BBC on-demand proposals 
Analysis of Public Consultation 


Helen Mather and Lynne Gill 
Dipsticks Research Ltd 


April 2007 


Contents 

1. Introduction 3 
2. Executive Summary 5 
3. Main Report : - 
3.1 Agree to Trusts proposals subject to modifications 9 

3.2 Priority for BBC to invest in on-demand services 16 

3.3 Length of storage window 22 

3.4 Series stacking 32 

3.5 Catch-up available to non-Microsoft users 47 

3.6 Offer audio downloads of book readings 56 

3.7 Offer audio downloads of classical music 61 

3.8 Parental control 67 

3.9 Offer content from non-BBC providers 77 

3.10 How to offer content from non-BBC providers 84 

3.11 Do revisions seem appropriate 92 

3.12 Any other issues 97 

 




4. E-mail and postal responses 105 

 


1. INTRODUCTION 




The BBC management has made an application to launch the BBC’s new 
on-demand proposals including BBC iPlayer. This is a service to unify the 
BBC’s provision of audio and video content on-demand and to make it 
available to UK audiences over the internet. 

 

The application proposes a service that would consist of: - 

 

Seven day TV catch-up over the internet 

Seven day TV catch-up over cable 

Simulcast TV over the internet 

Non-time limited audio downloads over the internet 

 

The three internet based offerings would be combined into a direct-to-
consumer offering, BBC iPlayer, which would incorporate all the existing 
BBC players such as the Radio Player. 

 

Following the application of its first Public Value Test, the BBC Trust 
published its provisional conclusions on the BBC’s on-demand proposals 
and opened a period of public consultation for 8 weeks from the 31 
January until 5pm on the 28 March 2007. 

 

The aim of the consultation is to gain feedback from the public, the 
commercial sector and the BBC management team on these provisional 
conclusions. 

 

The BBC Trust has proposed a number of modifications to the BBC 
management’s on-demand proposals and seeks thoughts on these. 

 

The BBC Trust set out a number of questions to help respondents frame 
their answers. Respondents were able to reply either: - 


• At the BBC Trust’s website 
• By e-mail 
• By post 


This final report contains a summary of the findings from the final 10,608 
responses to the BBC Trust’s website. The responses are mainly from 
licence fee payers or individuals. A few organizations are represented in 
this analysis. 

 

Additional e-mail and postal responses have been analysed in Section 4. 
Again these are mainly from individuals and licence fee payers. 

 

Other larger organizations who have replied directly to the Trust will be 
reported on out with this document. 

 

Responses have been analysed where possible by:- 


• Stakeholder (organisation) versus licence fee payer (individual) 
• UK and non-UK responses 
• By UK regions 


 

The geographic breakdown of the total 10,608 responses is as follows: - 

 

 

UK 

Non-UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Base 

7,147 

1,374 

600 

109 

217 

% 

67.3 

13.0 

5.7 

1.1 

2.1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Not 
determined 

Base 

1,358 

916 

1,091 

2,829 

2,087 

% 

12.8 

8.6 

10.3 

26.7 

19.7 



 

Please note: 27 UK responses could not be identified by region. 


2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 




 

2.1 Q1. While three quarters of respondents do agree with the BBC Trust's 
proposal to approve the new BBC on-demand services, subject to the 
modifications outlined in the Trust's report of its provisional conclusions, 
there seems to be a strong feeling that the system should be available to 
all users, not just Microsoft users. There also seems to be resistance to 
the use of any form of DRM. There is also an underlying issue of 
payment: should this be included in the licence fee when many will not 
use the service and some will use the service who are not licence fee 
payers, or should this be based on a subscription service? 

 

2.2 Q2. 86.3% of respondents agree that in a market in which most 
broadcasters are expected to be offering on-demand services, it is a 
priority for the BBC to be investing in this area. However it was 
mentioned that quality programming should remain the top priority for 
the BBC. While there is virtually unanimous agreement that this is the 
way forward for the BBC, it should be via open source software. Again the 
issue was raised as to whether or not the service should be charged for, 
possibly to non-licence fee payers. 

 

2.3 Q3. There appears to be a divide between those who feel the 30 day limit 
is satisfactory (36.1%) and between those who feel there should be no 
time limit/restriction on the storage of programmes (37.3%). Many 
respondents could not see the point of having a time limit as people are 
currently able to record BBC output and store it as long as they wish. 
Again there seems to be a strong feeling against using DRM as it was felt 
that the cost of introducing this time limit had no purpose and would not 
be cost effective. Also many felt that as licence payers had already 
effectively paid for the programmes, they should be able to keep them for 
as long as required and storage allowed. 



2.4 Q4. The majority of respondents seem to believe that the concept of 
series stacking is a good one (79.4% say it would be a useful feature). 
They feel that as people are licence fee payers they “own” the material 
anyway and should have access to it as and when they want. Likewise, as 
people are currently free to record and keep any material as long as they 
wish from the TV, the same should apply to series stacking. It is felt by 
many that this should not damage DVD sales as those who want to buy a 
quality, well presented and packaged DVD will continue to do so. 


 There is an issue as to possibly charging non-licence fee payers to access 
the material via series stacking. Also to limit any possible impact on DVD 
sales, a time limit could be imposed, quality could be reduced or a charge 
could be made for allowing longer access. 

 


The responses as to whether there should be a time limit on the 
availability for viewing, or on the number of episodes available for catch 
up are not so clear cut. Only 13.9% of respondents think that there 
should be a limit on number of episodes with 60% of respondents not 
replying. Likewise only 18.4% agreed there should be a time limit on 
availability to view, again with a large percentage not replying. 

 

 Therefore it would seem that this is not such an issue for the majority of 
respondents, although as this was a question of many parts it may not 
necessarily have been clear to respondents what the issues were. 

 

2.5 Q5. Overall 85.5% of respondents said it was either very important or 
important that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the internet 
is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software. 
Many organizations are endorsing the use of open source software and 
are against the sole use of Microsoft. They believe there should be a cross 
platform service and the BBC should not be “supporting” Microsoft. 
Indeed many organisations and individuals in the media, creative and 
educational sectors are non-Microsoft users. 

Some respondents feel that Microsoft may not be as relevant in the future 
as it is today and therefore the BBC should not place reliance upon it. Also 
as everyone pays the licence fee, why should some people be excluded 
from this service? The strength of feeling on this issue should not be 
underestimated. 


2.6 Q6. There appears to be a very positive response towards book readings 
being provided as audio downloads, with over 80% of respondents 
agreeing that the BBC should be allowed to offer these downloads over 
the internet. 
Some respondents felt that although they agreed with the concept in 
principle, it was not particularly of interest to them. However many people 
felt that this would be of great benefit in particular to certain groups such 
as the visually impaired, those with reading difficulties, non-English 
speakers, the elderly, as well as the public generally. This service could 
also be of considerable benefit to the educational sector. 

It was felt by some that this would not detract from book sales but may 
well on the contrary increase sales. The main reservation was that any 
book downloads would have to be legal with the agreement of the book 
publisher/author/copyright owner. It may be that an abridged version 
only was used. 

 





2.7 Q7. The majority of respondents (63%) agree that all or at least some 
radio broadcasts of classical music should be available as audio downloads 
over the internet. It appears to be widely felt that this could encourage 
the wider appreciation of classical music and would not harm sales of 
classical music. Generally those who are interested in classical music will 
want a good quality recording of a classical piece and would not be 
satisfied with an audio download. By increasing potential exposure to 
classical music this in turn may actually increase classical sales. 
2.8 Q8. Only a quarter of respondents think it is very important for the BBC 
to provide some form of parental controls. A further 45% gave no 
response. Likewise only 14.2% of respondents think that any facility 
provided by the BBC is necessary. 
While 45.8% of respondents believe that it is a matter for parents to 
exercise controls over how their children use the internet, respondents 
seem to feel that the BBC should make some effort to help make this job 
easier for parents, without getting too bogged down in unnecessary DRM. 
The response level to this question was also low at just over 50%. 

It is felt that the children themselves will have the knowledge to get 
round controls to stop them accessing certain material and this would be 
a waste of the BBC’s resources to attempt to implement this. Also it is 
likely that children are able to access more sensitive materials from other 
sources, compared to that which is available from the BBC 

Some method of tagging programmes or giving parents advice on how to 
set up some controls for younger children would probably be 
advantageous.




 

2.9 Q9. There seems to be a divide between those who have not given an 
opinion, those who think non-BBC content should be provided and those 
who do not. Where respondents think that non-BBC content should be 
provided, the positives are seen as the additional content and wider 
choice which would be on offer. However there are caveats relating to the 
quality of the offering provided and also the potential costs which could be 
incurred, which could be passed on to the licence fee payer. Conversely 
this could also be seen as an opportunity to raise revenue. Those in 
opposition to this option, feel very strongly that the BBC should restrict its 
offering to BBC content only, as non-BBC content can be obtained 
elsewhere and might not meet the high quality standard of the BBC. 


Some comments give the suggestion that the BBC should start with BBC 
content only then offer non-BBC content at a later stage, when the 
service is up and running and further developments can be assessed. 




 


2.10 Q10. It should be noted that the phrasing of this question caused some 
confusion amongst respondents, making it difficult to analyse the 
responses. The majority reflect the views expressed above towards the 
suggestion that the BBC make available on-demand content from other 
providers. 
With regard to how the BBC should make available on-demand content 
from other providers, the majority of responses tend to echo earlier 
discussion of the pros and cons of the different platform options available. 
There is significant support/demand for platform neutrality/multiple 
platforms, along with positive feedback towards the use of iTunes as a 
channel of distribution. 

Those respondents against on-demand content from other providers again 
repeated their view that the service should be restricted to BBC only 
output due to issues of ethics and commercial operations. Indexing or 
providing links to other services would be acceptable to a small proportion 
of this group. 

Other concerns include issues quality of audio and video streams and 
issues of costs to both the BBC and to the service users. 


2.11 Q11. In principle, nearly half of the respondents (42%) view the revisions 
proposed to BBC service licences to be appropriate to allow the new 
services to go ahead. The move is viewed by the majority to be a positive 
step for the BBC. Concerns and objections raised at this section reflect 
those raised earlier in this study and centre on issues relating to platform, 
access and costs, with the addition of several references to concerns over 
proposed timing / time restrictions. 


 

2.12 Q12. Respondents took the opportunity to reiterate points made earlier in 
the study with just over a third choosing not to comment any further. For 
both the organisational representatives and the individuals studied, 
concerns centre on issues of platform and access, particularly for Apple 
Mac and Linux users. A contingent of overseas based respondents took 
this opportunity to raise the benefits of access to BBC services from their 
bases around the world. As highlighted earlier in this study a significant 
proportion of respondents are concerned regarding the use of DRM, due 
to this system’s perceived ‘short shelf life’ and the cost and security 
issues associated with this service. 



3. MAIN REPORT 




3.1 Question 1 

 

Do you agree with the BBC Trust's proposal to approve the new BBC 
on-demand services, subject to the modifications outlined in the 
Trust's report of its provisional conclusions? 

 

3.1.1 TABULATIONS 

 




Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

7973 

5642 

1012 

109 

6902 

No 

630 

410 

99 

14 

545 

Indifferent 

727 

547 

86 

19 

642 

Other 

149 

81 

35 

5 

120 

Don’t Know 

59 

28 

19 

- 

55 

No answer 

1070 

439 

123 

18 

640 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

75.2 

78.9 

73.7 

66.1 

77.5 

No 

5.9 

5.7 

7.2 

8.5 

6.1 

Indifferent 

6.9 

7.7 

6.3 

11.5 

7.2 

Other 

1.4 

1.1 

2.5 

3.0 

1.3 

Don’t Know 

0.6 

0.4 

1.4 

0.0 

0.6 

No answer 

10.1 

6.1 

9.0 

10.9 

7.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes 

75.2 

78.9 

78.3 

80.7 

77.0 

No 

5.9 

5.7 

4.7 

8.3 

6.0 

Indifferent 

6.9 

7.7 

8.3 

8.3 

7.4 

Other 

1.4 

1.1 

1.3 

0.0 

1.8 

Don’t Know 

0.6 

0.4 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

No answer 

10.1 

6.1 

7.0 

2.8 

7.8 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Yes 

75.2 

81.1 

79.0 

76.8 

79.3 

No 

5.9 

5.4 

5.6 

6.8 

5.6 

Indifferent 

6.9 

7.1 

7.2 

9.0 

7.5 

Other 

1.4 

1.1 

0.9 

1.2 

1.1 

Don’t Know 

0.6 

0.5 

0.3 

0.4 

0.4 

No answer 

10.1 

4.7 

7.0 

5.9 

6.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 






 

Generally responses were positive with three quarters of respondents 
overall agreeing with the trust proposals. The breakdown of responses in 
absolute and percentage terms, and by regions is shown above. 

