to receive TV over my business connections to sites that don't even have monitors installed ? Businesses have to have a TV licence if they have TVs. I can't see why businesses should not continue to contribute to Auntie. I presume from your comments you are a close the BBC person? f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the whole blooming point. I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software developers ought not to have power over software users, which is the whole point of GNU/Linux - truly matters. It is a real shame that the BBC Trust and Management don't understand this principle. I can't see much evidence of principles in any of their arguments. Same applies to Ofcom as well. -- Regards, Dave Opinion expressed above is wholly my own and doesn't represent any employers. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. Did you not see the word installed in that paragraph? (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service. Has there been a later act/amendment? Yes, there are a number of SIs that modify this Act. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
I said: I'll see if I can get Linux stats for you. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html Here's what you get from Sage if you ask for a report on OS Type (as announced in the User-Agent string) and User numbers, over the month of September 2007. This isn't exactly the data that Ashley is using but I thought it might be useful for you to see the data we see. For *.bbc.co.uk: OS Type Users % of Total Users Windows 247,012,744 88.74 Macintosh 17,353,438 6.23 Nokia 3,675,224 1.32 Liberate2,784,762 1 SonyEricsson2,116,766 0.76 BlackBerry 1,921,066 0.69 Motorola1,062,323 0.38 Symbian 925,465 0.33 Samsung 802,450 0.29 LG 216,972 0.08 Orange 134,995 0.05 Sagem 104,371 0.04 TMobile 61,687 0.02 O2 39,747 0.01 Sharp 38,373 0.01 NEC 30,606 0.01 Panasonic 16,369 0.01 Linux 15,886 0.01 Sprint 13,175 0 BenQ12,008 0 DOS 9,300 0 Philips 5,853 0 VK 3,926 0 ZTE 3,523 0 Unix3,224 0 Sanyo 1,656 0 Toshiba 1,236 0 Siemens 1,067 0 Sun 539 0 Linux-gnu 171 0 IRIX88 0 AIX 85 0 HP-UX 48 0 Treo30 0 OSF111 0 Palm11 0 Lobster 10 0 Nextel 2 0 Total: 278,369,207 For news.bbc.co.uk only: OS Type Users % of Total Users Windows 113,519,850 90.49 Macintosh 10,866,724 8.66 BlackBerry 363,497 0.29 SonyEricsson180,916 0.14 Symbian 161,462 0.13 Nokia 150,007 0.12 Orange 54,518 0.04 Motorola52,587 0.04 TMobile 22,694 0.02 Samsung 20,939 0.02 O2 11,315 0.01 NEC 9,684 0.01 LG 8,218 0.01 Sprint 7,338 0.01 Linux 6,832 0.01 Unix2,764 0 VK 1,052 0 DOS 1,026 0 Sharp 968 0 ZTE 318 0 Sun 308 0 Sagem 265 0 Liberate187 0 Toshiba 175 0 Sanyo 116 0 BenQ91 0 Linux-gnu 86 0 Siemens 77 0 Philips 62 0 IRIX49 0 AIX 42 0 HP-UX 32 0 Panasonic 25 0 Treo10 0 OSF110 0 Palm10 0 Lobster 8 0 Nextel 1 0 Total: 125,444,263 Kevin. -- Kevin Hinde Head of Software Development, Journalism BBC Future Media Technology BC3 C1, Broadcast Centre t: 020 800 84725 m: 0771 501 2424 aim:kwdhinde - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
I always hate that term community in this sense - because not all Linux users are the same after all. And I've seen plenty of Mac fans do similar things (usually when someone is critising their beloved Apple!) Anyway, where's the Windows community in all this ;) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 05 November 2007 14:50 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
The Windows community is patiently waiting for the Vista version of course :) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: 05 November 2007 14:58 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again I always hate that term community in this sense - because not all Linux users are the same after all. And I've seen plenty of Mac fans do similar things (usually when someone is critising their beloved Apple!) Anyway, where's the Windows community in all this ;) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 05 November 2007 14:50 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Absolutly. Not all Linux users are the same at all. I know some who are perfectly happy to accept that they've made their own decision about which OS to use, for whatever reason, and realise that because of that choice, they're going to have to make some sacrifices which may or may not outweigh the advantages. There are some on this list. The community that shouts the loudest is the one that doesn't realise this, and shouts; Bleat, bleat, me me me, bleat, I want it and I'll cry if I can't have it, bleat bleat, Slashdot, bleat bleat boo hoo IT'S NOT FAIR!!! at every perceived injustice, or slight on their beloved OS. They're the ones who royally p*** me off. I realise that that isn't every Linux user (by a long way), and I apologise for appearing to tar them all wth the same brush. Cheers, Rich. On 11/5/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I always hate that term community in this sense - because not all Linux users are the same after all. And I've seen plenty of Mac fans do similar things (usually when someone is critising their beloved Apple!) Anyway, where's the Windows community in all this ;) -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Richard Lockwood *Sent:* 05 November 2007 14:50 