Mo McRoberts wrote:
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson
<d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
It is a legal obligation for the BBC (and other public service broadcasters)
to make it's services available to the public and act in a
non-discriminatory way to all third parties (in my view).
^^^^^
In *your* view, based upon your reading of the obligations handed down
to the corporation. If only it were ever that easy.
The BBC has to be careful of it's legal obligations.
I think the context has changed.
The BBC was under pressure to lock down the specification to ensure all
TV receiving equipment implemented content protection. This encountered
unanticipated legal complications, so the pressure for lock down is removed.
The BBC can therefore be much more 'open' with the core specification.
(and even the UX).
the fact is, the BBC considers the DTG to be a non-partisan
organisation, and so (despite the exorbitant costs of membership) very
likely considers it to be a satisfactory vehicle as far as
'non-discriminatory' is concerned.
As project Canvas already releases information (and has provided a
schedule for further releases) to the industry for peer-review, why the
requirement to publish the specification within 20 days of approval.
http://www.projectcanvas.info/index.cfm/news/?mode=alias&alias=Project-Canvas-releases-further-information-to-industry-on-technical-specifications
Peer review is different from publishing the interim or final standards.
The D-Book is only available to full members (of the DTG).
http://www.dtg.org.uk/publications/books.html
an entirely artificial cost barrier is not generally deemed to be
'discriminating' by the BBC, even if in real terms it actually is.
See sections 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf
I think this is sufficient to require the specification to be public.
Mo disagrees, we will know for certain in less than 20 days time.
actually, no: it's not that I disagree. I'd be over the moon if you were right.
I don't think the BBC agrees with you, though.
I may be reading too much into sections: 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74.
But I would expect an 'open' core standard to be open and available to
the public and for this to be the BBC's intention.
The costs of publishing a specification (as a text document or pdf) on a
web site are low, comparable with the costs associated with handling
individual complaints, about discrimination and lack of access.
p.s
As you are aware I am not actively involved in Digital Television
development. I am not a legal expert and cannot give formal legal advice.
-
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/
