On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Act also states:
> > (5) In performing their duty under this section of
furthering the
> > interests of consumers, OFCOM must have regard, in
> particular, to the
> > interests of those consumers in respect of choice,
price,
> quality of service and value for money.
> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--b.htm
> Notice how choice is listed first. And notice how the
BBC
> have removed choice. Is it not OFCOM's duty to correct
this,
> so as to further the interests of consumers, and also
further
> the interests of citizens, (it's duties as defined by
the Act)?
Does it define what "choice" means? Because choice
could be interpreted
to mean many things.
I can certainly see that "choice" could certainly be defined as
"having a selection from more than one" without using a lawyer.
But that's entirely my point. The definition of "choice" some people on
this list will use, will not necessarily be the one Ofcom believes is
the correct one.
Like I say, choice is subjective. I remain interested in hearing what
Ofcom's response is on the matter.
Could choice in this matter mean that iPlayer is available in one
configuration on a TV, and also through a cable set top box? One
product. Choice of methods.
In iPlayer terms, as a vertical integrated product (MS WMV+MS
DRM+KDM+MS IE+backend) it is BY DEFINITION "not a choice" as gules
several systems together and only lets you use a specific configutation.
For example, it could be deemed to be a requirement for a service to be
used - no different to saying if you want a DTT box, you need a DVB-T
box.
Yes. I'm playing devil's advocate here. Because nothing in life
(especially law) is ever black and white.
