Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BBC Planning To Launch Global iPlayer VoD Service

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the sounds-like-a-plan dept.

Media 179

An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reportedly mulling over plans to come up with an international edition of its hugely popular iPlayer service, in a bid to allow global audiences to catch up with some of its top shows, according to BBC Worldwide, the corporation's profit-making arm. BBC Worldwide said that the move would help revamp its business model, and thereby help the corporation in raking in significant profits through its premium content."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Nifty (1)

AlastairLynn (1366585) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860571)

Well, it is!

Great! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860585)

I can watch Benny Hill on the way to work.

Re:Great! (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860633)

Too bad The IT Crowd is Channel 4's. It's the only UK series I've followed (apart from The Office, but UK version was so short). Otherwise I haven't really found good shows from there.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860885)

peep show, on channel 4 as well. best example of british comedy.

Re:Great! (3, Informative)

ardle (523599) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862741)

BBC's sitcoms aren't great but they have loads of great "panel" shows: they're ostensibly quiz shows but participants are usually either comedians or victims.
Examples:
  • Have I Got News For You: the first of this type - now has a "rotating" host since the original one had to leave after a prostitute/cocaine scandal (well, of course he had to turn up for one more show so that everyone else could make fun of him). The regular panelists are getting a bit lazy now - but the show has been running for more than 15 years. Think "The Daily Show" with less substance or heart but better insults.
  • Mock The Week: a newer version of the same thing but with explicit stand-up parts because it's 100% comedians. Google "Frankie Boyle", is all I can say.
  • Never Mind The Buzzcocks: music-oriented show where participants insult pop stars, frequently face-to-face. Chair seems to be rotating for this one now, too.
  • Would I Lie To You: quite new, a bit better-behaved than the others - but still entertaining

I regularly watch all the above, even if they are "out-of-date"...

Re:Great! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863545)

now has a "rotating" host since the original one had to leave after a prostitute/cocaine scandal

To clarify, he only left after the second scandal. He survived the first, more or less, but after the second it was basically impossible for him to continue because all of the contestants were mocking him, rather than the news.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29863385)

If you liked Peep Show, you'd probably like That Mitchell & Webb Look, which is made by the BBC. Also I'll second Have I Got News For You & Mock The Week. Also, Top Gear. Yes I know we're on Slashdot, but seriously, Top Gear.

Re:Great! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861137)

UK version was perfect length, US version should not exist, ITV reimported it and it makes me cring (and not in the good way UK version did), a few popular programs are:
QI
Dr who
Michel and Webb look (makers of peep show)
Mock the week (even without Frankie Boyle it will still be great and probably good enough to get international appeal, like the daily show)
Top gear (actually we all laugh at US cars over here so that probably wouldn't go down well)
Never mind the buzzcocks (well if they find a good presenter)
A fair number of good documentaries (just don't watch the political ones or you'll find out we quite like "socialism")

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

El Torico (732160) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861313)

Top gear (actually we all laugh at US cars over here so that probably wouldn't go down well)

Top Gear is very popular in the US; the series and the magazine are well regarded. Your over-generalizing and "fashionable" anti-Americanism is what doesn't go down well.

So, do all of you laugh at the SSC Ultimate Aero? It is currently the world's fastest production automobile. [thesupercars.org] That's nothing to laugh at.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861415)

So, do all of you laugh at the SSC Ultimate Aero? It is currently the world's fastest production automobile. [thesupercars.org] That's nothing to laugh at.

No, because no one has ever heard of the thing over here, sorry.

Re:Great! (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861719)

This [youtube.com] goes down well? how about a review of you #1 car [dhadm.com] (segment on show was actually harsher but i couldn't find a link).

TBH never heard of it, but yes because it looks ugly and has stupid doors, you would have been better talking about the Saleen because despite the same stupid doors it doesn't look like it was designed by a blind ape, but the Bugatti is by far the worlds best supercar, because its a true engineering masterpiece (not just fast). Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck, and it's not just anti-Americanism we really do think you guys make crap cars.

Re:Great! (1)

hardburn (141468) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861903)

The F150 is the #1 "car" because of fleet buyers, and because Toyota's equivalent too the Hylax here isn't quite as good as the European version (lot of the same parts, but different chassis). Incidentally, the Chevy Silverado would be the #1 "car" if a chunk of them weren't sold as GMCs. Plus, the new F150 released since that review is quite a bit better.

Fleet buyers are the same reason why Vauxhall exists despite being total pants.

Also, most of America is not the Deep South, and doesn't even like the Deep South very much.

Re:Great! (1)

NoMaster (142776) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862019)

Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck

Well, the transit in most incarnations has always been a German / English design, totally independent of Ford US. It's only the most recent ones that've been styled in the US, onto one of Ford's 'international' platforms (from Germany, IIRC, & used everywhere bar the US), but still built in Southampton (not sure if they're still made in Köln).