 

3.1.2 ORGANISATIONS 

 

On the positive side it is seen vital that the BBC keeps up to date with 
current technology trends on the internet. 

 

Positive comments were as follows: - 

 

It is an excellent idea which has already proved successful in the US. 
Digital homes are the future and as such, content on demand, via the 
internet in particular, is an integral part of such a revolution. It is the 
BBC's responsibility to stay up to date with the demands of the licence 
payer. – ID 780: Director, Izisys Ltd. 

 

Yes - long over due with all schools and most households on broad band 
and band width increasing all the time - what are you waiting for? – ID 
4122: Teacher, Notre Dame High School 

 

On the whole, we believe that they represent a fair and balanced 
approach to balancing the needs of viewers (who are our customers) 
against the interests of programme producers, talent and the BBC itself. 
We further believe that the proposals, if modified as per the provisional 
conclusions, will help to further "legitimise" the market for such services 
and set appropriate standards on use rights as well privacy, parental 
control and other issues. – ID 6106: General Manager, Future Solutions 
UK Ltd. 

 

Responses with reservations seemed to fall under the following broad 
themes: - 

 

Digital Rights Management technology - there seem to be many 
objections to the use of DRM, in particular the Microsoft based DRM. 

 
The proposal to use Microsoft-based DRM strategy is unacceptable. This 
is not compatible with any Apple Macintosh computers and would 
exclude a sizable proportion of the public. – ID 1043: Graphic Designer, 
PHA Multimedia 

 

I agree, with the caveat that on-demand services should be made 
available using open source and non-DRM protected file formats where-
ever possible. Content owned by the British Public (as all content 
produced by the BBC would be, being funded by the taxpayer) should be 
available in a fully downloadable, non streamed, non time-limited, 


platform agnostic, DRM unlocked format. This necessarily means 
avoiding any scheme offered by Microsoft. – ID 6850: IT Manager, 
Wycliffe Christian School 

 

No. The service should be available to all and not only to users of 
Microsoft software. The BBC should not be locking themselves in to one 
supplier. Microsoft has a very poor record on security and it is likely 
their implementation of DRM will be flawed and easily broken. 
Innovation should be encouraged within the UK and allow UK companies 
to provide the required technology to be sustainable in the future. – ID 
8163: IT Consultant, John Cooper Linux Consultancy Ltd. 

 

DRM will fundamentally reduce access and usability of BBC services and 
media for any user not using or willing to use locked into Microsoft 
platforms but rather -refers- free choice and open access platforms such 
as Linux, UNIX and Macos. I find the proposal that this should add value 
to the media and services offered by the BBC flawed logic that suffers 
from vendor lock in as a result of relying on a corporation that has been 
found guilty of antitrust in more federal, state and provincial judgments 
than any other known in the world. – ID 10345: CEO, Eliteitminds 
Technologies Inc. 

 

However some respondents are opposed to Digital Rights Management 
technology regardless of the provider. 

 

Provisionally yes, but as a public organization, please do not be tempted 
to lock away the content using some private firm's DRM and then be 
beholden to them. – ID 6770: Confidential 

 

I agree with approval; however I have several concerns regarding the 
focus on single supplier technology for the DRM. I also consider that 
heavy constraints on the viewing window will continue to encourage 
support for piracy of footage instead. The more lenient the rules on 
availability, the lower the number of people who can be bothered to 
work out how to obtain content via other channels. The 7 day window in 
my mind is restrictive, compared with other time shifting technologies 
such as Tivo and Sky+ with which this service needs to compete. – ID 
7652: Confidential 

 

No, I do not. The choice to implement DRM is anti-consumer and 
violates the fair-use regulations of many countries, including - but not 
limited to - the Untied States, Canada, and Sweden. – ID 10615: 
Confidential 

 

Not totally. You should never use DRM, since it is impossible to play 
DRM'ed content whilst respecting software user rights so important as 
the freedom to run the software for any purpose, the freedom to study 
and modify the software, the freedom to copy the software, and the 


freedom to publish modified versions of the software. DRM is 
fundamentally incompatible with these four principles, it's simply 
impossible to implement them in such a way, since DRM requires that 
the user is the enemy, which means that most of the listed rights are 
directly incompatible with DRM enforcement. – ID 8595: Confidential 

 

Need more than one operating system/platform neutrality 

 

Many believe that a platform agnostic/independent approach will benefit 
consumers. The system should be made available to all platforms – for 
example Apple Mac, Linux and Microsoft users – not just Microsoft users. 
There is a feeling that the BBC will be giving Microsoft an unfair 
competitive advantage and many people will be excluded from the 
service which they are paying towards. 

 

BBC on-demand is a very good idea, as long as it is available to 
everyone, not just a specific software house user. The format should be 
generic, and therefore able to play on ANY format of Computer - Linux, 
Unix, Mac OS X, Windows. – ID 3906: Confidential 

 

Not if they don't negotiate with anyone other than Microsoft. Not 
making the service available for Mac users is short sighted and not 
entirely admirable. Mac's may only have a small market share by 
comparison to PCs, the figure is increasing - half the buyers of new Macs 
are switchers from PC. Most media companies use Macs in their 
production department, so for a major media company itself to ignore 
that group of users, as well as everyone else, is deplorable. – ID 4049: 
Confidential 

 

The BBC must try to keep a system which is available to the MAC 
platform. Most workers in the creative industries use Macs. In our music 
departments all are Mac users (including students) and all use the on 
line facilities regularly. – ID 4423: Confidential 

 

I think the service will be a good idea. If you were only to provide it to 
people who only use Microsoft software then this would be terrible and 
would definitely give the BBC a bad name. It’s great that you can 
stream live and previous content from the BBC like Radio shows and TV 
shows using Real Player. Microsoft is a giant company who should 
provide the software to play DRM content on other platforms/operating 
systems. Don’t follow them but create a solution to the problem that 
they have failed to solve! – ID 4846: Confidential 

 

Many people and companies are starting to move away from the 
Windows platform due to security and economic issues, supporting non-
windows platforms should be of prime importance. – ID 2081: Computer 
Engineer, Technomonk Industries 

 


My organisation and its membership access and enjoy BBC content (BBC 
Alba, Radio Nan Gaidheal, History and UK languages) via the Internet. 
The idea of accessing archived editions of such programming 'on 
demand' sounds very promising and would prove very beneficial to our 
goals of preserving and promoting all the Celtic languages and cultures. 
I agree with the following statement found in the PVA "It follows from 
this that the iPlayer is not a necessary requirement to offer on-demand 
content." and feel that the proposed content should be platform 
independent. In other words, usable by everyone regardless of the 
computer operating system they run -- not exclusively Microsoft 
Windows users. Windows Media Player 10 with its proprietary DRM is 
exclusive because there is no way for non-Windows users to view your 
valuable content. – ID 10653: An Claidheamh Soluis/The Celtic Arts 
Center of Southern California 

 

There does seem to be concern from many educational establishments 
that they will not be able to benefit from the service if it is restricted to 
Microsoft users. 

 

I am concerned at the proposal to limit the platform upon which the 
content can be viewed, many educational institutions run Linux and Mac 
OS - proposals deem this as not possible. – ID 11013: Confidential 

 

I do not agree with the Trust's proposal to approve the on-demand 
service, as it locks out a number of users for at least 2 years, whilst 
Microsoft gain a clear competitive advantage over users of Mac OSX and 
Linux etc. – ID 1401: Student Group within UCE 

 

3.1.3 INDIVIDUALS 

 

Concerns from individual licence fee payers cover the same issues as 
those given by organizations. 

 

Digital Rights Management technology - there seem to be many 
objections to the use of DRM, in particular the Microsoft based DRM. 

 

I am extremely concerned at the proposed exclusive use of Microsoft's 
proprietary DRM software. DRM will limit the BBC’s audience in the 
future (25% of UK computer users will not be able to listen on line). I 
accept that you plan to provide an alternative later on, but adopting 
DRM now will lend the substantial credence of the BBC’s name to the 
DRM concept at a time when even the music industry is beginning to 
realise how bankrupt an idea it is. DRM is neither open, nor transparent, 
nor independent - three things that the BBC promises to be in its royal 
charter. While the BBC’s use of DRM may be entirely honest in its intent, 
DRM is rapidly becoming seen as a device to restrict legitimate use to 
allow further revenue to be gained. It should not associate itself with 
something that has such a bad press within the IT "world". There have 


been many technical issues where DRM fails to allow users access when 
they had every right to it. I approve of the rest of the proposal. – ID 12 

 

Yes. Whilst I am not a citizen or resident of the UK, I have been an avid 
fan of the BBC and it's programming since childhood. This is a 
significant step forward in the flexibility in delivery of one of the world’s 
finest broadcasters. Whilst I am somewhat uncomfortable with the 
provision of DRM as part of the solution, I am pleased that a cross-
platform approach is being considered important. I am pleased to see 
the BBC taking a lead amongst other broadcasters in the delivery of 
their content. – ID 118 

 

All BBC radio, TV and Internet broadcasts are freely available and 
recordable. The report does not explain clearly why rights management 
of any kind is essential for the on-demand services. I consider that 
rights management contravenes the BBC’s Public Service 
responsibilities. – ID 122 

 

Need more than one operating system/platform neutrality 

 

Yes, but I use Linux and believe that until at least an interim measure 
(for example streaming videos via Flash, etc...) is available for users of 
operating systems other than Windows, the project should be delayed. 
The BBC, as it is paid for by TV license holders, should not require an 
extremely expensive operating system in order to view the content. – ID 
72 

 

No. I believe the modifications should be made BEFORE implementation. 
I do not believe the BBC, which is watched and admired globally, should 
handicap its new service with technology specific to Microsoft 
computers. The BBC Trust's recommendations highlight the importance 
of using technology that is accessible to everyone. Adobe Flash, Real 
Video, and other technologies are OS agnostic. By implementing a 
solution based on these technologies the BBC will save money in the 
long run by implementing the solution only once. A multi-stage roll-out, 
dependent on multiple different technologies will be confusing to 
consumers AND more expensive for the BBC. – ID 75 

 

No I do not. By allowing the initial roll out of Microsoft ONLY content it 
will create a new digital divide with "have" and "have nots". The service 
should be available regardless of the operating system in use. It is not 
as though the technology does not exist, and this exemption WITHOUT 
A TIME FRAME is WITHOUT MERIT. Furthermore, as a BBC licence payer 
I STRONGLY OBJECT to Microsoft's (a convicted felon both in the USA 
and Europe) involvement. – ID 145 

 

Please do not use Microsoft products to deliver content online. Microsoft 
does not adhere to open standards, and many individuals who use 


alternative operating systems will find themselves unable to access this 
innovative service. – ID 5775 

 

No, the exclusion of Apple Mac and Linux users from the start is 
appalling. Why should Apple Mac and Linux users be penalised from the 
start, especially since Mac OS X is continually gaining market share 
month on month? It's time in this day and age that corporations start to 
think about including Mac and Linux users from the outset, rather than 
providing a solution up to 2 years later. – ID 396 

 

It’s a good idea to do it, but Mac-friendly please and why not simply 
post to iTunes which covers a whole spectrum of users? – ID 7025 

3.1.4 CONCLUSION 



While the majority of respondents do agree with the BBC Trust's 
proposal to approve the new BBC on-demand services, subject to the 
modifications outlined in the Trust's report of its provisional conclusions, 
there seems to be a strong feeling that the system should be available 
to all users, not just Microsoft users. There also seems to be resistance 
to the use of any form of DRM. 


3.2 Question 2 



In a market in which most broadcasters are expected to be offering 
on-demand services, would you agree that it is a priority for the BBC 
to be investing in this area? 

