Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 22/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 22 June 2007 15:21, Peter Bowyer wrote: Possibly everyone has decided to heed the suggestion that this topic is best dealt with elsewhere, leaving this list for its intended use. Without reading the text of the complaint, OFCOM is definitely a better place to complain that this mailing list, IMO OFCOM has no regulatory power over the BBC other than certain kinds of taste and decency of non-internet broadcasting. The BBC Trust is the BBC's regulator. Complain to them if you wish. But do so with patient logic and evidence. - 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] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
At 12:14 +0100 25/6/07, Tom Loosemore wrote: On 22/06/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 22 June 2007 15:21, Peter Bowyer wrote: Possibly everyone has decided to heed the suggestion that this topic is best dealt with elsewhere, leaving this list for its intended use. Without reading the text of the complaint, OFCOM is definitely a better place to complain that this mailing list, IMO OFCOM has no regulatory power over the BBC other than certain kinds of taste and decency of non-internet broadcasting. The BBC Trust is the BBC's regulator. Complain to them if you wish. But do so with patient logic and evidence. Thanks. I went and looked at BBC Trust pages on the BBC Website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/appeals/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/framework/other_activities.html I am not sure individuals will want to complain. After all, the association with closed formats etc goes back a long way... Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
It wouldn't be hard to add something the market impact assessment. Something along the lines of: Microsoft already has a 90% market share, and the launch of iPlayer - a service available to about 40% of the UK population in total - will make sod-all difference either way. People aren't going to choose Windows because of iPlayer - they're going to choose it because little Timmy wants the latest games, and your company insists you use Outlook for email. And businesses - who make up a huge chunk of the market for computers - really don't care either. :)
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OFCOM has no regulatory power over the BBC other than certain kinds of taste and decency of non-internet broadcasting. Are you sure? The communications act 2003 [1] grants them the power to: (c) power to institute and carry on criminal proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland for an offence relating to a matter in relation to which they have functions; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--b.htm And there duties (defined in the same act) include: (1) It shall be the principal duty of OFCOM, in carrying out their functions- (a) to further the interests of citizens in relation to communications matters; and (b) to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--b.htm Notice the promoting competition bit. 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)? Also of note is the Competition Act 1998 [2], which states: 18. - (1) Subject to section 19, any conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market is prohibited if it may affect trade within the United Kingdom. (2) Conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in- (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/80041--c.htm So OFCOM's duty (under the Communications Act 2003) is to further the interests of consumers and citizens with respect to the communications sector. Does the BBC fall within the communications sector, yes it does. Thus the BBC falls within OFCOM's remit. And so OFCOM has the power to institute criminal proceeding against the BBC (under the powers granted in the Communications Act). All that OFCOM has to do is determine whether the law was broken. In particular whether the BBC is in a dominant position and if it's actions affect trade (as defined in the Competition Act 1998). If that is the case then OFCOM would be the correct people to complain to as it falls within their remit and they have the required powers to bring about the necessary legal action. Does the BBC trust have this legal power? Also as the letter points out this could cause problems with respect to an EU ruling. I trust the BBC has made sure it is not itself violating this ruling or assisting another party to violate or circumvent an EU ruling? Andy [1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030021.htm [2] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980041.htm -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
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. It could mean choice of content It could mean choices of service provider (as in enabling you to chose between Sky and Virgin, or choose between phone companies) It could mean choice of a data file format (although I have to say, I find it unlikely Parliament was thinking about that in 2003) So if you look at the other alternatives for definition, has the BBC removed choice? No, because there is a choice of content No, because there are other service providers Aka, choice is a subjective term, and one which lawyers could no doubt spend hours debating, whilst earning themselves a nice pay packet. Personally I'll leave them too it thanks. Everytime I try and read an act of Parliament, I get a headache :) - 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] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
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. 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. It could mean choice of content It could mean choices of service provider (as in enabling you to chose between Sky and Virgin, or choose between phone companies) It could mean choice of a data file format (although I have to say, I find it unlikely Parliament was thinking about that in 2003) So if you look at the other alternatives for definition, has the BBC removed choice? No, because there is a choice of content No, because there are other service providers Aka, choice is a subjective term, and one which lawyers could no doubt spend hours debating, whilst earning themselves a nice pay packet. Personally I'll leave them too it thanks. Everytime I try and read an act of Parliament, I get a headache :) - 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] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
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.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, because the DVB-T standard is open and anyone can build hardware or software to it. MS DRM and KDM are not open standards, and anything that glues standards together to create a vertically integrated product is, by definition, only the choice of Hobson. However, there is a choice of methods of time-shifting TV - which is all iPlayer is - which don't rely on DRM. And until the DVB-T transmissions are encrypted using some kind of DRM, there will continue to be.
Re: [backstage] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25 Jun 2007, at 17:55, Brian Butterworth wrote: Ian, You are conflating the iPlayer with Freeview! No, I'm conflating methods of timeshifting television. The fact is that there are, and will continue to be, methods of time shifting television which are completely un-DRM'd. No one *has* to use iPlayer. - 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] BBC Ofcom complaint raised
On 25/06/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25/06/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. If the iPlayer did that then there would be choice! I think its a mistake to concentrate on choice: If that's what is promoted, then we'll just get a cross platform DRM system, which will be even worse, because even more people will get their freedom trampled. DRM is not acceptable, and no iPlayer is preferable to a DRM iPlayer because DRM tramples our freedom. Similarly, a DRM iPlayer only for Windows is preferable to a cross platform DRM iPlayer because it will harm less people, and those people not using Windows will more likely to understand why the lack of freedom inherent in DRM is unacceptable. -- Regards, Dave - 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/
