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/
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 ...
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson 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=alias&alias=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 ...
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson 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 ...
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 12:51, 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? Not without them adopting the Canvas UI and achieving brand licensing. > For instance, will there be scope for, say, a Canvas pvr to save out to a > NAS frame on the local network? Unsure. depends if there's room in the UX for it, and it doesn't breach any of the other conditions of licensing the Canvas brand. > I don't renmember having to find 5 grand to look at the PAL definition... Well, quite. - 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 12:21, David Tomlinson wrote: > I am still reading the above document. Keep reading. Bear in mind that it's a set of *conditions* as applied to the existing proposal, which isn't spelled out in its entirety in that document. You need to read both together. The proposal says "the Canvas UX is mandated for access to the content" The conditions document says (see 4.38 and on) "nothing to see here, carry on". 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 ...
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56, David Tomlinson 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 ...
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 ...
"Legal compliance: Canvas will comply with all applicable laws including competition and state aid law." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/june/canvas.shtml This is BBC policy and a legal requirement. Mo McRoberts wrote: On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 04:02, David Tomlinson wrote: The 'canvas' interface is still subject to copyright and subject to a cost recovery fee, as are logos etc (not required by open source solution). 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," 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" http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf At a minimum Free To Air content (HD) will be available for off-air recording using the EPG (using open source or other software). iplayer will remain free to use and others members of Canvas may only charge for cost recovery. 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. 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. "Affiliate membership Affiliate Membership is offered to UK and international not-for-profit organisations such as trade associations, registered charities, special interest groups and central government departments that have an interest in the work of the Group." http://www.dtg.org.uk/dtg/joining.html - 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 04:02, David Tomlinson wrote: > The 'canvas' interface is still subject to copyright and subject to a cost > recovery fee, as are logos etc (not required by open source solution). 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. 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. 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 ...
Alex Cockell wrote: As long as the possibility of an open-source implementation remains. Which is quite concerning at present. One should be able to build a Canvas receiver from *public* specs ultimately. The scale of lockdown is quigte worrying at the mo. Also inprove some of the diagnostics... You will be legally, and without breaking Free Software principles, be able to implement a free/open-source, software stack (no linking to closed source modules), including, displaying the EPG contents (No NDA required) from the public specification. The 'canvas' interface is still subject to copyright and subject to a cost recovery fee, as are logos etc (not required by open source solution). There will be no technical or other obstruction, to omitting the content protection (which is part of the specification). I do not work for 'canvas' or the BBC, but this is my expectation. I can't help with the diagnostics ... - 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 ...
Hi all I am running a community and event series called MiniBar in London (Ian F. came quite often when he was still based in London). Its a community for tech entrepreneurs and developers. We are meeting once a month in the Truman Brewery with around 300 of us. I am hoping to one of our MiniBar events in September, or November on 'IPTV' and it would be great to learn more about Project Canvass, what API's they will release etc.. If anybody on this list has an interesting project in this area please email me, or if you can can connect to me to somebody who works on project Canvass pls email me as well. Cheers --Ch On 28 Jun 2010, at 12:35, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:24, Frank Wales wrote: Kieran Kunhya wrote: Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other broadcasters by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded content and development? No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. One thing I don't get is why Project Canvas isn't an EBU thing. So the BBC would work on it with other broadcasters through the EBU, just like most of the other standards we have. It seems a bit odd to have a UK terrestrial broadcaster only standard. Scot - 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 ...
- Original message - > Kieran Kunhya wrote: > No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. > It serves the public when market-based squabbles over alternative > technological platforms don't happen, and everyone just gets on with > innovating atop a good-enough platform, rather than frittering away > consumers' time and money by playing platform argy-bargy. > > Of course, this makes other broadcaster's jobs easier, but that's a good > thing; the harder it is for them to develop something, the more they'll > want to control what they developed. Relieving them of that burden is > to everyone's benefit, not just theirs. > > > It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a > > consensus otherwise without the BBC. > > Exactly. Markets aren't very good at arriving at a new platform from > a standing start, largely due to company boards treating technological > platforms as a strategic asset when they get the chance. > > Hence, HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray, VHS versus Betamax, or, for those old > enough to remember, AC mains versus DC mains, or broad gauge versus > standard gauge. > > As Joel Birnbaum (former HP Labs director) noted: standardizing the > mains socket enables enormous innovations on either side of it, rather > than constant arguing about what shape the pins should be. > > If the BBC can help take the debate about a platform's 'shape' off the > table, it allows everyone to concentrate on building stuff on that > platform, which can only be a service to the public. As long as the possibility of an open-source implementation remains. Which is quite concerning at present. One should be able to build a Canvas receiver from *public* specs ultimately. The scale of lockdown is quigte worrying at the mo. Also inprove some of the diagnostics...
