People on this list may be interested in this blog post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/10/sky_can_help_project_canv as_un.html
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 12 October 2009 23:32 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Re: Sky hits out at Project Canvas On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:00, Stephen Jolly <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was all for Canvas until it became clear what it *actually* was. > > Do share. :-) Okay, initial reaction when I found the first consultation (actually the day _after_ it closed for responses) was: "Oooh, open specs for delivering both on-demand and live broadcasts over a variety of media including commodity Internet connections? Sounds like a sensible way to help ensure the future of broadcasting in a continually evolving-environment!" Then, when the revised consultation was published... well, for the full reaction, Google "response to the revised project canvas" and you might find it. In summary, though: Building specs that everyone can work to is good, especially if they're based around existing stuff (and there's _plenty_ of existing stuff, the hard part's a matter of picking and choosing what's appropriate to make use of). Ofcom and the ASA can (if pushed) regulate the content, as they have in the past and will continue to do so in the future irrespective of what any joint ventures might do. EPG issues, subscription mechanisms, and channel numbering/ordering can be dealt with by having well-defined (and agnostic) rules which UAs must adhere to. Adherence with the specs can be ensured by having strict compliance rules in order to license the logo/other branding. Trademark law provides plenty of protection here. Thus, a joint venture, which acts as part-gatekeeper, part-talking-shop, part-licensor, and through a combination of those roles costs rather a lot of money to run, is completely unnecessary. As such, the need to _join_ the joint venture, and the financial commitments to do required should also be unnecessary. In short: My view is that Canvas's specs should be, in view of the Internet world it's attempting to embrace, be produced in much the same way the specs for the various things which make the Internet work are. In terms of Sky vs the BBC: I think that, given the chance, Sky would decimate the British TV industry, but fortunately isn't in a position to do so. The BBC, on the other hand _is_ in a position to do so but generally has no intention of doing it, and is under heavy continual scrutiny to ensure that it doesn't go there. In this particular case, though, I think Sky's now-published response[0] is quite sensible and aligns neatly with my views, even if it's mostly a matter of coincidence. [I wasn't going to bring this up here just yet, but as it's topical-I started a project to create a "technical response" to Project Canvas a short while ago in the form of Project Baird - http://projectbaird.com - contributions/critical analysis/whatever gratefully received; it really is just me at the moment, and producing the drafts are heavy work] Uh. Hopefully that answers the question! I am genuinely curious about what others think. I get the feeling that not too many people have read the docs on it :\ M. [0] http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/20c24d2e1c62406594e1a79de5f917db/ BSkyB_Canvas_Submission - 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/[email protected]/ - 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/[email protected]/