So, essentially, the UK Transit is the last of the truly 'European' Fords; a hangover from the days when Ford in the UK and Germany designed their own stuff from the ground up.

Re:Great! (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862353)

I'm curious how you would know the quality of the engineering on any supercar. Do you have actual access to the products in question? Anything can be made to look good or seem pretty fancy, it's one of those things that I would think requires some quality time.

Re:Great! (2, Insightful)

PachmanP (881352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862369)

Watch TG review of any american car, with a few exceptions (such as the ford transit van) we think they suck, and it's not just anti-Americanism we really do think you guys make crap cars.

Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right? Also, if I remember correctly, the F-150 review was of a Lightning which everyone over here thinks is ridiculous, and most of the complaints involved it's size being impractical for the UK. Duh! The road system and fuel prices are dramatically different and cars that work one place don't work in another. I mean I'd be a little bonkers to drive some of the tiny cars that are popular in Europe on an interstate just like you wouldn't try and drive a F-150 through a hamelet...

Re:Great! (1)

amw (636271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863071)

Uh you know that JC owns a FORD GT40, right?

Used to. He has since referred to it as the most unreliable car ever made.

Re:Great! (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863331)

I mean I'd be a little bonkers to drive some of the tiny cars that are popular in Europe on an interstate

I don't see why, most of them are faster than US cars.

Re:Great! (2, Informative)

mofag (709856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861295)

Black books
League of gentlemen (so different from the similarly named the crappy film)
Spaced
Jam
Little Britain

Off you go :)

Re:Great! (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863181)

Black books - Channel 4
League of gentlemen - BBC
Spaced - Channel 4
Jam - Channel 4 (I think)
Little Britain - BBC. Deteriorated badly after 1st series.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860713)

Yeah, nice! BH has got some great tits on his show.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Feminist-Mom (816033) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860745)

As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer and feminist, I find this offensive. Additionally from the article:

"The player is are so simple that a grandmother could use it".

This is just agist garbage. They wouldn't have said a grandfather couldn't use it.

Re:Great! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860763)

"The player is are so simple that a grandmother could use it".

This is just agist garbage. They wouldn't have said a grandfather couldn't use it.

Of course they wouldn't. It's not that simple.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860789)

As a 49 yo grandmother, c programmer and feminist, I find this offensive.

I stopped reading here.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860995)

by Feminist-Mom (816033)

I stopped reading here.

FTFY

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861151)

lol.

To say it simply, and in terms of a typical AC.

lolstfu feminist. Feminism is idiotic. Why don't you work on fixing typical husbands in tv shows who are dribbling idiots.

oh wait, you think that's typical. At least you don't have a period anymore, but you're still a wave of emotion.

Re:Great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861627)

They see me trollin', they hatin'.

Re:Great! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861281)

get back in the kitchen

Re:Great! (1)

cwike (1481913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861103)

Remember, don't iPlayer and drive.

Is it still Windows only? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860583)

Just how much of an international audience do they expect when so many countries shun or don't trust Microsoft products?

Re:Is it still Windows only? (2, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860603)

Name one.

Re:Is it still Windows only? (3, Informative)

ob0 (1612201) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860645)

No, it's (mostly) Adobe only, using Flash for streaming (via RTMP) and AIR for downloaded programmes. The iPhone version uses HTTP streams. get_iplayer [linuxcentre.net] is a nice script to download iplayer content a little more permanently.

Re:Is it still Windows only? (1)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861599)

And Linux is most definitely supported.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/download_programmes/desktop_linux [bbc.co.uk]

Since December 2008, apparently. [bbc.co.uk]

Re:Is it still Windows only? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861875)

They had to rope in the homosexual population somehow. Savage dick suckers.

Re:Is it still Windows only? (1)

bramp (830799) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860655)

Nope, works great on any OS/browser with Flash

Sweet! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860587)

I have been waiting for a chance to watch BBC streaming, instead of having to wait until someone in the UK records, transcodes, and uploads a torrent...

Re:Sweet! (1)

cwike (1481913) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860961)

Couldn't you simply run your connection through a Tor style service, which exits in the uk, and veiw iplayer via that? Or would that be too slow?

Re:Sweet! (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861659)

You could if you paid some guy to set up a proxy.

Re:Sweet! (1)

Phoobarnvaz (1030274) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861551)

Same here. Actually watch more BBC & Channel 10 AU than I do US stuff they call TV. I would gladly pay a subscription for this...rather than use proxy servers to get downloads & watch it as a native in the UK!!!

hugely popular? (0, Flamebait)

tirnacopu (732831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860783)

I would really like to see the criteria of whatever study classified the iPlayer as popular. Nobody likes it. Nobody wants it. Through several iterations in its life, it has failed again and again in ridiculous ways. We the public hate its DRM and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain, we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work, we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface, we hate it hate it hate it.
  What we DO want is the content offered through it, the high quality shows BBC has produced for more than half a century, this application is nothing but a clumsy annoying way to present them to the public.