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:24, Frank Wales wrote: > Kieran Kunhya wrote: >> >> Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other >> broadcasters > >> by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded content and >> development? > > No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. One thing I don't get is why Project Canvas isn't an EBU thing. So the BBC would work on it with other broadcasters through the EBU, just like most of the other standards we have. It seems a bit odd to have a UK terrestrial broadcaster only standard. Scot - 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 ...
> > Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively > "bailing out" other broadcasters > > by providing a common platform backed with licence fee > funded content and development? > > No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. > > It serves the public when market-based squabbles over > alternative technological > platforms don't happen, and everyone just gets on with > innovating atop a > good-enough platform, rather than frittering away > consumers' time and money > by playing platform argy-bargy. That's a very interesting point - I've never really thought of Canvas as a form of market failure correction. - 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 ...
Kieran Kunhya wrote: Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other broadcasters > by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded content and development? No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. It serves the public when market-based squabbles over alternative technological platforms don't happen, and everyone just gets on with innovating atop a good-enough platform, rather than frittering away consumers' time and money by playing platform argy-bargy. Of course, this makes other broadcaster's jobs easier, but that's a good thing; the harder it is for them to develop something, the more they'll want to control what they developed. Relieving them of that burden is to everyone's benefit, not just theirs. It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a consensus otherwise without the BBC. Exactly. Markets aren't very good at arriving at a new platform from a standing start, largely due to company boards treating technological platforms as a strategic asset when they get the chance. Hence, HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray, VHS versus Betamax, or, for those old enough to remember, AC mains versus DC mains, or broad gauge versus standard gauge. As Joel Birnbaum (former HP Labs director) noted: standardizing the mains socket enables enormous innovations on either side of it, rather than constant arguing about what shape the pins should be. If the BBC can help take the debate about a platform's 'shape' off the table, it allows everyone to concentrate on building stuff on that platform, which can only be a service to the public. -- Frank Wales [fr...@limov.com] - 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 27/06/2010 20:53, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other > broadcasters by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded > content and development? > > It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a consensus > otherwise without the BBC. Anything similar would probably take many more > years to develop because of all the wrangling or even be homebrew or > developed by an outsider (e.g. Boxee). The DRM and payment model is > standardised and presumably reasonably secure which reduces the duplicate > work required by other broadcasters and makes the user-experience better (one > payment gateway, one box etc.). As a user I want just a single garden, I don't want to have vary bits of software with varying levels of brokenness for my choice of platforms. A single platform is good for the user it allows everyone to build to a single standard. It also potentially allows new content providers into the same distribution space without the problem of finding transmission frequencies. So bailing out is not the way I look at it personally. The cost of building the platform in comparison to say electricity & overheads to drive transmitters is minimal, based on a back of the envelope calculation on figures from a few years ago. f - 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 ...
Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively "bailing out" other broadcasters by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded content and development? It's unlikely such a wide group of companies would ever reach a consensus otherwise without the BBC. Anything similar would probably take many more years to develop because of all the wrangling or even be homebrew or developed by an outsider (e.g. Boxee). The DRM and payment model is standardised and presumably reasonably secure which reduces the duplicate work required by other broadcasters and makes the user-experience better (one payment gateway, one box etc.). - 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 ...
> Following on from discussion last september: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/25/project-canvas-bbc-trust > Does the requirement to publish the technical specifications within the next 20 days mean they will be freely available to anyone who wants them, or would that mean they would only be available to members of the DTG? - 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/
