(2014-11-01, 16:28)speedwell68 Wrote: Oh and BTW there is a new BBC iPlayer addon in the .xunity/xfinity repo. It doesn't have the functionality of the old one yet but it does at least work. Personally I am going to stick with the Plex one.
(2014-11-01, 15:59)InsaneNutter Wrote: (2014-11-01, 03:27)exobuzz Wrote: ... nice eh.
Indeed, i wonder why it really matters how the iPlayer is accessed? especially given its still IP locked to the UK anyway.
I have made my feelings know on the blog article here and asked for a reason why: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/post...atform-API i suggest others do the same.
I don't see the point of getting all uppity with the BBC. The fact you cannot access their content with a 3rd party app is not their concern. As the law stands you only have to have a TV licence operate a broadcast (or simulcast) receiver, regardless of the content provider. If you are solely watching on demand service such as the iPlayer, 4oD, ITV Player or Demand 5 you do not legally require a licence. So even though you have paid for a TV licence you are not paying for the privilege of watching the iPlayer. So you have paid the princely sum of nothing to watch this content, which means you are not their customer and they have no duty of care towards you. Even if they did, the licence is only to allow you to operate the receiver, viewing the broadcast is irrelevant as it is provided FOC.
The BBC model as we know it will not survive much longer, it is unsustainable. A change of legislation is required as the Wireless and Telegraphy Act 1949 is now obsolete.
The BBC model has to be sustainable ! The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate - what woud happen to Radio 3, Radio 4, unbiased news, BBC 4 and possibly even BBC 2 if we moved to a US-style funding system ? The state of the media in the US, as those of us who live there know, is utterly dire and a detriment to society. Look at what has happened in other European countries - they are moving away from the advertising-funded model more towards a BBC model. Imagine if EVERY 5 minutes there was an advertising break on EVERY radio and TV channel; there was rampant product placement, politicial influence over which story aried on the news. Imagine if the "Nightly News" consisted of reporting on local shootings, local sports, local weather (and I mean VERY local), no poltical commentary, no interviews with politicians (because the advertisers don't like confrontation and they are needed to fund the station) for an hour every night ! Last night, I counted 2 minutes of news on both KTVU and KRON-4's hourly nightly news that did NOT relate to the immediate 40+ mile radius area.
The alternative is PBS which is dry, dusty, old-fashioned and under-funded. It too is supported by donations, pledges, adverts that appear every few minutes. The morning news on the radio repeats every 60 minutes - it consists of some reportage but certainly no drilling of politicians, no debate, no confrontation. The Paxman/Naughtie/Brian Redhead style of interviewing would have no place here becuase there is no forum for them to operate in.
As I've said before, it's not until you live in a country that DOESN'T have a strong media such as the US that you realise what a good deal the BBC the is both as an entertainer and an informer.
Where I do agree with you is that moaning at Auntie is no good - it's not THEIR fault. It's the greedy production houses (mostly multinationals these days) that insist on strong control of the content they sell. Look at the ultimate ownership of the major production houses - Endemol; a NY pirvate capital company, Freemantle, a privately held German multinational group. Shine, Fox. NBC Universal, major US multinational. Originally, these were ALL small, independent production houses for the Beeb and have been swallowed up by companies intersted in money alone.
The BBC is great, and I would gladly pay much, much more in my licence fee (yes, I do pay a licence fee for the UK).