Re:hugely popular? (2, Informative)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860823)

shrug. Works great for me. Find program I like. Click play. Enjoy.

Re:hugely popular? (1)

Xordan (943619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860845)

Works fine for me... Usually I run it on my PS3 so I can watch stuff on my TV (so I haven't noticed it being CPU hungry).

Re:hugely popular? (1)

Josh04 (1596071) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860847)

As you are not Royalty I'm going to have to ask you to stop using the Royal 'we'. Especially as the article states that, as a Grandmother, Her Majesty should be perfectly capable of using it's 'clumsy' interface.

Re:hugely popular? (5, Informative)

Jawju (614159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860945)

Not popular? It accounts for 5% of all UK network traffic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iplayer). Considering the other 95% is porn, that's still significantly popular.

Re:hugely popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861153)

Ok, this should not be modded Troll. Obviously someone from the BBC is here and they have mod points...

Re:hugely popular? (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861243)

No just people from the UK.

Nobody likes it. Nobody wants it.

Obviously not true

We the public hate its DRM

The public don't care, those that do don't hate the iPlayer because it has no DRM

and regional limits - even for shows that should be in the public domain

Bullshit, we paid for the content, we want BBC worldwide to make some money off you foreigners, so it can put on more quality programming without us paying for it.

we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

I quite like the fact they dropped the P2P idea because it was silly to expect people to install a program to get VOD. As a linux user I'm also glad they moved to air+flash instead of windows only+drm.

because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

He couldn't be trolling more if he tried, especially given that the BBC's track record dirac,freeview,etc

we hate is clumsy and CPU-hungry interface

Well even a troll gets something right, the CPU-hungriness isn't great on linux. Personally i do like the interface though, its better in most parts than 4OD.

Re:hugely popular? (1)

tirnacopu (732831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862347)

No just people from the UK.

Bullshit, we paid for the content, we want BBC worldwide to make some money off you foreigners

Nice opinion, thank you for being such a sport.

The public don't care, those that do don't hate the iPlayer because it has no DRM

What?? 5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management security. - from here [bbc.co.uk]

I quite like the fact they dropped the P2P idea because it was silly to expect people to install a program to get VOD.

It is of course reasonable to expect people to install the Adobe AIR runtime and the iPlayer AIR application.

Don't say we (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862149)

When you mean *I*

(And you do mean *I*)

Re:Don't say we (1)

tirnacopu (732831) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862315)

The British, and their old habit of trying to invalidate a controversial opinion by nitpicking on grammar or the accuracy of phrasing. The DRM present in iPlayer is not a subjective annoyance, and the people affected are not I. I can find my way to the nearest torrent tracker quite easily. Other people, with whom I was trying to work got bitten by it while trying to present the oh-so-glorious solution to an outside (outside of the UK, or out of network coverage) audience. For *me*, it was just a god laugh.

Re:hugely popular? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29862517)

What are you talking about?? Everyone I know loves it. Everyone. Including me, a geek. It's a pretty awesome free service.

Re:hugely popular? (1)

teh kurisu (701097) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863305)

we hate the fact that BBC dropped the P2P idea because they couldn't figure out how to get it to work

Actually, "we the public" hated the P2P idea because the BBC was using "we the public's" bandwidth to distribute its content instead of providing its own. The P2P iPlayer was only liked by people who read Slashdot.

Why do you care whether P2P is used or not? As long as your downloads complete in a timely manner, what difference does it make how it got there?

As a British taxpayer... (1)

Xordan (943619) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860795)

The more money the BBC can pull in from stuff that my taxes (TV licence, which I don't object to) have already paid for, the better. I realise that the TV licence won't drop in price, nor will I get any money back, but perhaps the money will go on creating more good stuff for me to watch.

Nah, probably the BBC execs will get big bonuses.

Re:As a British taxpayer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860809)

I wonder if they'll start coming door to door in other countries threatening people for not paying the mighty bbc.

Re:As a British taxpayer... (2, Insightful)

funkatron (912521) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860979)

Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.

Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.

Re:As a British taxpayer... (1)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861049)

Be careful. They might start trying to pull money from people that have already paid the "taxes" (there is some piece of semantics that makes the tv license not quite a tax). For instance dvds of bbc shows aren't noticebly cheaper than other channels despite the bbc's funding model. It's possible that they might take this route with online content if charging becomes normal for other channels.

Indeed. I'd actually say that DVDs of BBC shows (at least the popular ones) are more expensive than those from other channels, given the amount of content. UK series tend to be waaaay shorter than US series (and lower budget per episode, often) and yet somehow I'd be roughly looking at paying the same price for a series of Dr Who as for a US series. Dr Who is good but it's not good enough for me to pay that much, so I never buy any.