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again And it appears the Linux community has managed to ignore what he has to say and has organised a let's shout him down louder and louder until someone takes some notice of us party. No positive suggestions, just bleat bleat bleat we hate you... As ever. Cheers, R. Ashley has posted an update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/linux_figures_1.html -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Considering, Ashley's recent interview on backstage podcast, in which he tries to dispel some of the displease aimed at the iPlayer from the Free Software and Open Source Communities, it is quite unfortunate that he has made such a public mistake at their expense, in the past few days. Considering the Communities are apparently as small as 15,000 users, I am surprised we have been able to be so vocal. (Yes I am suggesting that practically every GNU+Linux user with a user agent string including linux visits at least one page on the BBC, once a month.) My question to Kevin Hinde would be, how many users are we unsure of their Operating system? Where are they classed? For example, I have a small blog and I have some visitor statistics (using bbclone) on that. The 3rd most popular operating system is ? ie unrecognised. for an example see http://bbclone.de/demo/ The BBC must have similar results, whose OS it can't distinguish, if so where are these? This is important because many Free software web browsers, in particular those on GNU+Linux obscure, miss out, or fake the UA String. This is sometimes done for privacy; not wanting an easy way to work out which exploit get which box. more often than not it is done because some silly software designers think that on some websites (obviously not BBC, tends to be Educational Software Vendors in my experience) they can show the user something saying this site is not compatible with you browser, operating system etc. Obviously UA strings can be faked, indeed there is a firefox extension that I currently have installed which lets me change it to show me running what ever browser on what ever platform I want. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
My question to Kevin Hinde would be, how many users are we unsure of their Operating system? Where are they classed? For example, I have a small blog and I have some visitor statistics (using bbclone) on that. The 3rd most popular operating system is ? ie unrecognised. for an example see http://bbclone.de/demo/ The BBC must have similar results, whose OS it can't distinguish, if so where are these? data from a mainstream non-BBC site (c2m UK users a month) Windows 95.1 % Macintosh 3.2 % Unknown 1 % Linux 0.5 % - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it. (Sounds of straws being grasped) At no point have I stated 30% etc and you know that. Try backing up what you say with facts rather than a bit of fiction that everyone 1/2 believes. I wish I could say 30% of all BBC traffic was GNU+Linux. But i believe that would be lying. Just because I made a suggestion, you don't have to immediately ridicule it on the grounds that you don't like the camp I originate from because of your perceptions about GNU+Linux as a platform v windows v mac. I have not said that I hate the BBC, or anything of the sort, but if I do not stand up for what I believe in, there is no way I can guarantee anyone else will do it for me. No the only reason I am actually arguuinging this seemingly pointless point, is because I think the iPlayer has fantastic potential and that the BBC is an awesome resource that we can't afford let fall apart. But let's leave this petty disagreement aside and start afresh. If we assume that all unknowns are GNU+Linux (stupid and highly likely, untrue but just consider it) and that known linux vists are a half of all unknown visits (which for now we are assuming are linux) that means, in terms of the BBC site, going by the statistics above, we could be talking about in the region of 45,000(15000 + (2*15,000)) BBC GNU+Linux users I Think my maths is correct, if it's not my apologies, please correct me! My logic, well i know we don't know who the unknowns are or why they are unknown so one can only speculate there. ( I have) On 05/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Windows 95.1 % Macintosh 3.2 % Unknown 1 % Linux 0.5 % What I was, and still am, interested to know is how many Unknown hits the BBC gets. whether it makes any difference to the GNU+Linux or not, it still would be comforting to see these numbers because it would make sure that nothing funny was being done with them. IT also would be good because it would tell us that the BBC didn't regard their software as 100% accurate, which I'm sure is something nobody would say, but is currently being implied.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 11/6/07, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 05/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it. (Sounds of straws being grasped) At no point have I stated 30% etc and you know that. Try backing up what you say with facts rather than a bit of fiction that everyone 1/2 believes. Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. You're not a homeopath are you? Rich.
