I demand sensible on-demand

Thanks to Elliot I was pointed at the BBC Consultation on their proposed on-demand service
Being a licence payer (who in the UK isn’t?) I thought I should put my twopeneth in – but in reading the supporting documents and the phrasing of the questions I became increasingly annoyed. I’m not sure what about this piece of Institutional Stupidity got me so riled up because to be honest right now we seem to be living in the age of Institutional Stupidity and I’d sort of promised myself to try and rise above it all for fear of negative psychological and physiological effects. There was something about the framing or the viewpoint of both the documents and the questions in the consultation that struck me as so ass backwards that I was forced to write rather long and probably quite patronising answers to each question. I’ll spare you the gory details but this is what I wrote for Q12 (which was for general / other comments)

I would like to point out that the apparent frame of reference for both the proposal from the Board and the amendments from the Trust seem to be anti-technology and overly restrictive. In particular;

The effects of a new media or distribution technology are impossible to predict – how many times has the death of radio been predicted, from the rise of TV in the 60s and 70s to MTV and other music channels in the 80’s, internet radio in the 90s and ipod and mp3 in the early part of this century. Yet radio is still going, changed and adapted by these other new services but none the less still viable.

(# :: posted Feb 1, 04:25 pm in General :: )

  1. This makes me want to be a BBC rate-payer, just so I can copy and paste your answers into my survey form. Well said.


    Luis    Feb 1, 04:58 pm    #
  2. Broadly, I agree with you. However, on one point, I don’t. You say that “the BBC seems overly concerned with the effect an on-demand service might have on other commercial offerings or existing business models.” I agree they are overly concerned, but not because they themselves are. I think they’re completely petrified that if they edge out too many commercial organisations, the government will say “right, that’s enough of your special status: no licence fees for you”, and they’ll basically shut down. The unique way the BBC is funded might piss a lot of people off, but it lets them do stuff that they couldn’t do otherwise, and they really don’t want to give the government a reason to pull out the rug from under them.


    sil    Feb 1, 11:09 pm    #
  3. I completed the survey a few days ago; before reading this entry. In retrospect, whilst I tried to argue that their intended restrictions were too draconian I should have more forcefully argued against them using DRM at all. Hopefully a lot of other people will object?


    Jon Levell    Feb 11, 05:45 pm    #
  4. If you want more reason to be annoyed, check out the bit about Classical music – it seems that Ofcom thinks along the lines “Orchestras have some wishy-washy ill defined right to sell their recordings of Classical music” rather than “This music is so old that most of it was never in copyright, never mind out of it, and the BBC has a right to do whatever it pleases with it’s copyrighted recordings performed by its own orchestra”. Get a clue ofcom, and decide who you are responsible to, the public or a tiny minority of musicians.


    — James Birkett    Feb 11, 06:14 pm    #