3.2.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Agree 

9152 

6405 

1233 

143 

7936 

Disagree 

409 

311 

23 

6 

356 

Indifferent 

39 

26 

6 

0 

34 

Other 

73 

48 

9 

2 

58 

Don’t Know 

25 

19 

2 

1 

20 

No answer 

910 

338 

101 

13 

500 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Agree 

86.3 

89.6 

89.7 

86.7 

89.1 

Disagree 

3.9 

4.4 

1.7 

3.6 

4.0 

Indifferent 

0.3 

0.3 

0.4 

0.0 

0.4 

Other 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

1.2 

0.7 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

0.6 

0.2 

No answer 

8.6 

4.7 

7.4 

7.9 

5.6 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Agree 

86.3 

89.6 

89.8 

92.7 

88.0 

Disagree 

3.9 

4.4 

3.7 

4.6 

3.7 

Indifferent 

0.3 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

Other 

0.7 

0.7 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.3 

0.5 

0.0 

0.5 

No answer 

8.6 

4.7 

5.3 

2.8 

6.9 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South West 

South East 

Agree 

86.3 

90.3 

89.6 

88.5 

89.8 

Disagree 

3.9 

4.1 

4.8 

4.9 

4.3 

Indifferent 

0.3 

0.5 

0.4 

0.5 

0.2 

Other 

0.7 

1.2 

0.4 

0.7 

0.6 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.4 

0.2 

No answer 

8.6 

3.8 

4.5 

4.9 

4.9 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




Overall the response to this question seems to be a resounding “yes”, 
with 86.3% of all respondents agreeing that on-demand services should 
be a priority for the BBC. 

There seems to be a general feeling that the BBC should be leading the 
way and developing technology in this area. The BBC needs to keep up 
with its competitors and provide comparable services. On-demand is 
seen as the way forward for the future of consuming media and the BBC 
should be at the forefront. If it is not, it is suggested the BBC will 
become cut off from the audience it is funded to reach. 

3.2.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Comments for 

I am 100% sure. On-demand services are the future of mass media. – 
ID 2609: Confidential 

 

This is about making quality content available to as large an audience as 
possible. The BBC makes some of the best content and therefore needs 
to be ahead of the game when it comes to distribution. As mobile 
devices become more important - think of video enabled iPods - so will 
on demand content provision. – ID 6181: Consultant, ITEM Associates 

 

The BBC has a wealth of material built up over years, which would be a 
great asset to the general public, academics and schools, not to mention 
the new material constantly being created. The possibilities for 
expanded education on a world-wide basis, offers a great hope to 
countless millions of children and young people, and also provides a 
tremendous resource for the public in general. – ID 6680: Confidential 

 

Absolutely: it is refreshing for the BBC to recognize that the British 
public “own” content produced by the BBC and should therefore have 
access in the widest variety of ways to content that represents a 
valuable part of the cultural heritage of the nation – ID 6850: IT 
Manager, Wycliffe Christian School 

 

Very much so, from products like Tivo and Sky+ we can see that on-
demand content is huge. – ID 7091: Confidential 

 

The reality of the situation is that almost all BBC broadcasted content is 
already available online for those wishing to find it, including all BBC HD 
content. As it becomes easier to retrieve media off our computers and 
have them play directly through television sets, if the BBC do not offer 
the content officially, the grey market will fulfill the demand for them. – 
ID 7643: Music Manager, Juicy Musical Creations Ltd. 

 


To stay relevant, or increase relevancy in the world view, the BBC must 
expand in this area. Being an American, I have a unique perspective, in 
that I go without BBC programming due to my cable company. – ID 
5640: Computer Support, Mactroopers LLC 

 

Yes. Expect broadcasting to become an ever smaller part of running a 
media corporation, in foreseeable future net bandwidth will equal or 
surpass broadcast bandwidth. This however does not mean that the 
feeling of community people get from being able to talk about popular 
shows will go away. They'll simply choose exactly when they want to 
watch a show(as TIVO like HD recorders already do for many people and 
as is happening with illegal downloading where a popular show like Dr. 
Who gets a worldwide audience instantly.) - ID 10428: Confidential 

 

Very much so, digital content should be the number one priority. Social 
trends suggest that on demand viewing is on the increase. The BBC 
needs to address this to be seen as the number one UK broadcaster. – 
ID 11013: Confidential 

W

ith clarifications 

 

Not so much of a priority, and not necessarily at no cost to the 
consumer for all types of download. As I understand it, other providers 
expect users to pay for on-demand, or have a higher cost for that 
service as a flat fee. The BBC should consider bolt-on services that are 
comparable at a comparable cost. – ID 1421: Confidential 

 

Comments against 

 

I would recommend offering content for purchase on the iTunes music 
store, and any other content stores. (The BBC) should not be wasting 
money on trying to develop a new content ecosystem, when a healthy 
and expanding one (iTunes et al) is already in place. – ID 5451: 
Confidential 

 

The existing providers on TV will provide the majority of on-demand TV. 
Computer on-demand isn't a priority. Downloading clips and some 
programmes using existing Real player and Windows media will continue 
to be acceptable. Paying Microsoft large amounts of money for DRM is 
not an acceptable use of licence payer’s money. – ID 8163: IT 
Consultant, John Cooper Linux Consultancy Ltd. 

 

3.2.3 INDIVIDUALS 

 

On-demand is also seen as a priority for individuals, with the BBC’s need 
to stay at the forefront of technology, but the main priority still has to 
be producing quality radio and TV programmes. 

 


Comments for 

 

Absolutely: IP delivered TV is guaranteed to become mass market and 
an option for the BBC. To not be involved in that is ludicrous. The BBC's 
involvement in this technology sector will actually fuel the delivery 
medium for smaller operators ensuring mass market penetration. – ID 
14 

 

Yes. I think it's essential that the BBC begins to invest and develop in 
this form of media. The BBC website is one of the best sources of News, 
Sports and Entertainment available online, and I think it is vital to 
encourage the expansion of the services available. – ID 164 

 

Most definitely, as the founder of television as we know it today I 
believe that the BBC should set the standards and be at the cutting edge 
and allow other broadcasters such as ITV and Sky to follow their lead. – 
ID 175 

 

For some content I would suggest that making an on-demand service 
available is essential in today's market. Consumers of media 
increasingly expect access to such services and plan their lifestyles 
accordingly. By not offering them, in future, the BBC will effectively 
limit access to their programming as their (effectively captive) 
customers are unlikely to be willing to rearrange their lives to fit in with 
rigid linear programming that they know could be tailored to their 
requirements. – ID 41 

 

Yes. Even if other broadcasters will charge for this service, making it 
available for free with the BBC would encourage people to use other 
similar services (that cost). If the BBC's service is better implemented 
than other broadcasters, then it will encourage those broadcasters to 
improve their services. – ID 3 

 

I'm interested and if the public as a whole are, then yes. The BBC 
should compete with satellite and cable. Those services are expensive, 
and being filled with US-imports, they don't exactly enrich the culture of 
our nation. – ID 48 

 

Yes. Please keep in mind that the American audiences are eager to 
participate in these services, both in the Windows and Mac 
environments. – ID 150 

 

Definitely, just look at the popularity of media sites like YouTube. 
People are more and more living "on demand" lives now and tend to 
only consume TV when and where it's suits them. The BBC would sadly 
lose its position and worldwide reputation if it failed to do so. – ID 
10849 

 


With clarifications 

 
Yes, but traditional broadcasting must have higher priority; there is no 
point in investing in video-on-demand if the programmes available to 
stream are no good! BBC’s current on-line presence is a market-leader. 
This needs to be maintained. – ID 12 

 

Yes, however I believe that the BBC should give making all its output 
available for sale via a website a higher priority. The BBC should develop 
and then open source high quality codecs for audio and video for this 
purpose. Licence payers should be able to receive a substantial discount 
on the retail price. – ID 51 

 

Yes, but there is a danger at the moment that the BBC's investment in 
many new areas, such as increased digital broadcasting and internet, 
have marginalized a large number of viewers who are paying for this 
development through licence fees. Whilst most consumers will 
eventually be able to access these services (or be forced to in the case 
of digital) there is still an argument to suggest a two, or more, tier 
licencing fee, as was the case with Black & White or Colour licences (i.e. 
you pay for the services you are able to receive!) – ID 94 

 

Yes, I agree, although this should be reviewed. Currently, devices for 
viewing full length programs via the internet are not widespread. 
Whether the pubic adopts such devices, or not is still in the unknown. If 
the market does adopt these devices, then the BBC should be at the 
forefront of delivery by this medium. If, however, the public do not 
adopt this method of delivery, then it should be scaled down, as soon as 
it is clear. The BBC could have some influence as to whether it does 
succeed, as it has with Freeview, but should it? It should only influence 
the market if it is of advantage to the public. Can programmes be 
delivered more economically, or at a higher quality, for instance? – ID 
9866 

 

Comments against 

 

No. The BBC should be offering online services including its 
programmes (as indeed you currently do with "Listen again"). It would 
be useful to support additional formats (open ones), but this should not 
represent any major new investment. – ID 157 

 

I would not say that it should be a priority, but it is an area that our 
dearly beloved BBC should be developing. I would rather it took longer 
to bring to viewers so long as it works in the way that viewers find 
acceptable, as well as being workable from the technical and 
engineering point of view at the BBC. – ID 9862 

 


No, it detracts from the provision of viewable programming to the 
majority of the licence fee paying public. – ID 9876 

 

Not the highest priority at the moment. The BBC should primarily be 
making highest quality programme; everything else is secondary. ID 
9921 

3.2.4 CONCLUSION 

86.3% of respondents agree that in a market in which most 
broadcasters are expected to be offering on-demand services, it is a 
priority for the BBC to be investing in this area. As the main broadcaster 
in the UK the BBC needs to maintain its position by investing in this 
area. 

For those who do not think it is a priority, it appears to be mainly 
because they think that quality programming should remain the top 
priority for the BBC. 

There does appear to be same debate as to whether or not this service 
should be charged for, possibly to non-licence fee payers. 

 

 


3.3 Question 3 



 
The BBC Trust has proposed setting a limit of 30 days as the amount 
of time that programmes can be stored on a computer before being 
viewed. As this is a nascent market, there is currently no clear 
standard on the length of the storage window. On balance, the Trust 
thinks 30 days is the right length of time. How long do you think 
consumers should be able to store BBC programmes on their 
computers before viewing them? 

3.3.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

1 week 

53 

36 

5 

- 

44 

> 1 week and < 
1 month 

178 

128 

24 

4 

157 

1 month 

3832 

2817 

433 

49 

3350 

> 1 month and 
< 3 months 

675 

491 

77 

11 

579 

3 months 

459 

331 

48 

4 

397 

> 3 months and 
< 6 months 

60 

41 

9 

1 

54 

6 months 

58 

44 

6 

1 

50 

> 6 months and 
< 12 months 

11 

7 

- 

- 

8 

12 months 

93 

61 

9 

1 

73 

> 12 months 

5 

4 

- 

- 

4 

Other 

343 

211 

63 

12 

291 

Indefinitely 

3432 

2272 

593 

62 

2951 

No restrictions 

515 

336 

73 

10 

428 

Don’t Know 

61 

43 

10 

1 

54 

No answer 

833 

331 

84 

9 

464 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 



There appears to be a divide on this question between those who feel 
the 30 day limit is satisfactory and between those who feel there should 
be no time limit/restriction on the storage of programmes. 

36.1% of respondents agree that consumers should be able to store 
BBC programmes on their computers for 30 days before viewing them. 

A further third of respondent (37.3%) feel that consumers should be 
able to store programmes indefinitely or that there should be no 
restrictions. 



% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

1 week 

0.5 

0.5 

0.4 

0.0 

0.5 

> 1 week and < 
1 month 

1.7 

1.8 

1.7 

2.4 

1.8 

1 month 

36.1 

39.4 

31.5 

29.7 

37.6 

> 1 month and 
< 3 months 

6.4 

6.9 

5.6 

6.7 

6.5 

3 months 

4.3 

4.6 

3.5 

2.4 

4.5 

> 3 months and 
< 6 months 

0.6 

0.6 

0.7 

0.6 

0.6 

6 months 

0.5 

0.6 

0.4 

0.6 

0.6 

> 6 months and 
< 12 months 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

12 months 

0.9 

0.9 

0.7 

0.6 

0.8 

> 12 months 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Other 

3.3 

2.8 

4.6 

7.3 

3.3 

Indefinitely 

32.4 

31.8 

38.8 

37.6 

33.1 

No restrictions 

4.9 

4.7 

5.3 

6.1 

4.8 

Don’t Know 

0.6 

0.4 

0.7 

0.0 

0.6 

No answer 

7.9 

4.6 

6.1 

5.5 

5.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

1 week 

0.5 

0.5 

0.0 

0.0 

> 1 week and < 1 
month 

1.8 

1.8 

0.9 

2.8 

1 month 

39.4 

38.7 

40.4 

39.2 

> 1 month and < 3 
months 

6.9 

6.2 

8.3 

6.9 

3 months 

4.6 

3.0 

5.5 

5.5 

> 3 months and < 6 
months 

0.6 

0.7 

0.0 

0.5 

6 months 

0.6 

0.7 

0.0 

0.0 

> 6 months and < 12 
months 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

12 months 

0.9 

0.8 

0.0 

0.9 

> 12 months 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Other 

2.8 

3.2 

2.8 

5.5 

Indefinitely 

31.8 

35.2 

35.8 

27.6 

No restrictions 

4.7 

3.7 

2.8 

4.6 

Don’t Know 

0.4 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

No answer 

4.6 

4.7 

3.7 

6.5 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 






% 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

1 week 

0.7 

0.7 

0.5 

0.5 

> 1 week and < 1 
month 

1.8 

2.4 

1.5 

1.7 

1 month 

42.3 

39.7 

39.0 

38.5 

> 1 month and < 3 
months 

6.8 

7.0 

6.4 

7.1 

3 months 

4.0 

5.5 

4.2 

5.1 

> 3 months and < 6 
months 

0.7 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

6 months 

0.5 

0.3 

0.4 

0.9 

> 6 months and < 12 
months 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

12 months 

0.8 

0.8 

0.5 

1.1 

> 12 months 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

Other 

2.6 

2.3 

3.6 

2.6 

Indefinitely 

29.5 

30.9 

33.3 

32.0 

No restrictions 

5.2 

4.8 

4.6 

4.8 

Don’t Know 

0.4 

0.5 

0.5 

0.7 

No answer 

4.5 

4.4 

4.9 

4.5 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 



3.3.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Agree with 30 day limit 

We believe that 30 days represents an adequate compromise, given that 
some programming can be expected to enjoy an extended commercial 
lifespan either by syndication to cable/satellite channels or release by 
DVD, Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Anecdotal evidence suggests that if one 
hasn't watched a stored programme within 30 days, one is unlikely to 
make the time to watch it at any point in the future. – ID 6106: General 
Manager, Future Solutions UK Ltd. 

Disagree with 30 day limit 

Many respondents could not see the point of having a time limit as 
people are currently able to record BBC output and store it as long as 
they wish. It was felt that the cost of introducing this time limit had no 
purpose and would not be cost effective. Licence payers had already 
paid for the programmes so they should be able to keep them for as 
long as required and storage allowed. 


As programmes are funded by tax payer’s money there should be no 
time or platform restrictions. The BBC does not loose or gain advertising 
revenue if programmes are kept for an arbitrary period or artificially 
disabled after an arbitrary time. This is unlikely to happen, however 30 
days will not interfere with DVD sales; a longer limit could also be set. 
This sort of limit requires DRM and a specialized media player which will 
likely discriminate against the views of the open software community 
and Linux as a platform – ID 2640: The Open Source Community 

 

There should be no time restrictions whatsoever - the content is paid for 
by licence fee payers and should be free for viewing at any time by 
them. New technology should be used to make access to media easier, 
not to impose additional restrictions on it. – ID 10181: IT Services 
Manager, George Watson's College 

 

It would be nice if you didn't have a limit; I think you're making it more 
complicated than it needs to be with the limit. Make it available all the 
time but at a lower quality version – ID 5659: Confidential 

 

In many cases, indefinitely, just as they can if they record programmes 
on VHS or onto hard disk. Very soon, the 30 day limit will look 
outdated and silly. Content holders, (I'm one), will soon wake up to this 
fact, and the BBC should pioneer more open access. – ID 6571: Film 
Producer, Phantom Pictures Entertainment 

 

Sky+ is indefinite and likewise other TiVo services. Why on earth would 
artificial restrictions be made just to hamper the audience’s use of the 
service? – ID 7328: Confidential 

 

Many referred to DRM issues and questioned the need for any such 
time limits/restrictions at all. It was felt that these restrictions would be 
costly to implement and unnecessary. 

 

Indefinitely: if you do not provide that flexibility, then you will continue 
to face competition from grey markets that do. Moreover, for someone 
technical it is simple to understand the notion of DRM and their 
ramifications. For those less au fait with technology, it will ultimately 
present the product offerings as confusing and will have a negative 
effect on the overall perception of the product. ID – 7643: Music 
Manager, Juicy Musical Creations Ltd. 

 

Indefinitely: the question implies that there is some mechanism by 
which a time limit could be enforced. Such mechanisms, often called 
DRM systems, have universally been recognized as causing more trouble 
(for publishers and consumers) than the "protections" they promise 
warrant. All known DRM systems have been cracked by serious pirates 
- the only people hampered by them are honest folk who would honor a 


simple un-enforced appeal to follow the rules anyway. - ID 8024: 
Confidential 

 

30 days is a perfectly acceptable length of time, but the Digital Rights 
Management technology that would be required to enforce this limit is a 
step in the wrong direction. – ID 30: Confidential 

 

You are asking the wrong question. You are presuming that Digital 
Rights Management actually works. DRM will be broken in days and all 
your consultation time could be wasted. Better to include adverts in 
material especially tailored for overseas consumption. Better to gain 
some revenue than to go head to head with people who broke BluRay 
and HD-DVD encryption. – ID 349: Confidential 

 

If this means making use of DRM, then I would not agree. DRM does not 
work, and will only just waste the BBC's money - the more you spend on 
DRM, it'll just get cracked. I would rather BBC save my money from my 
licence fee and not spend it on DRM but instead giving better access. – 
ID 4634: IT System Manager, BDA 

 

What benefit is there to either the user or the BBC to impose such a 
limit? DRM for the sake of DRM serves no purpose but frustrate the end 
user and increases support costs. – ID 5763: Confidential 

 

Educational users 

Also there were a number of references by educational establishments 
to the need to have longer access to some programming. 

For education users I think it should be longer than 30 days so a 
programme can be viewed at the optimum time for the pupils 
concerned. – ID 10161: Teacher, Coopers Lane Primary School, 
Lewisham 

Copying issues 

 

Many respondents made comments in relation to the time limit and 
copying material. It was felt that people would download material 
regardless of the time limit, so there was no need for a restriction. 
Those who have the facility to copy material can keep it indefinitely so 
there should be no distinction. 

 

30 days is a fine time, but this will not stop people from copying them. 
They will use software that can record your desktop while the video is 
playing and hence make a copy of your programmes. This software can 
usually be free – ID 39: Confidential 

 


Forever. If you must restrict downloads to the U.K. - but essentially 
we've already paid for these programs. If you much restrict them, then 
a year would seem fair. Trust me on this one; people will be able to 
download them ANYWAY. Might as well have some control over the 
delivery. Restrictions never work in the end, they just irritate Joe 
Public. – ID 366: Cold as Fire Designs 

 

It is unfair for some licence fee payers - those with DVD burners, 
Freeview Playback, Sky+ or similar personal video recorder (PVRs) or 
VHS video cassette recorder to have no limit as to the time they can 
store for time shifting and another set of licence fee payers - those with 
a personal computer connected to the internet will have a time limit set. 
There is no logical difference to regard the data provided via a 
unidirectional broadcast "data pipe" (via analogue and digital terrestrial, 
satellite or digital cable head end delivery) as being any different from 
one provided by internet stream or an internet download or internet 
peer-to-peer delivery. There is no legal requirement to expire BBC 
content. The BBC Trust primary task is to support the interests of the 
licence fee payer. Without the licence fee income the BBC cannot pay 
for content from third parties or employ its own staff, and therefore the 
right of the fee payer must come before any other interests. The BBC 
must not treat those who contribute the same amount by the licence fee 
to different levels of service and different rights. – ID 973: Editor, UK 
Free TV 

 

I have always considered a time limit on computers as a bizarre thing to 
do. It is currently easy to record television and radio on video tape, 
DVD, audio tape, CD and HD. When you measure the amount of effort 
and cost to time limit programmes via software it seems a waste of 
effort for little practical gain. A simpler solution would be to limit the 
time that the link is available on the BBC web-site and leave it at that or 
consider the iTunes approach. - ID 1421: Confidential 

 

Pay to keep longer – some respondents made suggestions that people 
could pay to keep material for longer than 30 days or if they were non 
licence fee payers. 

 

Indefinitely. The BBC service is already paid for by the general public 
through the licence fee, so the programmes have already been bought. 
Alternatively it could be 30 days with a nominal fee (like £1 per 
programme) to keep them longer. This would raise funds to keep the 
service going. – ID 2632: MD, MacAce.net (ISP) 

 

I don't see why you need to limit the storage time for licence payers. 
Once programmes are downloaded there should be no restriction on how 
long licence payers can store them. After all they have paid for them in 
their licence fee. Non licence payers should however be restricted and in 
my view 30 days for these people would be the upper limit. You would 


need a means of distinguishing between the payers and non payers and 
possibly this could be done by entering the licence serial number. – ID 
3424 

3.3.3 INDIVIDUALS 

Agree with 30 day limit 

30 days seems perfectly reasonable, however a mechanism to pay or 
subscribe which would allow them to remain viewable would perhaps be 
a valuable service. – ID 161 

 

I think this (30 day limit) is fair on the basis that 'series stacking' is also 
approved. If the shows are available online for the duration of a series 
then it shouldn't need to be stored on a PC, dependent on the streaming 
quality. – ID 164 

 

I see no reason for setting a limit of any amount of time personally. The 
only vague reason might be for limiting storage and bandwidth costs for 
the BBC. I think this should be the only thing limiting the window of 
opportunity and would argue an indefinite period otherwise – ID 167 

 

I think this is a fair amount of time since this is designed as catch-up 
service. If anyone wants longer they can buy the DVD – ID 177 

 

For "one off" shows, sports events, news, and long running serials (i.e. 
"soaps"), 30 days seems reasonable. In the case of a serial consisting 
of a limited number of episodes (for example, a season of 13 or even 26 
shows), it would be very convenient to be able to store a number of 
episodes for the duration of the serial plus 60 days. – ID 6 

 

30 day is ample time. I currently use Sky + (as there is no other reliable 
service, yet) and items stay on the internal HD no longer than a month. 
If I were to keep them longer I tend never to watch them. – ID 6239 

 

30 Days seems reasonable, however don't just limit the viewer to watch 
only with his PC, please think more about mobile devices. In technology 
terms, we are approaching the mythical convergence device era (e.g. 
phone + PDA + TV + video + music). Look at the new Apple iPhone. The 
screen is designed specifically for mobile media, and more 
manufacturers are now building similar convergence devices. Surely an 
opportunity too good to miss! – ID 10849 

Disagree with 30 day limit 

Again some respondents felt that for educational uses, longer may be 
needed. 

 


There should be a range of options, not just a single 30-day option. For 
example, I might wish to use BBC material in my lectures multiple times 
during a teaching term. A 30-day limit would be problematic in this 
instance. More flexibility is needed here. – ID 204 

 

30 days would seem a reasonable limit for first accessing a downloaded 
programme, but a further period (perhaps another 2 weeks) after initial 
viewing should be possible if the first access is close to the end of this 
time. In particular, this should be the case for educational and 
documentary programmes which the viewer may wish to refer back to. – 
ID 41 

Again, as with organizations, many respondents seem very dismissive of 
DRM in relation to limiting the amount of time that a programme can be 
stored. 

