On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56, David Tomlinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content. >> >> That is, you can run a completely separate system based on the Canvas >> specs, but unless you implement the Canvas UX, you can't access the >> content the Canvas JV partners supply to the real Canvas system. >> > > "1.20. > This approval is given subject to the "free-to-air principle", that users > will always be able to access Canvas free to air," The Approval Document _specifically_ covers, in several places, the mandated UX requirement. (Admittedly, it covers it by way of "yes, we're aware there are lots of objections to this, but we think it's fine. go take a hike.", but the point stands: the mandated UX is part of the approval). > 1.24 > > "the joint venture may develop ways in which to recover operational costs > but, for the avoidance of doubt, any such activity will be charged to third > parties on a "cost recovery" basis only; > > entry controls in terms of technical and content standards will be minimal; > > access will not be bundled with other products or services; and" you're misunderstanding. that's entry controls for *content providers*. > Assuming that as an individual you pay the relevant cost recovery (zero for > iplayer) it would appear to be anti-competitive (illegal and against BBC > policy) to restrict access to the Canvas UX, and also defeat the purpose of > publishing the specification. well, you're muddling content provider and consumer conditions, but essentially, yes: the mandated UX is bonkers. there are better ways to achieve the same goals (which weren't particularly well-stated at any stage of the process, incidentally). the mandated UX was my primary objection to Canvas (and indeed, apart from the shockingly bad consultation process, if it weren't an issue, I probably wouldn't have objected - repeatedly - in the first place). >> I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the only way to get >> at the specs is via the DTG -- that hasn't been confirmed yet, but >> there's been little to suggest otherwise to date. >> > > I would, my expectation is that the specifications will be public. > The BBC has legal obligations to make it's services available to the public > and not to behave in an anti-competitive manner. > > Associate membership of the DTG is a possibility (insufficient detail > available) but as I have stated, I do not expect this to be necessary. You're entitled to your expectation, but I think you're being incredibly optimistic. M. - 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]/
