'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable

2Bdecided wrote:
On 26 Apr, 11:15, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote:
I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same
reason?
No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and
covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV).

So you _don't_ object to the BBC promoting and delivering services
that (some) people can't afford (at that time)?

No I don't.

You merely object to them delivering a non-live service?


Yup. The iPlayer is "extras". Outside the remit of the license.

Do/did you object to their other pre-iPlayer on-demand programming,
e.g. listen again, the catch-up VOD provided via HomeChoice/Tiscali,
NTL etc ?

No. Those services are properly funded by the users (or advertising),
and there surely must be a commercial agreement between Tiscali/Virgin
and the BBC for doing it.

I'm not having a go at you - your argument has some merit - I'm just
not convinced it's 100% rational.

s'OK, I'm spinning on a roundabout :-)

I think my point is clear in this thread. It's to do with the BBC
wasting money collected from license payers, doing risky things that the
majority never quite gave them the permission to do.

Also, I'm fairly sure that making such services outside of the core
remit of the BBC will not help the BBC one bit.

Agreed. The iplayer service should be commercially operated because of
that, and then some money should make it back ...

Or, included in an extended license.

--
Adrian C

In article , Adrian C
writes

The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to
this. Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to
broadband, or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone.

It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and
are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on
iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons
it's beyond them.

So what's new?
When the BBC was founded only a few "well heeled" people could afford
radios. I wasn't around at the time, but I recall my grandmother
telling me about having to go to a neighbour's house to listen to the
BBC news.

When the BBC started broadcasting TV only a few "well healed" people
could afford TV sets. Again, I wasn't around, but I recall my mother
telling me about the party at a neighbour's house to view the coronation
on TV.

When the BBC went colour, only a few "well heeled" could afford a colour
TV. I recall my father telling me not to mention we had one to anyone at
school, lest the message reached my uncle before he came to visit. (This
uncle had been going on for several months about how fantastic the
rather de-tuned colour was on his new set, so my dad intended some low
key one-upmanship)

You are clearly from the cheap Nicam update, digital decoder box
generation, where the costs to upgrade to the latest BBC offerings are
negligible, without any clue as to what restriction to "well heeled"
people actually means. However, I do not believe for an instant that
the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well
heeled".

Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and
related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the
BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that
many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess,
and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential
items in the latest definition of the poverty line.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

You are clearly from the cheap Nicam update, digital decoder box
generation, where the costs to upgrade to the latest BBC offerings are
negligible, without any clue as to what restriction to "well heeled"
people actually means. However, I do not believe for an instant that
the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well
heeled".

Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and
related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the
BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that
many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess,
and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential
items in the latest definition of the poverty line.

Yeabut the problem now is not with the BBC its the net infrastructure
which is now the transmission medium .. not the TV transmitter....

--
Tony Sayer

Mike Henry wrote:

You made the effort not to use the American spelling of "colour" above;
please could you try not to use the American spelling of "licence" too?

:-)

So the "listen again" service which had every radio programme from the
previous week available on the website which you didn't object to, is
different to the iPlayer... how? Only the UI is different.

OK, tripped up on the "listen again" mentioned there, which is of course
is another BBC funded service. Indeed in the past questions have been
asked about how much the BBC funds it's entire presence on the internet
in terms of website hosted and specially commisioned material - and
there is an answer here for that. For those that access Auntie's pages
from outside the UK, there are advertisments to view. For those, inside
the UK, it's paid out the licence fee. A bit of money here, a bit of
money there. I'm OK with that.

iPlayer is totally running from licence fee.

--
Adrian C

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

However, I do not believe for an instant that
the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well
heeled".

I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that
necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC
at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less
costly equipment. All included in the licence.

My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license,
where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some unavoidable
restrictions.

Gen up on digital divide.

OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and otherwise,
to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable monthly download
limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone. I chose the
language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said "broadband
enabled"?

These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the running
and development costs of iPlayer if they use it. Not saddle all licence
payers with it, and provide it all free so that even non-licence payers
can benefit.

Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and
related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the
BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that
many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess,

I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on
dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are
loads more directly not using on-line services at all...

and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential
items in the latest definition of the poverty line.

The digital divide and the poverty line do have some relation, but are
not the same thing.

--
Adrian C

On 29 Apr, 12:47, Adrian C wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

* *However, I do not believe for an instant that

the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well
heeled".

I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that
necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC
at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less
costly equipment. All included in the licence.

My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license,
where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some unavoidable
restrictions.

Your obsession with "live" is bizarre. So it was OK to provide a
colour service which was expensive, because poor people could still
watch in black and white - but it's not OK to provide a catch up
service, despite the fact that the same programmes are available live
that week?

There's no rationality to this argument at all.

Gen up on digital divide.

Actually, our main home computer was a gift - a cast-off. It does
iPlayer just fine. Our plusnet internet access is £120 a year. 2GB
monthly cap, £1 extra per GB after that.

Yes, there are people who can't afford that - but not being able to
watch iPlayer is presumably the least of their worries!


OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and otherwise,
to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable monthly download
limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone. I chose the
language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said "broadband
enabled"?

That's the majority now, isn't it?

These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the running
and development costs of iPlayer if they use it.

They can probably afford to pay more for HD - more for the BBC itself
as a subscription service. Should they?

Not saddle all licence
payers with it, and provide it all free so that even non-licence payers
can benefit.

But your argument is contradictory - you worry about the digital
divide, but then demand that there should be an _extra_ change to
access one of the most popular uses for broadband internet access.
Surely this can only worsen the divide, if you start a trend of
charging extra for popular broadband services!

I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on
dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are
loads more directly not using on-line services at all...

I must be far too middle class - I know several of people without
internet access, and they could all easily afford it.They choose not
to. There are other things in life!

Cheers,
David.

In article , Adrian C
writes
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

However, I do not believe for an instant that
the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the
"well heeled".

I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that
necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC
at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less
costly equipment. All included in the licence.

Well I think it is questionable whether the alternative equipment is
less costly - especially if the cost of access broadband by computer is
amortised over all of the other value opportunities that it provides,
which even the cheapest TV and digital box do not.

My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license,
where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some
unavoidable restrictions.

But the BBC have always provided services outside of the license which
required additional platform costs to access. I recall as a kid
listening to the likes of Johnny Walker and DLT on BBC Radio 1 being
quite jealous of the people who could access their phone-in
opportunities - wow, imagine being able to win prizes, talk to
celebrities and even send messages to your mates, live on national
radio! It wasn't the 2d cost of the phone call that I couldn't afford.
Living in a fairly remote village, the Post Office wanted to charge an
arm and a leg to install a local exchange and line to the house before
we could have a telephone, so we didn't and neither did anyone else in
the village. It wasn't until I was a teenager when enough people in the
village had requested phone installations that The Post Office deemed it
to be worthwhile laying the miles of cables out to an exchange there and
hence enabling home phones for all of the interested households.

Gen up on digital divide.
Technology divides are nothing new, as my own experience of the 60's
related above demonstrates, and have little relation to wealth. Indeed,
recluses with limited or no connectivity with the outside world are
actually sought after by the well heeled.

OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and
otherwise, to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable
monthly download limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone.
I chose the language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said
"broadband enabled"?

These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the
running and development costs of iPlayer if they use it.

By your own admission, "well heeled" is irrelevant - just because
someone is broadband enabled does not mean they are in any position to
"contribute extra". As explained earlier, they may not be wealthy at
all but have made a decision to invest in broadband connectivity as a
means to access many types of facilities. Whilst chav land may have Sky
dishes stuck on the front of every dwelling, it doesn't mean that any
chavs are "well heeled" or that no residents of chav land have broadband
connectivity. Having one or the other doesn't make any of the residents
of chav land better able to "contribute extra" although they may well be
in a better position to do so than some that you would consider "well
heeled".

Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and
related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the
BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility
that many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess,

I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on
dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are
loads more directly not using on-line services at all...

So basically your complaint is with the telecom companies who have
failed to roll out broadband capability across 100% of the population,
to every farmhouse shed in the remotest Welsh valleys or low population
island in the Utter Hebrides. That argument, whilst valid in itself,
has nothing to do with the BBC or their provision of iPlayer on a
platform which is currently accessible by the majority and the
government have made a commitment to make accessible to all.

and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of
essential items in the latest definition of the poverty line.

The digital divide and the poverty line do have some relation, but are
not the same thing.
Exactly, hence your term "well heeled" was misguided as, it appears, was
the subject of your complaint. It isn't the BBC's problem, who have
chosen a platform that is available to the vast majority of the
population to host its iPlayer services without additional cost.

Your gripe is with the telecom companies who have not provided the
infrastructure to 100% of the population. That is a completely
different issue, and access to BBC facilities is a negligibly small part
of that whole budget argument.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

Your gripe is with the telecom companies who have not provided the
infrastructure to 100% of the population.

Nope, it's decisions that contribute to a person not being able to take
part on the internet and receive content that they should. These
decisions are not only financial, or the fact that a service suitable
can't be brought to the door.

There are others - technofear is, and will be in the future, a
considerable problem in the society we live in. iPlayer available, even
relevant, to the vast majority - er, no.

That is a completely
different issue, and access to BBC facilities is a negligibly small part
of that whole budget argument.

Never mind, my roundabout has slowed to a halt. I'm getting off...

--
Adrian C

In article , Adrian C
writes

it's decisions that contribute to a person not being able to take part
on the internet and receive content that they should. These decisions
are not only financial, or the fact that a service suitable can't be
brought to the door.

There are others - technofear is, and will be in the future, a
considerable problem in the society we live in. iPlayer available, even
relevant, to the vast majority - er, no.

Technofear has been an issue with every generation since the industrial
revolution and the Luddite movement. That is no reason to prevent the
iPlayer being available to the net equipped majority and no reason to
demand additional payment from them.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)