Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content. 4.62. Further, the Trust understood that, since the core technical specification for Canvas would be published, it would be open to manufacturers and platform operators either to adopt the Canvas core technical specification and the UI or (if they preferred) to develop their own UI with the Canvas core technical specification. 4.72. One stakeholder asked for clarification as to whether fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access would be available to all industry operators - that is including manufacturers, not just platform operators. The Trust confirms that its understanding of the open nature of the core technical specification is such that it shall be available to all industry operators including manufacturers. The Trust expects the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principle to apply to all those seeking to license the core technical specification. 4.74. Approval is made on the understanding that the Canvas joint venture will be governed by the following principles: * the Canvas core technical specification will be made available to third parties on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf I am still reading the above document. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Yeah, but would that include the Mythtv project and other open source projects? Would the Linux community be able to build their own gear? And have access to everything? For instance, will there be scope for, say, a Canvas pvr to save out to a NAS frame on the local network? I don't renmember having to find 5 grand to look at the PAL definition... - Original message - Mo McRoberts wrote: Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content. 4.62. Further, the Trust understood that, since the core technical specification for Canvas would be published, it would be open to manufacturers and platform operators either to adopt the Canvas core technical specification and the UI or (if they preferred) to develop their own UI with the Canvas core technical specification. 4.72. One stakeholder asked for clarification as to whether fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory access would be available to all industry operators - that is including manufacturers, not just platform operators. The Trust confirms that its understanding of the open nature of the core technical specification is such that it shall be available to all industry operators including manufacturers. The Trust expects the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory principle to apply to all those seeking to license the core technical specification. 4.74. Approval is made on the understanding that the Canvas joint venture will be governed by the following principles: * the Canvas core technical specification will be made available to third parties on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis; and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf I am still reading the above document. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Alex Cockell wrote: Yeah, but would that include the Mythtv project and other open source projects? Would the Linux community be able to build their own gear? And have access to everything? Yes. you might even get access to the Canvas UI if you request it. 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). 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. For instance, will there be scope for, say, a Canvas pvr to save out to a NAS frame on the local network? There is no (longer) any method of enforcing the standard (No NDA) outside reasonable conditions to access to the server (compliance with protocols), if you wish (the software) to ignore the content restrictions, then you can, interface with NAS, blu-ray writer (ignoring the copy flag), or any other media or device. I don't renmember having to find 5 grand to look at the PAL definition... You should not be required to join any organisation this time. - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
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 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. 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. 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
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=aliasalias=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/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
David Tomlinson wrote: 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. Earlier there was mention made of a 'cost recovery'. The incremental costs of publishing am individual text document are of course close to zero. (arguably exactly zero, possibly, for the case of the BBC) However - would 'cost recovery' also include the recovery of the cost of development of the platform? - 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 Trust approves Project Canvas ...
Ian Stirling wrote: Earlier there was mention made of a 'cost recovery'. Cost recovery does not apply to distribution through the DTG. It would appear to be perverse to apply any cost recovery to a document distributed to the public over the internet. Development cost estimate: Twenty four point seven million pounds over five years (24.7 million). I suspect cost recovery, of operational and development, costs would apply to content. This would appear to be zero for the BBC, as iplayer will have zero usage cost (the BBC is publicly funded). It may involve advertising for other free-to-air broadcasters. The purpose of the cost recovery clause appears to be, to prevent members from profiting from Canvas content distribution, while avoiding a loss. - 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/