30 days at the very least. Ideally an unlimited time, so that no DRM 
(Digital Rights Management) software is required, so that an open file 
format (like Xvid or MPEG) can be used, so that it can be viewed on any 
computer (e.g. Linux or Apple Mac or whatever OS I choose), rather 
than just Microsoft Windows-based ones. Also note that a Windows-
based DRM is very likely to be broken anyway, so that those who want 
to (illegally) circumvent DRM-based time limitations will be able to do 
so. In the long run DRM does not work - see the current UK debate 
about removing DRM restrictions from digital music (MP3) downloads. – 
ID 3 

 

30 days is a reasonable compromise, however ideally the time period 
would be longer: funding for the BBC is directly from the licence payer 
in the first instance. Recent movements from commercial media 
companies suggest they are beginning to consider DRM technologies 
counter-productive and encumbering BBC formats in this fashion may 
ultimately put the content at a disadvantage. Further the assertion by 
commercial broadcasters that unencumbered media from the BBC would 
put them at a disadvantage does not take account of the best interests 
of the consumer. If the BBC did not exist it is likely that the quality of 
commercial programming would suffer. Similarly unencumbered media 
from the BBC would act as an incentive for commercial outfits to do the 
same which is unquestionably in consumers' best interest. – ID 71 

 

Why use DRM at all? There are ways of integrating commercial value 
and content that do not rely on DRM technology. I believe that content 
producers/providers that rely on DRM based technologies will be unable 
to keep up with the popularity of quality programming that will be 
offered without DRM restrictions. – ID 75 

 

I am generally opposed to the provision of Digital Rights Management 
software which is required to provide this kind of functionality. I do not 


believe that freeing content from these restrictions would adversely 
impact on the future sales of available programming. I believe the BBC 
is uniquely positioned to lead in this important area and at a minimum 
trial the impact of freeing available media from these restrictions. – ID 
118 

 

Why is it assumed there will be a limit? This seems to suggest some 
kind of DRM. That will only lead to controversy, as the DRM is broken 
(c.f. MS Vista DRM, broken already in at least two independent ways). 
It will inconvenience honest users, and plunge the BBC into cries of 
"piracy" from those who had invested in it. Alternative interpretations 
of such a limit - such as encapsulating the contents in executable files - 
are altogether worse. The BBC's business is providing contents, not 
investing in futile technology. – ID 157 

 

I do not believe that putting a time limit on storage is a competitive 
idea, as controlling such limit would require either third parties (i.e. the 
BBC would be subject to their software requirements and legal 
constraints) or take considerable effort to enforce on the side of the 
BBC. I believe a free approach to storage will in the end be not only 
more economic but also more consumer friendly. – ID 5922 

 

An unlimited length of time: instituting DRM schemes of any kind makes 
no sense when the programmes were free to download in the first place, 
and paid for by licence fees. DRM schemes only make sense in a pay-to-
download service. DRM schemes are costly and difficult to implement 
successfully. In this case it would be a complete waste of the BBC's 
resources. – ID 8828 

 

Copying issues 

 

The law around recording TV programmes is already confusing and 
needs clarification. Copying downloaded broadcasts for distribution is 
clearly illegal, and rightly so, but for personal home use I think imposing 
a time limit is counter productive - the BBC should not be applying the 
same arguments for distribution that a commercial company might; by 
the same token, the BBC should sell DVD's of its TV programmes at 
reasonable cost and not at high cost as it does at present. – ID 94 

 

3.3.4 CONCLUSION 

There appears to be a divide between those who feel the 30 day limit is 
satisfactory (36.1%) and between those who feel there should be no 
time limit/restriction on the storage of programmes (37.3%). 

Many respondents could not see the point of having a time limit as 
people are currently able to record BBC output and store it as long as 
they wish. Again there seems to be a strong feeling against using DRM 


as it was felt that the cost of introducing this time limit had no purpose 
and would not be cost effective. Licence payers had already paid for the 
programmes so they should be able to keep them for as long as 
required and storage allowed. 

 

 


3.4 Question 4 

 
The BBC Trust concluded that public value would be created by 
allowing series stacking. This would allow viewers to catch-up with 
all episodes of a series for the duration of its run. The Trust 
recognised that although it would provide increased opportunities to 
view BBC programmes, it could also deter people from buying DVDs 
or using commercial video-on-demand services. 

3.4.1 TABULATIONS 

Part 1 - Series stacking - do you consider series stacking to be a useful 
feature? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

8427 

5997 

1085 

131 

7335 

No 

502 

343 

68 

12 

417 

Other 

194 

112 

30 

6 

157 

No answer 

1485 

695 

191 

16 

995 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

79.4 

83.9 

79.0 

79.4 

82.4 

No 

4.7 

4.8 

4.9 

7.3 

4.7 

Other 

1.9 

1.6 

2.2 

3.6 

1.8 

No answer 

14.0 

9.8 

13.9 

9.7 

11.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes 

79.4 

83.9 

84.0 

89.0 

83.4 

No 

4.7 

4.8 

4.8 

2.8 

6.5 

Other 

1.9 

1.6 

2.7 

1.8 

1.4 

No answer 

14.0 

9.8 

8.5 

6.4 

8.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

Yes 

79.4 

85.1 

83.3 

83.8 

83.6 

No 

4.7 

4.3 

5.3 

4.6 

4.9 

Other 

1.9 

1.8 

0.8 

1.6 

1.5 

No answer 

14.0 

8.9 

10.6 

10.0 

10.0 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 


Parts 2 - Type of series - what kind of series would you expect to be 
included? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Series 

1071 

755 

133 

10 

942 

All 

970 

682 

124 

19 

843 

Drama 

516 

431 

20 

6 

459 

Documentaries 

350 

280 

25 

5 

307 

Comedy 

236 

196 

13 

2 

211 

Soaps 

158 

130 

4 

2 

137 

Educational 

54 

39 

7 

5 

41 

Entertainment 

15 

12 

2 

1 

14 

Other 

434 

327 

46 

6 

386 

No answer 

7081 

4527 

1011 

112 

5811 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Series 

10.1 

10.6 

9.7 

6.1 

10.6 

All 

9.1 

9.5 

9.0 

11.5 

9.5 

Drama 

4.9 

6.0 

1.5 

3.6 

5.2 

Documentaries 

3.3 

3.9 

1.8 

3.0 

3.4 

Comedy 

2.2 

2.7 

0.9 

1.2 

2.4 

Soaps 

1.5 

1.8 

0.3 

1.2 

1.5 

Educational 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

3.0 

0.5 

Entertainment 

0.1 

0.2 

0.1 

0.6 

0.2 

Other 

4.1 

4.6 

3.3 

3.6 

4.3 

No answer 

66.8 

63.3 

73.6 

67.9 

65.3 

Total 

102.6 

103.1 

100.7 

101.7 

102.9 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Series 

10.1 

10.6 

8.8 

14.7 

14.3 

All 

9.1 

9.5 

9.7 

9.2 

8.3 

Drama 

4.9 

6.0 

6.8 

7.3 

3.7 

Documentaries 

3.3 

3.9 

5.0 

6.4 

1.4 

Comedy 

2.2 

2.7 

3.2 

4.6 

1.4 

Soaps 

1.5 

1.8 

1.5 

0.0 

1.8 

Educational 

0.5 

0.5 

0.7 

0.0 

0.5 

Entertainment 

0.1 

0.2 

0.2 

0.9 

0.0 

Other 

4.1 

4.6 

6.0 

4.6 

5.1 

No answer 

66.8 

63.3 

62.3 

56.0 

65.0 

Total 

102.6 

103.1 

104.2 

103.7 

101.5 






% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

Series 

10.1 

11.1 

10.6 

10.1 

10.4 

All 

9.1 

9.7 

9.8 

9.6 

9.4 

Drama 

4.9 

6.8 

6.0 

5.0 

6.0 

Documentaries 

3.3 

3.3 

4.0 

4.3 

3.9 

Comedy 

2.2 

2.8 

2.6 

2.6 

2.8 

Soaps 

1.5 

2.4 

1.9 

1.9 

1.7 

Educational 

0.5 

0.3 

0.5 

0.5 

0.7 

Entertainment 

0.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.2 

0.2 

Other 

4.1 

5.4 

3.5 

4.2 

4.3 

No answer 

66.8 

61.6 

63.6 

64.4 

63.9 

Total 

102.6 

103.5 

102.6 

102.8 

103.3 



Part 3 - Limitation on number - should there be any limitation on the 
number of episodes of a series made available for catch-up? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

1472 

1108 

176 

17 

1308 

No 

2917 

1981 

413 

39 

2516 

Other 

69 

47 

10 

2 

58 

No answer 

6150 

4011 

775 

107 

5022 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

13.9 

15.5 

12.8 

10.3 

14.7 

No 

27.5 

27.7 

30.1 

23.6 

28.3 

Other 

0.6 

0.7 

0.7 

1.2 

0.7 

No answer 

58.0 

56.1 

56.4 

64.8 

56.4 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes 

13.9 

15.5 

15.0 

11.9 

12.4 

No 

27.5 

27.7 

29.0 

31.2 

27.2 

Other 

0.6 

0.7 

1.0 

1.8 

0.5 

No answer 

58.0 

56.1 

55.0 

55.0 

59.9 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Yes 

13.9 

14.9 

17.5 

16.8 

15.3 

No 

27.5 

27.0 

27.8 

26.0 

28.3 

Other 

0.6 

0.3 

0.7 

0.6 

0.8 

No answer 

58.0 

57.8 

54.0 

56.6 

55.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




Part 4 - Length of time available for viewing - Should there be any 
limitation on the length of time which they can be viewed? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

1948 

1482 

202 

26 

1729 

No 

2102 

1391 

329 

32 

1799 

Other 

115 

82 

14 

2 

101 

No answer 

6443 

4192 

829 

105 

5275 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

18.4 

20.7 

14.7 

15.8 

19.4 

No 

19.8 

19.5 

23.9 

19.4 

20.2 

Other 

1.1 

1.2 

1.0 

1.2 

1.2 

No answer 

60.7 

58.7 

60.3 

63.6 

59.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes 

18.4 

20.7 

18.0 

21.1 

17.5 

No 

19.8 

19.5 

20.3 

20.2 

17.1 

Other 

1.1 

1.2 

1.4 

1.8 

1.4 

No answer 

60.7 

58.7 

60.3 

56.9 

64.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Yes 

18.4 

20.5 

21.2 

23.6 

20.4 

No 

19.8 

19.1 

19.7 

17.3 

20.3 

Other 

1.1 

0.9 

1.2 

1.3 

1.1 

No answer 

60.7 

59.5 

58.0 

57.7 

58.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



Overall, nearly four fifths of respondents agree that series stacking is a 
useful feature. 

Only a third of respondents gave an answer to the type of series they 
would expect to be included in series stacking and those who did 
respond gave a wide variety of answers. 

Approximately 40% of the respondents answered the two subsequent 
questions relating to the number of episodes and the length of time 
available for catch up. These responses seemed to be evenly split on 
whether there should or should not be any restrictions on the length of 
time available for viewing. 


3.4.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Comments for series stacking 

As already mentioned earlier, there seems to be a feeling among many 
that licence fee payers have paid for the BBC programmes and therefore 
should be entitled to watch them as and when they like. Some 
respondents suggest there should be a charge for non-licence fee payers 
to download or some kind of subscription charge. 

A consumer should be able to stack as many episodes as they want for 
as long as they want. It was always my understanding that we pay a TV 
licence specifically to fund the BBC, we have therefore already bought 
these programmes and as such should be given unlimited access to 
them; DVD were great for when you missed a series, want to watch at 
your own leisure etc, etc. But now we have the possibility of 
downloading there should be no restriction what so ever. This is starting 
to sound like DRM. – ID 10503: Software Company Director, High-
Availability.Com 

 

In the current climate with a proliferation of channels, media and online 
content clamoring for attention, series stacking has to be seen as a 
priority. I appreciate that a significant revenue stream for BBC has been 
DVD sales and this may have a negative impact on these, but new 
markets will develop around the online delivery to surpass many of 
these. I would hope that most, if not all types of content, would be 
applicable, maybe through different channels. For instance, home users 
will be particularly interested in entertainment, natural history, etc, 
whilst I see a market for topical programming (such as Newsnight, etc), 
via archival mechanisms, available online for research and commercial 
exploitation (i.e. maybe via subscription). – ID 8960 Confidential 

 

Series stacking would indeed be useful, but perhaps some kind of 
subscription fee could be charged for this facility. – ID 6770: 
Confidential 

 

Yes, I consider series stacking to be a useful feature. I would expect all 
episodes of the series to be included not just the current series. We 
have already paid for the making of the programs in the licence fee. 
They belong to us. I would like to treat them as my own video 
collection. When you are talking about this much media, it will be fair to 
say that only the series which are currently running (+/- 1 month) or 
the most watched will be held in their entirety online. – ID 1501: 
Confidential 

 

The BBC's focus ought to be more on the public right to access material 
that has essentially already been paid for via the licence fee, rather than 
commercial sales of DVD sets. Why should consumers pay for content 


they have already paid for and own as citizens? – ID 6850: IT Manager, 
Wycliffe Christian School 

 

I believe (as I have already stated) that as the viewer has already paid 
for the material there should be no limit at all to its availability online. 
Should the quality of these downloads ever reach a similar quality to 
that of DVDs then (and only then) there may be a risk of it affecting 
sales of DVDs. However if we are applying a public value test the answer 
would be to reduce the price of the DVDs etc to make them more 
attractive. I think it is scandalous that the Goon Show audio CDs (for 
example) are priced at over £10 each when the material on them is 
close to being in the public domain. These shows were made half a 
century ago and still the BBC is making money out of them – ID 10881: 
Confidential 

Also many respondents do not feel that this will affect commercial sale 
of DVDs, as people are still likely to buy DVDs to obtain the added value 
of visual quality and packaging of a boxed set or to give as gifts. To limit 
any damaging effect on DVD sales, a time limit could be set or reduce 
the quality online. 

