[backstage] Freesat
Impressed by the plugs on bbc.co.uk, I headed off to freesat.co.uk to read all about it - shame none of the online retailers linked to from that site actually has any product to sell... Of the 4 links, only Argos actually lists any STBs, but they don't have stock. John Lewis says 'no results were found for freesat, Comet links to a page of Freeview STBs, and a search for 'freesat' on Currys brings up 5 pages of stuff with 'Free' in the name, including Freezers, Freejet hoovers and Freecom network drives. Not a good start. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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/
[backstage] Freesat: open platform AND iPlayer
I've just been to the Freesat launch event... http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051369 A couple of interesting points for backstagers: 1. Mark Thompson said that the BBC was committed to BBC services being open on all platforms; 2. He also said the iPlayer would be on Freesat as all Freesat boxes (and idTVs) have Ethernet ports. 3. He said that Freesat was an 'open platform' for on-demand content. Result, eh? Brian Butterworth
Re: [backstage] Open Flash
Dave Crossland wrote: I look forward to the day when the BBC stops requiring proprietary software and stops imposing DRM :-) And on that day the devil will skate to work! (Can't remember which programme I heard that quote on). The BBC will pick proprietary solutions even if they are technically inferior to the open standards alternatives, just look at Kontiki, Bittorrent would have worked far better, at least most clients support some level of user controllable throttling, many even support scheduling. Andy - 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 iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? NO! H. - 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] Open Flash
Quoting Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Dave Crossland wrote: I look forward to the day when the BBC stops requiring proprietary software and stops imposing DRM :-) And on that day the devil will skate to work! (Can't remember which programme I heard that quote on). The BBC will pick proprietary solutions even if they are technically inferior to the open standards alternatives, just look at Kontiki, Bittorrent would have worked far better, at least most clients support some level of user controllable throttling, many even support scheduling. Andy Kontiki may be inferior in technological terms, but would be vastly superior in terms of a Media Lawyer never having seen its name associated with intellectual property theft. -- ST [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 iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On 06/05/2008, Helen Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? NO! Perhaps you could explain your thoughts. Are you a high earner? H. - 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 http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
[backstage] Freesat - Mark Thompson on Open Platforms
I'm impressed by Mark Thompson's statement today... Then Mr Thompson made a statement about the ability to allow all-comers access to the platform: This is some way in the future, months rather than years, the approach we would take (we have yet to discuss it fully) from the BBC is that this is an Open Platform, and just as we are committed with our IPTV offerings like iPlayer on the web, absolute designed to work in an Open Environment, where people have a free choice. So I would say on Freesat exactly the same. Although we want clarity in the user interface, in the EPG, what follows is this should be an Open Platform where people get as wide a choice as possible. Even, by the way, if that means in some senses, cannibalization of the original BBC programmes. We believe passionately in Open Platforms and not in walled gardens and not in gatekeeping. http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051369 On 06/05/2008, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Impressed by the plugs on bbc.co.uk, I headed off to freesat.co.uk to read all about it - shame none of the online retailers linked to from that site actually has any product to sell... Of the 4 links, only Argos actually lists any STBs, but they don't have stock. John Lewis says 'no results were found for freesat, Comet links to a page of Freeview STBs, and a search for 'freesat' on Currys brings up 5 pages of stuff with 'Free' in the name, including Freezers, Freejet hoovers and Freecom network drives. Not a good start. -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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 http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Andy wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: There is quite a reasonable argument that the TV License, which is used to fund BBC television and radio, is a regressive tax, so someone on benefits pays the same as a millionaire. Or to put it another way The less you earn, the more you pay as a percentage of your income. Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). I wonder if anyone's done a study on the hours of television consumed in relation to income. Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? I also wonder if the value a licence fee payer places on television might be inversely proportional to their income. Gordon McMullan - 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 iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On 06/05/2008, Helen Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? NO! Perhaps you could explain your thoughts. Are you a high earner? I know not whether Helen is a high earner. It doesn't matter - her position is quite right. The license fee is precisely that - a one off fee. It is not a tax. If you don't want to use the service, don't pay. Is there any evidence that high earners consume more output from the BBC than low earners? If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
Andy wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: There is quite a reasonable argument that the TV License, which is used to fund BBC television and radio, is a regressive tax, so someone on benefits pays the same as a millionaire. Or to put it another way The less you earn, the more you pay as a percentage of your income. Someone who earns 14K per annum pays 1% of their income in TV Licensing, someone who earns 140K pays only 0.1%, (assuming both own a colour television), (figures not exact). Anyone else think that is a little bit unfair? Wouldn't a proportional or progressive tax be fairer? Depends on your definition of fair. :-) Leaving aside politics though, it's worth noting that making the TV license progressive would only be practical if the BBC's funding was folded into general taxation, and collected by HMRC. I mean, let alone the cost of dealing with the additional information, how many people would be happy to give TV Licensing verifiable details of their employment status and income? S - 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/
[backstage] Manchester Free Software : RMS Video