Also, I do object to the tv license, mostly because of their marketing department. Junkmail is never welcome but theirs often contains borderline threats. They also have a nasty habbit of sending salesmen to people who ask not to be spammed.

I've heard it alleged that the BBC don't have direct control over the license collection people. But regardless, the TV licensing people behave disgracefully on a continual basis. For those outside the UK who might be interested, the procedure is basically:

If TV Licensing think you might have a TV they will write to you and tell you to buy a license. If you ignore them they will write again. And again. And then they'll start warning you in writing that you may be taken to court. And they threaten to send an inspector round to see if you are watching TV. And eventually they will send an inspector around to check. If you buy a television, I think *perhaps* TV licensing sometimes get notified of the purchase address so they can update their database but I'd have to check that factoid.

You don't have to have a TV license to own an operate a TV but you do have to have it to watch live TV programmes. Even if you never ever watch the BBC, which is where most of the license money goes (which is how come we get to watch programmes for free on the iPlayer - already paid for by license fees - although somehow we're not allowed access to shows for more than about a week after broadcast).

Nasty habbit (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861129)

We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little habbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!

Re:As a British taxpayer... (1)

BiggyP (466507) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861611)

Not only that, Channel 4 make a large quantity of their content available on 4od(nasty flash site but still vaguely usable in linux) for 30 days, or indefinitely for stuff in their backcatalogue, such as the comic strip presents and every episode of peep show, whereas the BBC keeps recently aired content online for 7 whole days and expects you to buy the DVD if you would like to watch anything older... If i miss the first episode of a programme and realise this just after the second episode has aired i then have to go and torrent it before watching ep2 on iplayer. Now i keep an eye out for things and just rip everything remotely interesting with get_iplayer, resulting in nice mp4s that i can watch later, as in whenever i like, and without suffering the appalling performance of fullscreen flash.

Another great move by the BBC is to offer drm-free downloads of iplayer content, but guess what, you ordinarily(get_iplayer can retrieve these, thankfully) need to own an iPhone for them to extend this functionality to you, great, huh?

$10 per episode? (2, Insightful)

fartymenams (890764) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860805)

From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”. Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!

Re:$10 per episode? (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860883)

As good as some of the shows are, $2/episode is too much.

Re:$10 per episode? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860959)

From the article: "Luke Bradley Jones, chief of the BBC Worldwide’s digital operations in the US, said in a statement: “Millions of people love Torchwood and would probably pay ten bucks an episode rather than two bucks”.

Or they'll laugh all their way to usenet or bittorrent. $10 per episode?!

Also the BBC is infamous for rediculously low budgets. They make the episodes for next to nothing then boast that people will pay $10 each. How about proper budgets and actually picking up popular shows for a new season? Hit shows often run one season and more than three is extremely rare. I've often wondered if they canceled shows based on popularity. In the US they seem to cancel them based on quality.

Re:$10 per episode? (1)

mftb (1522365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861657)

The problem is that most US shows get shit, samey or self-parodying after a couple of seasons. Short runtimes lead to this not happening. What happens instead is teams generally stay together and make something new.

Re:$10 per episode? (1)

ProteusQ (665382) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860973)

Who are is this guy kidding?!

Re:$10 per episode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861053)

Agreed.

More people are willing to pay $2 than $10.
More people are willing to pay 6 sets of $2 than $10.

Perceived value and actual value differ greatly in peoples minds.
Most people won't question paying more than a lump sum because lesser amounts seem more disposable.
I certainly know i fall in to this category every so often.

Plus, cheaper will almost certainly mean larger numbers anyway. $10 is just way too much for most people to consider paying online when it comes to something they'll probably only watch once and never again.

If they could add a subscription system where you can get to view as many shows within a month at a reasonable price, i'd pay for it.

Yeah, it shows just how out of touch they are (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863161)

This is one of those quotes that has to be remembered. Paying 10 dollars (and most likely 10 euros) for a SINGLE tv episode...

This guy is not just out of touch with reality, he might actually be classified as insane. Imagine having to pay that for something like well, Torchwood. It has 3 seasons, each 13 eps long, so lets make it an even 30x 10 is 300 dollars for this show alone.

Season 1 on DVD costs 47 dollars (on amazon) and 2 costs 57. Lets assume season 3 costs 60 and you have to pay on the iPlayer DOUBLE the price but without any physical production costs.

And I thought iTunes was a ripoff (same price, massicaly reduced production costs === fat profits for someone), but iTunes only charges the SAME price as the CD. Not DOUBLE!