This isn't a major issue, people still buy millions of music CDs even 
though music is available digitally, people like to buy the physical 
package to have on shelves, give as gifts, and share with family. – ID 
4122: Teacher, Notre Dame High School 

 

I believe that there should be no limits, or as few limits as possible for 
such a stack. From my experience, most users capable of taking 
advantage of such a product would be perfectly capable of illegally 
downloading the content on their own. If they want the DVD, they will 
buy it, not because it's more convenient, but because they want a 
tangible product, and because they want to support the creators of the 
content. – ID 30: Confidential 

 

No, no limits, but lower picture quality and mono sound? This would give 
value to DVD and HD sales. – ID 1362: Confidential 

 

We could set up our video recorders to record all episodes. In reality we 
don't. I suspect most DVD's are bought as presents in any case. – ID 
1421: Confidential 

 

Series stacking is a good feature. I'm not a DVD box set fan myself and 
don’t really see the appeal. I think many people buy box sets of their 
favourite series to watch again rather than a box set to watch for the 
first time. Again, as we've all paid the licence fee we should be allowed 
to keep the programmes. Perhaps the limit could be BBC-created 
programmes only. – ID 2632: MD, MacAce.net (ISP) 

 


Yes. People still like packaging and portability. Not everyone is a techie, 
so just as music CDs still sell, so DVDs will too. - ID 2780: Confidential 

 

Needs a balance, you need to make a profit on DVDs. Make the whole 
series available, but limit the time. – ID 3492: MD, Graphic/Web Design 
Company 

 

The BBC - much like the music industry - needs to bear in mind that 
interest and infatuation are two separate issues; wanting to watch a 
programme or series is a one-off, self-interest issue. Buying a box-set 
subscribes to “fandom” in the same way people choose to subscribe to 
particular magazines or buy a particular band's music albums - it's 
about being recognised as a fan rather than a viewer. – ID 6102: 
Journalist, Future Publishing Ltd. 

 

The market for DVDs may well decline in relative terms. Recording on 
hard drives + cheap DVD burners will see to that regardless of the legal 
position. Series stacking for all types of mainstream programmes makes 
sense. Note that enthusiasts will probably still by the DVD for the add-
ons that are normally bundled with them. – ID 6181: Consultant, ITEM 
Associates 

 

In our view, stacking as described would have no long-term commercial 
impact especially as commercial release via BluRay or HD-DVD would be 
likely to be presented with added value such as high-definition, subtitles 
or interactive content. We would expect any series with a strong linear 
thread to be appropriate candidates for stacking, encompassing genres 
from drama (Life On Mars, Spooks, Hustle, etc.) to documentary (Light 
Fantastic, The Power Of Art). Magazine-oriented programming - such as 
Top Gear or Inside Out - should probably be excluded, whilst we have 
no opinion on continuing drama such as EastEnders. It would seem 
appropriate for up to four weeks of "episodes" to be available for catch-
up and it would also seem appropriate that the viewing window be 
between seven and fourteen days. – ID 6106: General Manager, Future 
Solutions UK Ltd. 

 

Some people make a clear distinction between those who will use the 
service simply to catch up on missed episodes and those who may want 
to make a “collection” by purchasing DVDs. 

 

Series stacking is of particular benefit when coming to a series after the 
start date, and therefore a maximum of 5 episodes should be available 
to allow a "catch up period' without impacting on future full series DVD 
or other saleable material – ID 1227: MD, Absolute Computers Ltd 

 

Series stacking is very useful; I do not think it would be detrimental to 
sales of DVDs as they would expire after a certain time - people do not 
buy DVDs to catch up what they missed but rather to view time and 


again. There should be no limitation on the number of episodes but 
there should be a time limit for viewing. – ID 6759: Network Manager, 
Eurocentres 

 

This is very important, if I miss an episode I would probably find I may 
lose interest in the programme as I would fall too far behind. This would 
not deter me from purchasing DVDs in the future; providing I had 
confidence the purchase would be worthwhile. – ID 2904: Finance, Dean 
Witter Reynolds 

 

Stacking would be awesome. I think it would be one of the handiest 
things going. I think the logic that it would deter DVD sales is fallacious; 
I personally would still buy DVD's for series because of the flexibility and 
the quality of them, and also to stay legal. It would deter some from 
buying DVDs I'm sure, but it would increase the overall appetite for 
television shows. – ID 7391: Youth Worker, All Souls Clubhouse 

 

Series Stacking is an excellent concept but if you combine it with the 30 
day windows you will get a period of the duration of the run of the series 
(probably up to 13 weeks for a 13 episode series shown weekly) + the 
30 days as suggested before. Commercial VOD services should really be 
leveraging the massive archive of material rather than competing with 
first run delivery. The type of programmes made available for stacking 
should be ones with a distinct continuous thread that needs to be 
followed to understand the series. For example, 'Pride and Prejudice', 
the BBC version of 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe' and maybe 
many natural history programmes that while stand alone in many 
respects, make more sense in context of a series. – ID 2081: Computer 
Engineer, Technomonk Industries 

 

A number of educational organisations were strongly in favour of series 
stacking. 

 

Educational programmes should be made available in this way. Perhaps 
a limit of a term could be put on them and if schools then required 
greater flexibility they could consider buying the DVD version. – ID 
10161: Teacher, Coopers Lane Primary School, Lewisham 

 

Educational programmes e.g. documentaries etc should be prioritised for 
this feature. Such programmes are unlikely to be sold on DVD anyway 
so there would be minimal potential for lost revenue. – ID 10181: IT 
Services Manager, George Watson's College 

 

Series stacking would be essential for me and my students. I am a 
professor of history and I often recommend my students watching your 
programs. The problem is that they often move from one place to 
another so series stacking would be good for them. I cannot tell 


anything about limits but the less limits the better. – ID 2609: 
Confidential 

 

Respondents also feel that the availability of stacking will encourage 
people to watch or stick with a series when they may not have done 
otherwise if they had missed a number of episodes. 

 

Experience has shown that those who buy physical media actually want 
just that, the medium to display in their library. Providing a way to 
catch-up will gain you viewers who otherwise would have abandoned a 
series for having missed the beginning or a few episodes. What would 
be the point of limiting the number of episodes or length of availability? 
Again DRM for the sake of DRM serves no one. – ID 5763: Confidential 

 

Series stacking would be a very useful feature. If series stacking were 
offered as a feature, it would seem to make sense that an entire series 
were available for catch up as it would be frustrating to miss catching up 
on an episode purely because it had fallen outside of the window. This 
would obviously need to be arranged differently for long running soaps 
or series. Stacking would ideally include all drama, comedy and 
entertainment series, possibly also natural history and current affairs 
content. – ID 6578: Confidential 

 

Some comments relate to the fact that the BBC needs to drive 
technology forward and not hold back to protect sales of a medium 
which may eventually be obsolete itself. 

 

We are living in a fast-paced society, with technology changing very 
much more rapidly than in the past. Therefore, series stacking should be 
incorporated as a greater convenience to the public. To say that it would 
deter people from buying DVD's is tantamount to trying to hold back the 
tide. DVD's are reaching the end of their usefulness and will go the way 
of the floppy disk as new methods of distribution and storage become 
more popular. Broadband downloads and hard-drive storage are already 
becoming the medium of choice over DVD's and will continue to 
supplant DVD's in the near future, so to hold back on a new technology 
in deference to an older technology would, in my view, run counter to 
the whole principle behind this initiative. – ID 6680: Confidential 

 

I would argue that series stacking is essential. It allows those viewers 
who have missed a programme to revisit what was missed; those who 
are ardent fans to revisit; and those who have come across a series 
through word of mouth to enjoy the programming. I would expect 
current popular series broadcast across all BBC channel output, and over 
time back catalogue to be added as resources allow. There should be no 
limit placed on the number of episodes or the length of time a series can 
be viewed. The notion of a 13-week window to view content is absurd. 
That number has no basis or relevance in any customer’s day-to-day 


activities. Although in the short term this lack of apparent control may 
cannibalise some DVD sales, ultimately as bandwidth increases and 
video codecs become more efficient, the streaming of media will become 
the norm rather than a fixed physical media. – ID 7643: Music Manager, 
Juicy Musical Creations Ltd. 

 

DVD, HD-DVD, etc are doomed in the age of broadband and on-demand 
content. The lifetime of these media-carrying technologies should not be 
a barrier to any option. Business models are created and dying all the 
time, and special artificial protection should not be required neither 
helped, since it only benefits a select few monopolists in clear prejudice 
of the consumer. – ID 8595: Confidential 

Comments against series stacking 

Stacking is not a good idea in my mind. It takes the place of other 
avenues such as DVDs that are truly meant for extended viewing or long 
program material. The previous 2-3 episodes, similar to NBC should be 
fine for this method of delivery and what it's meant to replace. – ID 
5640: Computer Support, Mactroopers LLC 

 

It is a useful feature for a viewer, however I believe it would deter 
people from buying content if this is to be made available free of charge. 
There should be a definite limit in the length of time for which they can 
be viewed and I would imagine 30 days should apply. – ID 7252: 
Confidential 

3.4.3 INDIVIDUALS 

Comments for series stacking 

Comments made by individuals tended to reflect those made by 
organisations, in that series stacking will not have a serious impact on 
DVD sales and that licence fee payers have effectively already “paid”. 
They also gave some suggestions at how the service could be funded. 

Where sensible, there should not be a limit on the number of episodes 
available - the BBC is funded by us, licence fee payers and so should the 
content be available to us. With continuing serials, of course that 
wouldn't be practical. Perhaps validation of the TV licence account 
number could secure access? – ID 104 

 

All episodes should be available with commercials included for the on-
demand services. Commercials-free episodes stack should be sold on 
DVD. – ID 11 

 

I think a catch up series feature would be great. It is really annoying 
when I just realise a series is back and have already missed 3 or 4 


episodes. I think a time limit and a no copy limit would keep DVD sales 
high. – ID 13 

 

My partner is a good example of way series stacking would work. She 
enjoys serials and often watches them via Telewest replay or similar. 
However she will also go out and buy a well put together box set - i.e. 
one that has nice packaging and extra features. This is partly because of 
convenience and partly because a box set is a nice thing to have - in the 
same way that CD sales are still strong despite mp3 downloads – ID 1 

 

Yes, series stacking would be useful: If I don't realise that a series is 
any good (or don't even hear about it) until part way through the series, 
it may not make sense to start watching it, because too much will have 
been missed. Series stacking would solve that. It would be most useful 
to catch-up on episodes from the FIRST SHOWING of a series, since 
DVDs would not usually be available, and I would be much less likely to 
know about that series. Lack of series stacking for re-runs might 
encourage the buying of DVDs, for those who want a permanent copy. I 
do not believe that series stacking would greatly reduce DVD sales. – ID 
3 

 

The fewer limitations on this feature the better. DVD sales will not be 
altered as many still want physical media. Flagship series, especially 
those with multi-episode narrative arcs, like Dr. Who, should be included 
and the whole season should be available. – ID 5379 

 

People who buy DVDs will buy them regardless of how much or how 
little free content is available on the web. People who don't buy DVDs 
still won't buy them no matter how many bonus features you cram in. I 
would hope your model would be archive.org, which places no 
limitations on numbers of episodes or length of time which they can be 
viewed. The great thing about the internet is it's like a subscription 
library with no return dates or fines! - ID 9074 

 

I already do series stacking via Telewest TVDrive. I don't see any reason 
why it should be possible and allowable through that mechanism, but 
not via the BBC. It has the same potential to effect sales of DVDs either 
way. But DVD sales aren't an end in themselves. – ID 1267 

 

Series stacking / series linking are vital. The whole point of series linking 
is not to keep the entire series on the HD for ever, but to save the 
viewer every week setting up the PVR to record the same programme 
over and over again. This means that I never miss a programme or 
forget to programme the PVR. I would never buy Top Gear or Ray Mears 
on DVD but always series link so as not to miss an episode – ID 6239 

 

 


Comments against series stacking 

Personally, series stacking is not so important: just the possibility of 
catching up. I tend to not watch a series over again, be it a re-run or on 
DVD unless I found the series extremely entertaining that demanded a 
second look. Again, not very often. – ID 2 

 

I think this it is unwise to offer this service. I think that this approach is 
an actual recipe for piracy. Two episodes at a time, UNLESS it is for 
daily soaps. – ID 349 

Limitations on number of episodes and time limits 

As has been seen in the comments above, while many feel that there 
should be no limit on the number of episodes available, some believe a 
limit should be introduced to protect DVD sales. 

Also some respondents feel that it may be necessary to limit the number 
of episodes available due to storage and, as an example, make the 
following suggestions. 