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Whether it was deliberately misleading I couldn't say. I suppose my opinion will depend on whether he corrects himself or lets the misunderstanding stand. It was certainly a derogatory remark to make about the size and implied importance/relevance of the linux community. Ashley now contributes to the BBC Internet team(s) group blog http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ which launched this week. We've asked him to share more detail about the source of the figures as obviously its been mentioned on this list and in a few other blogs/forums over the last couple of days. He's putting together a round up post of the comments following the reaction to his interviews/podcast this week. for later today i think. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/10/its_good_to_talk.html a sister blog to the existing Editors' blogs for News and Sport. A place where we, senior staff from BBC Future Media teams will talk about issues raised by you about the technology behind bbc.co.uk, our mobile services and the BBC's presence on the internet. Jem
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Matt Hammond wrote: If the usage profile of those linux users is broadly comparable to those of the other platforms you're probably right. One other thought: Ashley Highfield's comments may only relate to the main www.bbc.co.uk site - excluding BBC news. Historically the news have run and managed a separate operation iirc (though that may now be changing). It's separate webservers and a separate ops team, but there has always been some shared infrastructure. I'll see if I can get Linux stats for you. Kevin. -- Kevin Hinde Head of Software Development, Journalism BBC Future Media Technology BC3 C1, Broadcast Centre t: 020 800 84725 m: 0771 501 2424 aim:kwdhinde - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:54:03 -, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Hammond wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Still comparing apples and apples though: We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. So there does appear to be a mess somewhere... If the usage profile of those linux users is broadly comparable to those of the other platforms you're probably right. One other thought: Ashley Highfield's comments may only relate to the main www.bbc.co.uk site - excluding BBC news. Historically the news have run and managed a separate operation iirc (though that may now be changing). Site stats were (are still?) collected separately for the two. What if, like myself, other linux users tend to visit news.bbc.co.uk but not www.bbc.co.uk? Matt -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, FMT, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Matt Hammond wrote: On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:54:03 -, David Greaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Hammond wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Still comparing apples and apples though: We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. So there does appear to be a mess somewhere... If the usage profile of those linux users is broadly comparable to those of the other platforms you're probably right. One other thought: Ashley Highfield's comments may only relate to the main www.bbc.co.uk site - excluding BBC news. Historically the news have run and managed a separate operation iirc (though that may now be changing). Site stats were (are still?) collected separately for the two. What if, like myself, other linux users tend to visit news.bbc.co.uk but not www.bbc.co.uk? I just visited www.bbc.co.uk. I can see why no-one would visit that page other than to browse for links... I wonder if linux users probably are more tech savvy and may use deep-links automatically whereas more PC users may tend to go to the home page. In either case I strongly suspect that the picture he's portraying is highly misleading although it *may* even be technically true. Whether it was deliberately misleading I couldn't say. I suppose my opinion will depend on whether he corrects himself or lets the misunderstanding stand. It was certainly a derogatory remark to make about the size and implied importance/relevance of the linux community. David - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions). Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000. Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600! I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere down the line :) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of vijay chopra Sent: 01 November 2007 16:52 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again Just read this http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/internet-and-broadband/news/bbc-not-in- bed-with-bill-gates-over-iplayer?articleid=36522951 interview with Mr Highfield Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as justification for the corporation's XP-only release. We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. (via slashdot http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/01/133259 ) Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on their mobile phones than that. Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some more research into your audience is in order?). Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we have the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we can see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On Thursday 01 November 2007 17:01, Andrew Bowden wrote: I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions). Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000. Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600! I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere down the line :) Linux Format has an ABC figure of 26702. That's a bit higher than 600. It's also very unlikely to be anywhere near the number of people who run Linux. After all, I doubt PC Format gets 17.1 million people buying it each month... Look at it this way - there's more than 600 shops nationwide (Tesco, WH Smiths, newsagents) that sell goods (magazines :) which are targetted at linux users. You need a much bigger market than 600 to make that economically viable year in year out. Someone IS getting their stats wrong. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600 hits from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and even it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the web is available). Now the question is the mistake in the reporting or in Ashley's comments; either mistakenly or, as the conspiracy nuts will no doubt think, on purpose. Vijay. On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions). Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000. Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600! I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere down the line :) -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra *Sent:* 01 November 2007 16:52 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again Just read thishttp://www.tech.co.uk/computing/internet-and-broadband/news/bbc-not-in-bed-with-bill-gates-over-iplayer?articleid=36522951 interview with Mr Highfield Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as justification for the corporation's XP-only release. We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. (via slashdot http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/01/133259) Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on their mobile phones than that. Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some more research into your audience is in order?). Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we have the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we can see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
That said, I also reckon 400-600 sounds far too low! Matt On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:52:54 -, Matt Hammond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Matt On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:38:19 -, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks for that, I was pretty certain there was a mistake somewhere as I said, I'd expect for a site as big as bbc.co.uk to get more than 4-600 hits from people on their mobile phones (I have a low-tech Nokia 60-70, and even it's capable of viewing the beebs site, add opera mini and most of the web is available). Now the question is the mistake in the reporting or in Ashley's comments; either mistakenly or, as the conspiracy nuts will no doubt think, on purpose. Vijay. On 01/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been discussing this in the office, so I did some sums Having a look at various (non-BBC) site stats I have access to, I'm seeing a 3-4% market share. Now on some of them, I know I'm counting towards those stats, but one particular site (with a 3.6% Linux usage) I don't look at regularly (I just fix broken code on rare occassions). Even if we say bbc.co.uk has a 2% Linux usage, that's 340,000 users. And if we say that bbc.co.uk has a 0.1% Linux usage, that's 17,000. Some stats have put Linux desktop usage at as low as 0.26%, so even if we take the 0.1% figure, I'd expect a lot more than 400-600! I have a feeling that there's been a bit of a mistake made somewhere down the line :) -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED]] *On Behalf Of *vijay chopra *Sent:* 01 November 2007 16:52 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.ukhttps://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again Just read thishttp://www.tech.co.uk/computing/internet-and-broadband/news/bbc-not-in-bed-with-bill-gates-over-iplayer?articleid=36522951 interview with Mr Highfield Highfield used the numbers of non-Windows users visiting bbc.co.uk as justification for the corporation's XP-only release. We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. (via slashdot http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/01/133259) Have tech.co.uk missed out a zero as I can't believe that the number of Linux users is that low, I'd expect more people to visit the site on their mobile phones than that. Unless perhaps most do as I do and go straight to news.bbc.co.uk and bypass bbc.co.uk entirely (in which case using those numbers as justification for ignoring iPlayer on Linux is bizarre; perhaps some more research into your audience is in order?). Though it feels good to be a member of such an exclusive club, can we have the number of Linux users visiting news.bbc.co.uk please? That way we can see if Mr Highfield's claims stand up to scrutiny. Vijay. -- | Matt Hammond | Research Engineer, FMT, BBC, Kingswood Warren, Tadworth, Surrey, UK | http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Matt Hammond wrote: The statements attributes to Ashley Highfield seem to talk about *users* (eg. measured as unique cookies) whereas the other numbers we're comparing against here are being described as usage and hits. Just thought I'd point it out before we get in a mess :-) Still comparing apples and apples though: We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK ... and around 400 to 600 are Linux users. So there does appear to be a mess somewhere... David (Who, with his wife, accounts for 2 users) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