The great "If content produces were in charge of other industries" list

  • Frozen pizza from a supermarket would cost more then pizza delivered to your house. A pizza recipe would cost more then either one.
  • Reading the back cover of a book would require a fee.
  • Libraries would be outlawed.
  • Repairing your own car would be a criminal violation.
  • You could only put your petrol from Shell into vehilces approved by Shell and only if you don't take passengers with you. Putting petrol in a lighter would see you in jail.
  • Reading a book to your child would require you to pay a performance fee.
  • Coloring books would be outlawed, unauthorized use of a copyrighted work to use a derivative product.
  • Any advances that lead to savings will result in a price increase.
  • There would be no classic coke. The recipe for new coke would be "improved" each year with taste-testing done only on 12yr old girls and people who think full house if a comedy.
  • Your car would show a message every 10 miles, telling to make sure you buy the car, that you just bought.
  • A high priced hooker you payed to show you a good time, would go to bed with a headache, just like your wife and say "it is reality prostitution!"
  • When you quote, "640k should be enough for everyone" Bill Gates charges you a performance fee. Paraphrase it and you are sued for illegal use of his copyright work.
  • If you commit three traffic violations, you would be banned from the streets.
  • If you are caught lying to your customers three times, you would be banned from doing business.
  • If you made three bad tv shows, you would be banned from making tv ever again... bye bye BBC.

QI Please (2, Interesting)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860807)

I hope they include QI in their international lineup. I've been waiting for that show to become available here since I first saw it on YouTube, but no US station has agreed to carry it. These days such videos are taken down pretty quickly, so a legitimate feed of BBC programs would be very welcome indeed.

Re:QI Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861117)

Why wait for the bbc? It's already available. [ezrss.it]

The article is unclear... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860893)

... it says that they will

The international edition of the iPlayer would include host of popular shows from the BBC's array, such as Torchwood, Doctor Who, and Top Gear, along with historical stuffs from the BBC archives

However it goes on to say

However, the international iteration of the iPlayer wouldn't show domestic content

One big difference between BBC and BBC America right now is commercials and their impact on what we see in America. If the international iPlayer still gives Americans the sliced-up 40-minute shows (as opposed to the 1-hour versions seen in the UK), then they aren't offering anything that isn't already offered in the US on cable (this could be considered "domestic").

Furthermore, those of us who are fans of Top Gear also know that we have missed a lot of episodes and seasons that have been shown; just not in the US. If we could view it through the iPlayer, that would be a win.

British TV Production (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860907)

I really enjoy many British TV shows over their American counterpart. For example Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares in the US is produced as a reality show, and keys in on the personality conflicts and yelling. The British version of the same show keys on what is wrong with the business and food, and shows Gordon's softer side. The difference is night and day. British movies on Netflix actually have a plot, and not the same formula movie's the US audience has to eat.

That said, would not pay money to watch the channel, but would go along with a localized ad supported version.

State run TV Stations. There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea?? Yikes!

Re:British TV Production (2, Insightful)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861045)

Ughhh - Kitchen Nightmares USA - shudder.

As a brit, watching that reminds me of all the is bad about US TV. It's over produced, badly edited, misconstrued action (for dramatic effect), constant 'dramatic' sound track, 'dramatic' voice over, all about the confrontational aspect....

Compare to the UK version and as you say, it's more about the business, more 'factual' there's no dramatic voice-over providing unneeded 'tension'.

It reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer 'grabs her can' gummi venus de milo, or something.

Re:British TV Production (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861077)

Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home. Then I noticed she was
              sitting on [splice] her sweet [splice] can. [splice] -- o I grab
              her -- [splice] sweet can. [splice] Oh, just thinking about
              [splice] her [splice] can [splice] I just wish I had he --
              [splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] can.
Jones: So, Mr. Simpson: you admit you grabbed her can. What do you have
              to say in your defense?
Homer: [looking lustful in a clearly-paused VCR shot]
Jones: Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further.
                [paused shot of Homer grows larger]
              No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me. Get back! Get
              back! Mist -- Mr. Simpson -- nooo!
    Man: [quickly] Dramatization -- may not have happened.

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/2F06.html [snpp.com]

BBC is a weird beastie (4, Interesting)

Lemming Mark (849014) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861097)

The BBC is a really weird organisation. It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece". The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself. The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions. This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.

This independence can fall down a bit; when the BBC aired allegations that the government had exaggerated evidence in support of the Iraq war, a whole complicated scandal resulted including the suicide of the civil servant who made the allegations (after he was basically abandoned by his department and hounded by the media). The government set up an enquiry called the Hutton Report, which viewed a lot of evidence (including a draft where a political advisor / spin doctor suggested changing "may have weapons of mass destruction" to "has weapons of mass destruction") and came to the conclusion that nobody was really at fault but the BBC should have done better. A bit mystifying to many of us. Anyhow, some say that the BBC has been a bit more cautious about government criticism since then. Nevertheless it (appears to) remain a fairly comprehensive and unbiased source, compared to many of the other major players in news.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861289)

I believe they also forced Greg Dike (head of the BBC when it was critical over the bullshit that was the Hutton report) out. IMO they managed this despite the rules, because one of the BBC trust board members was married to a labour MP. However one thing that is interesting is that none of the commercial stations really pushed the government on this bullshit which suggest they are just as controlled by the BBC (well C4 sort of did but ITV & five just rolled over IMO)

ITV News (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863395)

Have you seen ITV news recently? It's like a cross between the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Heat Magazine.