This would be a very useful feature - especially if the series in question 
had a long 'story arc'. I would suggest fiction stories would be included 
in this facility. Soaps etc have too long an arc to realistically cover all 
episodes. In terms of limitations, I would suggest a maximum of two 
months episodes be retained - due to storage considerations. Again, I 
do not believe there should be a limit on how long the episode can be 
stored locally - provided that it was not possible to share the file to 
others. – ID 27 

Nice idea. Perhaps make a series stack available for the length of time 
the series runs on air. So take a 4 part weekly drama, make the series 
stack available for say that length of time plus 1 month. If you choose 
to not limit the time folk can keep material on their PC then they can 
download and store and watch when they want anyway. – ID 14 

 

Series stacking is important and very useful. It should probably be 
limited to shorter series or 1 season. I don't believe that stacking will 
deter people from wanting to own the series on DVD. – ID 32 

 

All episodes of a series for the duration of its run – ID 37 

 

Series stacking would be useful. But not whole series should be stalked: 
a maximum of 3 episodes or one third, depending on the number of 
episodes in a series. All types of programming should be allowed. – ID 
38 

 


Most series and the full series should be allowed with no time period 
before viewing. Where this is not practical, for example long running 
soaps then 6 weeks should be the amount of time before you can no 
longer download episodes. – ID 46 

 

I do consider series stacking to be a useful feature. I think that it should 
be possible to stack a whole series. This would be perfect for, for 
example, short run comedy and documentary series. – ID 49 

 

I think this is an excellent idea. Some sort of limit is clearly necessary 
for long running series (soaps) but otherwise most series have a 
'season' which would suggest itself as a natural limit - maybe you could 
add a couple of episodes from a previous season at the start of each 
new one. – ID 60 

 

I am happy waiting a week to see the next episode in a series. Rather 
than trying to watch the whole series in one go. Introducing the series 
stacking would enable a number of episodes to be downloaded to cover 
time spent, for example, away on holiday. Perhaps a couple of weeks 
worth (3 episodes) – ID 89 

 

The catch up time should typically be able to cover customers holidays 
where they miss several episodes in one go, so I would say the last 5 
episodes for weekly shown shows (to cover a 4-5 week holiday) and 5 or 
maybe 10 for daily soaps, as it unlikely that someone would watch the 
25 episodes they missed when they were on a 5 week holiday - that said 
there seems to be no business case for producing soaps on DVD, so in 
this case there seems no real reason to have a limit of any kind, except 
maybe infrastructure costs. – ID 90 

 

I think series stacking is a great idea. I see no reason why it would 
deter people from buying DVDs. Has anybody produced any evidence to 
show that it would? People who buy DVDs are probably the same people 
who would use series stacking. I see no reason to restrict the series 
available to series stacking. That could alienate your viewers. If you 
really do need to limit access to episodes then I would suggest that all 
episodes be available for up to one month after the FINAL episode has 
been aired. If the series does not have a final episode (such as 
EastEnders) then an episode should be available for a month after its 
original air date. – ID 135 

 

Stacking is good and convenient for catching up. All popular series 
should be included especially wildlife programmes (good for educational 
purposes). It would not deter people from buying DVD’s as these 
contain extras - cut scenes, screw ups, interviews, film that wasn't 
shown etc. I think the entire season should be stacked, except for 
soaps, probably a couple of months are enough. – ID 141 


Time Limitations 

It seems to be commonly felt that there should be no time limit on the 
length of time these should be available for viewing. 

 

I consider series stacking to be a useful very useful feature and there 
should be no limitation on the number episodes or series for catch-up or 
the length of time for which they can be viewed. – ID 70 

 

I think that series stacking would be a useful feature, and should be 
unlimited, as the BBC is a publicly owned, public broadcast organisation. 
– ID 88 

 

Who says this service needs to be as high quality as DVD? I'd be 
perfectly content with VHS (maybe slightly less than VHS) quality. In 
the UK with our penchant for per megabyte charging I suspect that even 
average households CANNOT AFFORD to stream HDTV or the like! Want 
quality - pay for it - what can we expect for free? "Series stacking" is 
one of the niftiest ideas I've heard in a long time, as it would provide 
"me" with the ability to get engrossed in series that I would otherwise 
dismiss if I had missed the first few episodes. Once again WE the 
LICENCE PAYERS pay the BBC for the production and there should be 
NO TIME LIMITS – ID 145 

However there were some suggestions, examples of which are as 
follows. 

No limit other than storage time (90 days) – ID 62 

 

I believe the series stacking would be an invaluable tool, and the 30 day 
limit should still apply. – ID 101 

 

This would be very useful and wouldn't deter me from buying DVDs (I'd 
still buy the DVD if I wanted to keep the series once the 'on-demand' 
version had expired). I'd like the series to be viewed up to 30 days 
after the last episode is available. – ID 129 

 

Stacking is an important feature. People are often unable to view 
programming at a regular schedule. Stacking will greatly improve 
visitors' ability to catch up. I don't see a reason to limit the number of 
episodes. I would expect the proposed 30-day limit to apply here too. – 
ID 144 

3.4.4 CONCLUSION 

The majority of respondents seem to believe that the concept of series 
stacking is a good one. They feel that as people are licence fee payers 
they “own” the material anyway and should have access to it as and 


when they want. Likewise, as people are currently free to record and 
keep any material as long as they wish from the TV, the same should 
apply to series stacking. It is felt by many that this should not damage 
DVD sales as those who want to buy a quality, well presented and 
packaged DVD will continue to do so. 

There is an issue as to possibly charging non-licence fee payers to 
access the material via series stacking. Also to limit any possible impact 
on DVD sales, a time limit could be imposed, quality could be reduced or 
a charge could be made for allowing longer access. 


Other 

232 

137 

47 

6 

191 

Don’t Know 

18 

15 

- 

- 

16 

No answer 

112 

70 

17 

1 

95 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Very important 

80.9 

81.2 

79.0 

75.8 

80.8 

Important 

4.6 

5.0 

4.1 

4.2 

4.8 

Neither imp. Nor 
unimportant 

6.3 

6.1 

7.6 

9.1 

6.3 

Not important 

4.7 

4.6 

4.7 

6.7 

4.7 

Other 

2.2 

1.9 

3.4 

3.6 

2.1 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

No answer 

1.0 

1.0 

1.2 

0.6 

1.0 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Very important 

80.9 

81.2 

84.0 

84.4 

71.9 

Important 

4.6 

5.0 

4.2 

2.8 

4.1 

Neither imp. Nor 
unimportant 

6.3 

6.1 

5.8 

5.5 

9.2 

Not important 

4.7 

4.6 

3.7 

3.7 

6.9 

Other 

2.2 

1.9 

2.0 

1.8 

5.1 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

No answer 

1.0 

1.0 

0.4 

1.8 

2.8 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

 

3.5 Question 5 

 
How important is it that the proposed seven-day catch-up service 
over the internet is available to consumers who are not using 
Microsoft software? 

3.5.1 TABULATIONS 

 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Org 

Individual 

Very important 

8583 

5804 

125 

7195 

Important 

493 

355 

7 

426 

Neither imp. Nor 
unimportant 

671 

436 

15 

559 

Not important 

499 

330 

11 

422 



Non - UK 

1086 

56 

104 

64 


% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Very important 

80.9 

79.2 

76.2 

81.1 

83.7 

Important 

4.6 

5.4 

7.1 

5.4 

4.2 

Neither imp. Nor 
unimportant 

6.3 

6.3 

8.4 

5.4 

5.4 

Not important 

4.7 

5.2 

5.2 

5.2 

4.0 

Other 

2.2 

2.2 

2.5 

1.7 

1.4 

Don’t Know 

0.2 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.3 

No answer 

1.0 

1.3 

0.3 

1.0 

1.0 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



This issue seems very important and was also raised by many people in 
response to Question 1. Over 80% of respondents said it was very 
important that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the 
internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software. 

3.5.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Many organizations are endorsing the use of open source software and 
are against the use of Microsoft. They believe there should be a cross 
platform service and the BBC should not be “supporting” Microsoft. 

They feel that Microsoft may not be as relevant in the future as it is 
today and therefore the BBC should not place reliance upon it. 

Also as everyone pays the licence fee, why should some people be 
excluded? 

The comments below illustrate these points of view. 

It is vital that facilities are provided for non-Microsoft users. In 
particular downloading must be available for Linux and Mac users. In our 
experience, Microsoft products are not the most reliable and the BBC 
should not be supporting any attempt to restrict access to one supplier. 
– ID 5317: Web Designer, Global Databases Ltd. 

 

Extremely important. Apple market share is increasing by the day and 
Linux is also gaining ground fast. To ignore the fastest growing area of 
desktop computing would be a bad business idea. – ID 5451: 
Confidential 

 

Extremely! Isolating your content on any proprietary platform that 
doesn't support a future where the implementation costs are the same, 
so why make that exclusion? All of our customers are Mac users, and to 
ostracise the millions of Mac users, and many millions more Linux users 
from your ideas and programming can only ensure your effort fails for 


those people from the first day. YouTube favors no company’s 
technology. NBC plays fine on my Mac. You are not broadcasting in a 
vacuum. Make your content as widely available as possible; the 
technology carries the same cost. YouTube did it long before they had 
your budget. Another parallel would be like asking if you thought it was 
a great idea to only have BBC programs viewable on a certain type of TV 
set. You'd probably think that was a big mistake. Don't make that 
mistake. – ID 5640: Computer Support, Mactroopers LLC 

 

I am a Mac user and an administrator of a large Apple Mac network on 
which we have as many Windows users and Linux users all of which can 
currently use the BBC website using one player or another to see / hear 
/ content. The BBC should remain platform independent. Apple users 
and Linux users should be included. – ID 6239: Confidential 

 

Extremely important. I am a Linux user myself, and know many Linux 
and Mac OS users who greatly respect the BBC. However, denying 
service to users of alternative operating systems can entirely change our 
view of this company. Moreover, it is entirely inappropriate that the BBC 
should endorse an unethical corporation like Microsoft when it should be 
supporting the free software movement. – ID 30: Confidential 

 

VERY! Is the BBC owned by Microsoft? Do you and the licence payer owe 
Microsoft something? Apples are very popular and many consumer 
devices are based on Linux these days. Consider the One Laptop Per 
Child. That doesn't contain MS software. I'm honestly surprised you 
would even ask that question. – ID 92: Confidential 

 

I think it's very important. I use Windows, Linux, and OS X. However, I 
do not use windows media player or Apple's quicktime/i-tunes. I have 
found far superior cross-platform products that work fine on all 3 
operating systems. Mplayer Media Player Classic VLC and others. – ID 
213: Confidential 

 

Essential. Why punish people for using more advanced, better built and 
more customisable operating systems? Windows is a monopoly - not a 
choice for most consumers (try buying a Dell with a blank HD - good 
luck). Let's put it this way, if you offer this service to me and my Mac 
then I'll use it - if not I'll open up my BitTorrent client and get the same 
thing in glorious Xvid, DRM free. Please DO NOT go into the Microsoft 
ghetto, you'll regret it even though it seems the most attractive option 
right now. – ID 366: Cold as Fire Designs 

 

Very - Microsoft are market leader, but there is a large population of 
advanced users using non Microsoft products. – ID 780 Director, Izisys 
Ltd. 