== RMS Video: == The video of last week's Manchester Free Software, (in collaboration with the BCS and IET) talk by Richard Stallman has been released, thanks to Andrew John Hughes. You can find a torrent and http mirrors for the video on the Manchester Free Software Website. Where possible, please use the torrent. :) For more information please visit: http://manchester.fsuk.org/blog/2008/05/06/free-software-in-ethics-and-society-richard-stallman-manchester-1st-may/ Please forward this to any other lists where you think it might be of interest. = Next Meeting: = The next Manchester Free Software Meeting is on the 20th of May at Manchester Digital Development Agency. See you there! | Manchester Free Software Group | | http://manchester.fsuk.org | -- www.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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 iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On 5/6/08, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. But there's no British Supermarkets Corporation supermarket that you are required pay 140 a year to in order to obatain a supermarket licence so that you could legally go shopping at any supermarket (whether it's a BSC public service supermarket or a private one like Morrisons), backed up with the threat of a 1000 pound fine or jail time for anyone who goes shopping but doesn't have a licence. If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. That assumes that wealthy people will have more TVs per room than people on lower incomes, and I doubt that's true. Seeing as TVs are fairly low cost (and used TVs can be picked up for next to nothing) you can't equate TVs per room with wealth. Besides, it would be a nightmare to implement, requiring even more draconian invasions of people's privacy than the current system. Far better to go the simple option and fund the BBC straight from normal taxation, like most other public services. Scot
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. But there's no British Supermarkets Corporation supermarket that you are required pay 140 a year to in order to obatain a supermarket licence so that you could legally go shopping at any supermarket (whether it's a BSC public service supermarket or a private one like Morrisons), backed up with the threat of a 1000 pound fine or jail time for anyone who goes shopping but doesn't have a licence. It wasn't the greatest analogy, I'll admit, but it's valid - the British Supermarkets Corporation is irrelevent. If I want to watch TV, I have to pay for it. Once. No matter how much I use it. Also - and this is the point - there's no evidence that rich people use more of it than poor people. If I'm rich, why should I have to pay more for the same level of use of a non-essential good than someone who is less well off? If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. That assumes that wealthy people will have more TVs per room than people on lower incomes, and I doubt that's true. Seeing as TVs are fairly low cost (and used TVs can be picked up for next to nothing) you can't equate TVs per room with wealth. Besides, it would be a nightmare to implement, requiring even more draconian invasions of people's privacy than the current system. Far better to go the simple option and fund the BBC straight from normal taxation, like most other public services. Scot Not necessarily TVs per room, but number of devices that are capable of receiving TV? (Computers, laptops, whizzy phones etc) Possibly. And if you were to make it a value based tax, even more so. (Big -off plasma screens, home cinema equipment). It's unworkable, certainly, but less so than a sliding scale of TV license. Funding the BBC from normal taxation seems at first sight like a reasonable solution - but then it's a public service that you genuinely can opt out of (unlike the NHS, or policing (say)). Would you be able to opt out of part of your tax? (I'm well aware that even now it's a pain if you don't have a TV to have threatening letters coming through the door from the licensing authority - but you don't HAVE to buy a license.) The license fee is probably the worst and least fair way to fund the BBC, apart from all the others that have been dreamed up. :-) Cheers, Rich.
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 19:39 +0100, Richard Lockwood wrote: If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. But there's no British Supermarkets Corporation supermarket that you are required pay 140 a year to in order to obatain a supermarket licence so that you could legally go shopping at any supermarket (whether it's a BSC public service supermarket or a private one like Morrisons), backed up with the threat of a 1000 pound fine or jail time for anyone who goes shopping but doesn't have a licence. It wasn't the greatest analogy, I'll admit, but it's valid - the British Supermarkets Corporation is irrelevent. If I want to watch TV, I have to pay for it. Once. No matter how much I use it. Also - and this is the point - there's no evidence that rich people use more of it than poor people. If I'm rich, why should I have to pay more for the same level of use of a non-essential good than someone who is less well off? Well, that's how progressive taxation works. People paying higher rate tax don't necessarily use the NHS, the armed forces, or state schools more than low earners - yet we don't have flat-rate income tax (even if Mr Brown has made a strange move in that direction). The problem with the OP's analogy is rather that unlike eating, watching television is a purely optional pastime, and certainly several orders less necessary to well-being than say, listening to music, or going out to the pub and interacting with human beings (to say nothing of a good pint ;) Thus a fixed fee seems not too unreasonable. Admittedly if we were designing the system afresh now, it wouldn't be the most popular option - but like much of the British system it works reasonably well, and there isn't a better replacement waiting in the wings. - Richard -- Free Software: http://www.ubuntu.com/ Better browsing: http://www.mozilla.com/ Free Office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/ - 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/
[backstage] PyCon UK 2008 - Call for Papers, Talks and Tutorials
[ putting on a different (purely personal) hat for the moment. Hopefully this is of interest ] PyCon UK 2008 is an independent, community-run, community-controlled and not-for-profit conference dedicated to the Python programming language, Python applications, toolkits and frameworks. It also features social events and a chance to meet fellow Python users. It is organised by members of Python User Groups from across the United Kingdom. Last Year, PyConUK 2007 was attended by over 200 delegates and featured around 50 talks and tutorials, as well as a conference dinner and two pub events. PyCon UK 2008 will be taking place in Birmingham City Centre from the 12th-14th September. We are after Talks, Tutorials and Other events. To submit a talk, please visit our submissions page: http://www.pyconuk.org/submit We're looking for proposals on all aspects of Python - programming from novice to advanced levels; applications and frameworks, or how you have been involved in introducing Python into your organisation. We especially welcome first-time speakers; we are community conference and we are eager to hear about your experience. If you have friends or colleagues who have something valuable to contribute, twist their arms to tell us about it! Please also forward this Call for Papers to anyone that you feel may be interested. For more information about PyCon UK 2008, please visit our homepage at http://www.pyconuk.org/ Regards, Michael. -- [ In my own time I'm also one of the organisers/committee people for pycon uk, and it was really useful/fun last year, so the more the merrier ] - 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/