The BBC1 news is going the same way. The only TV news I watch now is Channel 4 News [channel4.com] . Channel 4, although partly commercial is a public service broadcaster so its news tends to be reasonably independent.

The best news is on Radio 4 twice [bbc.co.uk] a day [bbc.co.uk] .

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (2, Informative)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861351)

The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions. This generally works pretty well and the BBC is widely considered a fairly accurate, relatively unbiased news source.

unless you are an American Republican. I mentioned the Beeb as a fairly unbiased "outside" news source to a Republican friend of mine and the venom was immediate. Yes, I think they do a pretty good job. But it does seem that the Republican party today is somewhere to the right of the Nazi party.

PS: Godwin's law, blah blah...

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (5, Insightful)

JackDW (904211) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861629)

It's always good to get the news from sources outside your own country, as it is less likely to be influenced by your own politicians. This applies to Brits just as much as it applies to Americans.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29863433)

You should ask him if he thinks Fox News would invite the leader of the KKK on for an hour of serious discussion. After all, the horribly biased BBC just had the leader of the British National Party on Question Time for an hour.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (2, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861971)

Weird beastie it may be, but you make two errors. It is not state-run in any meaningful sense and the state does not collect the money. Wikipedia has a decent summary of the licensing and collection regime here [wikipedia.org] .

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29862587)

The BBC is weird that it's a really popular high-rating TV network, yet it's the government channel at the same time. Unlike the US and Australian equivalents (PBS and ABC), the BBC is really *big*. (In most other countries around Europe, or New Zealand, Canada, they are much smaller or just sold off and private now).

In earlier times this used to be a clearly good thing, because the big networks would either produce populist trash and/or import all their good stuff from the US, so whether you were living in Britain (and paying for it like a compulsory cable TV fee) or outside Britain, this was clearly making your choice of TV programming better.

Now that the non-government commercial TV models are coming under pressure, the BBC is suddenly looking threatening and unjustifiable if you work for one of the other networks. If you're a TV viewer, however, it's even more of a good thing that you want to keep.

That's why the "global iPlayer" is such a double-edged sword. It could make the BBC too good. Plus, it gets the local distributors of BBC content off-side if you do it wrong.

The trick will be to clearly and fairly split the funding & operations of the "global" operations, in the way that BBC tries to do already with its worldwide news channels and other satellite channels. They have to be, and be seen to be, self-supporting.

Voice of America, Australia Network and Deutsche Welle each come out of some shared broadcaster facilities in the US, Australia and Germany, but are separately funded by foreign affairs departments (depts of state, etc).

CK.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (1)

slim (1652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863191)

You call it "state run", then go on to explain how it is not state run.

The state gives it authority to collect a license fee, on condition that they abide by their charter. And there the relationship with the state ends.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (2, Informative)

Baki (72515) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863257)

In fact a similar situation exists in many european countries: The german ARD and ZDF are are also state channels and by law all groups in society are represented and have influence. The same for dutch (although the details work differently) and swiss state TV.

For example in dutch state TV, political, religious or other groups get a # of hours depending on the number of members they have. There are strict limits regarding programming: a max. amount of advertisement and the nature thereof (not misleading, not hidden advertisement incorporated inside shows etc.), the division of time of entertainment, culture, news and politics etc.

I like this system because it ensures that next to commercial pulp a certain amount of guaranteed quality TV exists that is affordable for everyone (i.e. no need to subscribe to pay TV) and objective information (news, political commentaries of various opinions) is available to everyone, not dominated by big money or lobby groups, next to commercial and pay-TV offerings.

Re:BBC is a weird beastie (1)

laughing_badger (628416) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863537)

The BBC is a really weird organisation. It's a state-run TV channel, which usually we assume means "propaganda mouthpiece". The BBC is set up in a peculiar way whereby the state collects the money for them but the government is not allowed (in theory) control over the BBC itself. The BBC's charter has various requirements to show balance in political reporting and the government is denied direct mechanisms to interfere in editorial decisions.

It wasn't until I read it put in these terms that I realised that this is really a model that we should be looking at for providing education and medicine in this country. It would stop political interference and ensure that decisions on curriculum etc. were made by experts in the fields rather than as the latest government knee-jerk reaction.

Re:British TV Production (1)

Rising Ape (1620461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861107)

I remember when the Americans made a version of Scrapheap Challenge called Junkyard Wars, and the difference in style was very noticeable and grating - much more loud and obnoxious. But most British TV isn't so good these days - the comedy has been mostly dreadful for the past decade, with Peep Show being an honourable exception.

The BBC isn't "state run" really, and it *is* a good idea, particularly for news and current affairs, as it has much stronger requirements for balance and fairness than typical American commercial news stations (Fox News anyone?). It isn't just a government mouthpiece, if that's what you were worried about.

Re:British TV Production (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862457)

State run TV Stations. There is at least one person thinks this is a good idea?? Yikes!

Yeah, on this side of the Atlantic we haven't been subjected to decades of right-wing brainwashing about the evils of socialism so we can actually enjoy public services.

Adidas board man Shoes Online Sale Now ,Don't Wait (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29860915)

    Welcome to our website: Http://www.tntshoes.com
We offer grade AAA shoes here with wholesale price! Our shoes have some advantages as following:
1) Grade AAA shoes,handbags,t-shirts,belts,sunglass,caps.boots,etc!
2) The wholesale price!
3) 100% safe, the best delivery terms!
4) No mini order here!
5) The best service!
    OUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn

                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com

Re:Adidas board man Shoes Online Sale Now ,Don't W (1)

friendofthenite (1226310) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861951)

Commenting to remove a bad mod.

Or... (1)

esp_ex (148837) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860965)

You can watch it now by going through a proxy server based in the UK. That's what I do to watch Top Gear.

Where do I sign? (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 4 years ago | (#29860969)

Good quality? No ads? Reasonable price? Uncut? Where do I sign?

I just can't see the Beeb redistributing imports like the excellent Spiral [bbc.co.uk] , the English title for Engrenages [canalplus.fr] . Most of this stuff ends up on DVD (I bought Spiral on DVD from Australia, complete with SBS's [sbs.com.au] Aussie subtitles), but not always.

...laura

Give me this: (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861111)

- Doctor Who and Top Gear :)
- PayPal micro-payment as an alternative to watching ads, or where you can't get any ads for.
- A price that is somewhere in the range of what you'd get from advertisers.

Why that price? Because I know what you get for ads on the web. And those prices are so low per individual viewer, that BBC would still make a better profit, by asking 5 cent per show, or something like that. A price that nobody can ever think of as too expensive.

I would be happy to pay for something that deserves that money.

Comedy Central should do the same with The Daily Show. Come on. Those prices are like nothing! And you still make a hell of a better profit, as when advertising! And people still can choose to watch the ads, if it's not worth money for them.
It's a no-brainer! A win-win!

You could also let us buy a whole season at once. 65 cent for 13 episodes.

Oh, and of course I expect to be able to save it right from the player. Because I can save it anyway (After all, it already had to be transferred to my computer, to be watchable!), and using my Firefox add-on is not even any hassle. But the gesture of letting me save it right in your player, will show a friendliness that crates important sympathies.

P.S.: I'm a bit ill today, and not that fit. so sorry if my sentences look a bit weird to read. ^^ I hope it all makes sense anyway.

Re:Give me this: (1)

wrook (134116) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861757)

Personally, I would pay the normal license fee for access to all of BBC's content. Unfortunately, I don't think that will ever happen. For some things they simply don't have the rights for redistribution outside of the UK. A good example is football. On the odd occasion that they broadcast a football match, there's just no way they will be able to negotiate rights outside of the UK.

Still, if I could find a legal way to watch Dr. Who that would be a tremendous step forward for me. Living in the country side of Japan next to a mountain, I'm left very few alternatives (no cable or satellite...) Hmmm... I just noticed that NHK released the first 3 seasons of the new series here finally. I suppose it's time to exercise my credit card...

Forgot the most important part (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861843)

  • Give me the full episodes

Those of us who have BBC America are getting, generally, 2/3rds of the programming per show that our British counterparts get. This can be especially egregious in some Top Gear episodes where 20 minutes is removed to make room for commercials. And then to make matters worse they sell those same butchered episodes to us in American stores as well.

I would happily pay to see the full Top Gear episodes that I am missing, especially from the seasons that have never been shown in America. Are you listening, BBC?

Re:Forgot the most important part (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862889)

Yes, all those ad break are incredibly annoying.

I seriously don't know how you put up with them. When I lived in the US, I bought a Replay TV, which skipped the ads very nicely...wonderful device.

Now I'm living in Finland, the US shows I watch on TV have half the number of ads, so we have the show 'going to ads' and then coming right back again....better than actually having the ads, but still very annoying.

Re:Forgot the most important part (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862893)

...oh, and I now remember *why* they're so annoying...it's because the shows have a tendency to summarise what happened before it broke for the ads, so when you don't have any actual ads, the summary is completely unnecessary...so we keep going...come on..we know all this...get on with it! Tsk.

Re:Give me this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861999)

You know, I've had similar thoughts about Google's free services. Only in that case, what I'd pay, say dollars per year, for would be the absence of ads, pretty convincing privacy guarantees and some pretty minimal security guarantees...

Re:Give me this: (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862879)

Please, not paypal...that's too restrictive to non-US countries. I wouldn't mind paying micropayments on my phone bill, and that's probably where I would watch them anyway.

I'd subscribe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29861219)

I've probably watched a hundred or more hours of BBC-broadcast content on Youtube (I'm a big fan of the UK political satire shows like HIGNFY and Mock The Week, among others) I've always said that if there were a way for me to pay for this content I would, but it's simply unavailable in the US.

I'm sure the market for those particular shows is niche outside the UK (probably mostly ex-pats, really) but that's what internet distribution excels at! Since they already have the shows prepared for digital download even meager sales would be pure profit.

About time (1)

stokessd (89903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861495)

I emailed them years ago asking how to pay for their service. They responded that they have no way to let me pay for the service, or more importantly had no way of providing my content. So I had to go another route. I pay for a UK proxy; specifically the VPN service:

http://www.ukproxyserver.co.uk/

IF the BBC has VOD, that still won't help with ITV, SKY, and Channel 4 etc.

In fact I'm watching to Russell Howard's Good News Episode 1. Review: it's OK, but he's not nearly as funny solo as he is on Mock The Week.

Sheldon

Re:About time (1)

Mr Thinly Sliced (73041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29861717)

Interesting - thanks for the link to the proxy service. Ex-pat in Belgium here who will have a play with that.

VOD - profit vs. use (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29862057)

I don't mind VOD / pay for new movies. I can see people paying for latest-run TV shows, I guess.

And there's a lot of BBC stuff I'd like to be able to stream, legally - with some sort of reasonable model.

I'd like to see Doctor Who and whatever that series was that had the British flying around trying to sell franchises, as well as many others - any of the early BlackAdders come to mind as well.

But these are OLD tv shows. You can make a few bucks selling ads and selling ads for DVD / Blu-ray discs. Consider the following VOD:

http://www.slashcontrol.com/free-tv-shows/babylon-5 [slashcontrol.com] (yes - all five seasons)

Next ones go without saying:

http://www.hulu.com/ [hulu.com]

http://www.crackle.com/ [crackle.com]

And here's the best content manager I know:

http://getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com]

Note to BBC - I hear your iplayer is working now. Great. We don't need the DRM or the extra charges for shows that will come around in rerun on the same non-tiered channels we saw them on outside of your country in the first place - cheers, thanks a lot.

If this is true, then about time too (1)

AlexandrDmitri (1659897) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863029)

I'd certainly pay to watch on demand, or even a fixed rate for unlimited BBC viewing. But as dwater says, NOT PayPal please folks. I can only get BBC World on satellite here in Morocco, and that is appalling, truly, appalling. The BBC should be ashamed of putting their name to the drivel they broadcast most of the time-though I will admit that some slots are bearable-and as for the number of breaks! They spend more time self-promoting their programmes than actually showing them, and I really don't need a timecheck in all of the timezones every fifteen minutes (yes I know, it's so they can show their sponsor's name). Don't get me going on the weather - has the BBC forgotten that Africa and Europe exist as continents? Is it really necessary to focus so much on the Middle East and India?

And subscription is compulsory in the UK because.. (1)

Budenny (888916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29863269)

Its excellent value, its a national treasure, everyone loves it.

So why exactly does it have to be legally compulsory to subscribe to it if you want to watch any TV? Why is this the only subscription TV that you are obliged to subscribe to? Why, if we really want to make it compulsory to subscribe to some TV, do we not allow you to pick the provider of your choice? Why is it, that if you want to watch the English cricket team go down in flames yet again, you are obliged to subscribe to two TV broadcast services, only one of which provides cricket coverage?

Try writing to the BBC and telling them you want to cancel your subscription, because you are choosing to use Sky as your premium content provider. Or you don't want any premium content, you are happy to watch only ad funded TV.

Why exactly can you not do that? What would be so terrible if you could?

The BBC desperately needs competition, and that does not mean other channels that you are permitted to subscribe to in addition to it. It needs competition on equal terms, where you can subscribe to the BBC, to Channel X, neither, or both, as the mood strikes you.

I'd pay for that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29863377)

I was looking for a good proxy service in the UK to allow me to watch iplayer. Since most of the Beeb's content is lightyears ahead in quality from the drivvel we get in the Netherlands I'd be happy to pay for it. So, hopefully soon, in the meantime if anyone knows a good proxy service in the uk for a tenner or less per month....

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?