 


Ever since the BBC started broadcasting in 1922, it has always used the 
concept of 'open standards'. The reason that the BBC has the full 
support of all hardware manufacturers and retailers is that - up until 
now - any company or person can, without charge, create equipment 
that can be used to receive BBC services. This has been true since 
Baird's 30 line TV service, the 405 line monochrome TV service, 625 line 
PAL colour television, short wave, medium wave and long wave radio, 
and applies today with the DAB, DVB-T (Freeview), DVB-S (digital 
satellite) and DVB-C (digital cable) services. In return for this, the BBC 
licence fee is charged against anyone who purchases equipment capable 
of receiving its services. Any switch to a closed system which depends 
on a single company - Microsoft - undermines the historic settlement 
and should not be entertained by the BBC Trust as it against the 
interests of licence fee payers. It is unfair for the BBC to force licence 
fee payers to install software onto their computers to be able to use 
services that must be - because of the licence fee - universal. In 
addition, the BBC should not be prostituting its brand, library, content 
and history to any single company. Microsoft has a history - as is its 
right - of doing deals with other companies that turn out to benefit 
Microsoft and its shareholders. – ID 973: Editor, UK Free TV 

 

In my view, essential. I simply would not use a service that is tied into 
Microsoft products, particularly as most programmes are now edited 
using Final Cut Pro, an Apple-only product. Also, it is my understanding 
that both Real and Windows Media charge for streaming, whereas 
Quicktime is entirely free for streaming software and media player. – ID 
1362: Confidential 

 

I am astonished that a public service considers limiting to Microsoft 
only. The only reason appears to be because of Windows Media Player 
10. The BBC would be playing into the hands of a large corporation, 
Microsoft, which would be happy that no-one else could use the 
software. Apple are arguably the world leader in media based 
computing, and are rapidly advancing into easy-to-use lifestyle 
computing, such as iPods, iTunes and AppleTV. I can't help think that 
this is driven by one thing alone; time limited storage on a computer. 
When you have cracked time-limited video or DVD then it would be 
relevant. – ID 1421: Confidential 

This is extremely important - or in fact crucial. Linux will undoubtedly 
play a role, although probably limited. But it is an important signal to 
support opensource platforms. Even more important is Mac OS X and 
the connected Apple medias like iPod, Apple TV etc. The installed base is 
growing and Microsoft is in no way the single and only OS supplier they 
would like to be. For at Public Service organization it is extremely 
important NOT to be a part of the Microsoft Only strategy. – ID 1969: 
CEO, FileMaker Center, AS 

 


For me personally, VERY IMPORTANT. I made a choice a couple of years 
ago to use Open Source Software and non-commercial software where 
possible. To this end I would prefer the content to be in open formats, 
that I do not require a proprietary player to view. eq MPEG-4 or theora. 
(Yes I realise that MPEG4 is patent encumbered.). In absence of that, I 
try to make sure that my players play as many formats as possible and 
don't spam me with advertising when they start up. Real player is an 
okay solution for this; however, the non http streaming options would 
restrict my usage in many locations where I am behind firewalls. – ID 
2081: Computer Engineer, Technomonk Industries 

KDE, who I am representing, is a free software desktop available on 
Linux and other platforms. We are one of the few competitors to 
Microsoft for computer desktops. Public bodies such as the BBC must 
use open standards available to users of any operating system. 
Supporting only Microsoft software denies licence payers the choice to 
use free alternatives rather than proprietary tools. – ID 2267: Computer 
Programmer, KDE GB 

 

This is absolutely essential. Alternative operating systems are gaining in 
popularity, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, for the BBC to continue to be a forward-thinking organisation 
they should fully support systems that are not using Microsoft software. 
– ID 3101: Confidential 

 

VERY. We all use Macs here (all 157 of us), and almost everyone who 
uses their Mac here in the office either has one at home for personal 
use, or fell in love with it and are a switcher or becoming a switcher. 
Macs are the way forward - please support this platform. However, don't 
forget other minority operating systems too, such as Linux. If possible 
find a way to at least support Macs and Windows, but everything if 
possible. – ID 3492: MD, Graphic/Web Design Company 

Many media professionals and those who provide content for the BBC 
are non-users of Microsoft. 

 

Very important I don't understand why there is even a debate. I am an 
Apple Mac user, as is a large proportion of the creative industry. How 
can you even consider offering a service which is inaccessible to a large 
percentage of the creative talent who fuel that very same industry? 
Quite apart from the fact that we pay our licence fee and should be 
treated equally. – ID 1520: Director, MashMosh Films 

 

Very, very, important. This cannot be underestimated. Mac computers 
are standard for many in the creative industries (web designers etc), let 
alone institutions of art and design. There will be an uproar if this 
service is limited to Microsoft users only. A scandal. – ID 1858: 
Confidential 




Extremely important. It's not a "public service" if it's not. A service from 
a creative organisation not available on the platform most used by 
creative users would be a great loss. It is very important to us as an 
independent record label to make our content available to everyone, 
especially people like us - and we all use Macs. And the users of 
independent OS such as Linux drive taste and take-up anomalously 
strongly. – ID 3321: Dreamboat Records 

 

Vital, not everybody uses Microsoft software, especially those in the 
creative and media industries who often use Macs, the very people most 
likely to be interested in the high quality creative television the BBC 
makes – ID 4088: Interaction Designer, Tribal DDB 

And also educational establishments seem to be non-users of Microsoft. 

 

Very, very, important - we are a Macintosh /Apple school and want easy 
access to your services – ID 1214: Teacher, Gilles Plains PS 

 

Although I use Microsoft and 90% of people do the significant minority 
on Mac, open source etc mustn't be excluded if they pay the BBC licence 
fee – ID 4122: Teacher, Notre Dame High School 

 

Extremely important, as mentioned in my first 2 responses. Over 75% 
of the (30 strong) student group I represent own an Apple Mac of some 
form (myself included), and they feel discriminated against because of 
the proposed deal with Microsoft to lock their machines out of what 
could be an excellent system for the BBC. – ID 1401: Student Group 
within UCE 

 

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT. We do not use any Microsoft equipment in our 
schools, as our entire platform is based on the Apple Mac. We do this 
because the costs of platform maintenance of the Apple equipment is a 
fraction of the engineering support our IT technicians would need to put 
in to a Windows-based environment. To set this in context, the group 
has one IT engineer for about 150 work stations and eight servers. If we 
had to run a Microsoft platform, industry standard ratios would suggest 
we would need three to four staff. The governors and the heads are 
outraged by the idea that it should be based on a Microsoft-based DRM. 
At a time when open source is increasingly the fashion, particularly 
given the advance of Linux, this seems an anti-competitive ambition of 
the BBC. To use an analogy, would the BBC think it reasonable to say 
that their current broadcasts could only be received on reception 
equipment made by Sony? Of course it would not. The top paragraph 
on p10 of the Provisional Conclusions document says: We propose to 
require the BBC Executive to adopt a platform-agnostic approach to 
rights management within a reasonable timeframe. The MIA notes an 
expectation that the BBC Executive plans to develop a Real Player 


alternative in the near future. Our understanding is that the BBC 
Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would 
enable Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to 
identify a satisfactory solution. In either case, we will expect this to 
have been addressed within 24 months. We take very little comfort 
from this. Broadly we see the current proposals as an attempt to cement 
MS-DRM as the standard and, as I have said before, this is anti-
competitive. – ID 3779: CEO, House Schools Group 

 

Absolutely vital that this is available on multiple platforms. Our school 
spends £14k on Microsoft subscriptions each year. We are putting into 
place systems which will give more students access to ICT provision 
while trying to reduce our outgoings on Microsoft licences. We use 
Apple Mac and Linux PCs. The Linux PCs allow us to continue to use PCs 
which would otherwise be landfill as they cannot run Windows XP. Our 
Current PCs (450) running Windows XP including the latest purchases 
will not run Windows Vista satisfactorily. Therefore if BBC content is 
Microsoft only then it will have a detrimental effect upon our school's 
(and many others are looking into these issues too) ICT provision. It 
really is a choice between 1 Windows PC or 4 alternative PCs, quite a 
ratio. Besides I am, as a TV licence payer, not happy that the BBC is 
looking to create/use a closed system which prevent me from accessing 
services to which I contribute funds. – ID 9946: Confidential 

 

3.5.3 INDIVIDUALS 

 

The overwhelming response amongst individuals also appears to be that 
the service should be available to non-Microsoft users and should be 
platform independent. 

 

Respondents feel that non-Microsoft users should have equal access to 
BBC content. If open standards are available they should be used by a 
public service organisation such as the BBC. This will also ensure that 
the maximum number of licence fee payers will be able to benefit from 
the service. Many respondents are Mac and Linux users, but not all. 

 

Very important: around 3% of computer users use Mac OS, another 3% 
or so use Linux along with a small number who use other systems. 
Although over 90% of all users do use a Microsoft product, a fair 
proportion of those use older versions of Windows than XP, and there 
are several different Media players in use, not all of which can read 
Microsoft standard files – ID 63 

 

MASSIVELY!! The BBC is an important worldwide distributor of stuff 
(video, radio etc) and to restrict this only to people using Windows 
would only serve to strengthen Microsoft’s grip on the world, mean that 
I was paying licence fees towards a service I couldn't use and 
undermine the importance of the BBC in developing countries who are 


just waking up to the power of open source. The massive rise in 
popularity of Ubuntu Linux is just one example of how important and 
well used Linux is becoming – ID 1 

 

Essential. To do otherwise is to hand to Microsoft a commercial 
advantage over all other organisations. To HAVE to use Microsoft 
software means the media players are limited to those that Microsoft 
support. Yet as we see, over the years, despite promise after promise, 
Microsoft seems incapable of supporting any platform except the PC and 
a limited number of PDAs/Phones. The BBC Micro was created to avoid 
lock in with a commercial organisation. To abandon that policy for short 
term and easily overcome reasons would be a huge mistake. – ID 5 

 

Very important. I believe the key phrase is "open and transparent 
access to all" – ID 6 

 

Very. These people represent over 10% of the computing world, but 
many people who work in the artistic and creative fields utilize non-
Microsoft technology. By removing these people from the ability to 
access content, you might be shorting yourself of the opportunity to let 
art happen! – ID 5775 

 

Very important. Many people cannot afford Microsoft Software, and to 
isolate these from a public service should not happen. Also a public 
service should not make arbitrary demands on the consumer platform. – 
ID 9 

 

As a public body, it is vitally important that the service is not restricted 
to one proprietary operating system. I regularly use Linux and Mac OS, 
as well as several minority open source operating systems. It is 
imperative that the service is available to as many platforms as 
possible. Restricting the service to Microsoft's operating systems would 
be like restricting the use of the M6 to only people who drive Fords. – ID 
15 

 

Incredibly important. If you have to use Microsoft products to access 
your services, you are taking away the right for the individual to choose. 
For example, I do not have any Microsoft products. My home network 
consisting of 4 computers (If you include my Mother's which is located 
remotely) uses Linux (fedora and debian) and Amiga OS4. I do not want 
to use Microsoft, so you would be forcing me to purchase new 
equipment (required as the computers I use are too old to run XP 
efficiently, let alone VISTA) to use your services. This would be an extra 
cost to the TV licence that I currently pay - hardly fair! – ID 33 

 

Very. The BBC must not limit the platforms their content can be viewed 
on. It would be like not broadcasting on cable platforms after analogue 


switch off. Players/software have to be available for all current systems 
(MS Windows, Mac OS X, Aimga OS4.0 and Linux) – ID 38 

 

I consider it to be very important; Microsoft formats are not a standard 
and are not accessible to anyone not using a Microsoft system. As a 
public service the BBC should try to reach as wide an audience as 
possible: forcing the use of Microsoft software is an entirely artificial 
restriction of the audience. Current services use real player which 
although not an open and unencumbered standard has the distinct 
benefit of targeting multiple platforms including Windows, Linux and 
Macintosh. To specify Microsoft formats is a significant retrograde step 
from this position. – ID 71 

 

I think non-Microsoft users should have exactly the same functionality 
as MS users, very big per cent of operating systems in lower income 
countries are Linux boxes, like that 100$ laptop is running Linux and 
what use has the BBC in third world countries if they cannot watch news 
reports? – ID 1117 

3.5.4 CONCLUSION 

Overall 81% of respondents said it was either very important or 
important that the proposed seven-day catch-up service over the 
internet is available to consumers who are not using Microsoft software. 

Many organizations are endorsing the use of open source software and 
are against the sole use of Microsoft. They believe there should be a 
cross platform service and the BBC should not be “supporting” Microsoft. 
Indeed many organisations and individuals in the media, creative and 
educational sectors are non-Microsoft users. 

Some respondents feel that Microsoft may not be as relevant in the 
future as it is today and therefore the BBC should not place reliance 
upon it. Also as everyone pays the licence fee, why should some people 
be excluded from this service? The strength of feeling on this issue 
should not be underestimated. 


3.6 Question 6 



 
Should the BBC be allowed to offer book readings from its radio 
services as audio downloads over the internet? 

3.6.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

8608 

6052 

1166 

145 

7479 

No 

283 

210 

27 

1 

250 

Indifferent 

181 

121 

16 

3 

147 

Other 

108 

74 

9 

2 

87 

Don’t Know 

244 

161 

35 

3 

207 

No answer 

1184 

529 

121 

11 

734 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

81.1 

84.7 

84.9 

87.9 

84.0 

No 

2.7 

2.9 

2.0 

0.6 

2.8 

Indifferent 

1.7 

1.7 

1.2 

1.8 

1.7 

Other 

1.0 

1.0 

0.7 

1.2 

1.0 

Don’t Know 

2.3 

2.3 

2.5 

1.8 

2.3 

No answer 

11.2 

7.4 

8.8 

6.7 

8.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes 

81.1 

84.7 

85.5 

85.3 

84.8 

No 

2.7 

2.9 

3.2 

3.7 

3.2 

Indifferent 

1.7 

1.7 

2.2 

0.0 

0.0 

Other 

1.0 

1.0 

0.8 

0.9 

0.9 

Don’t Know 

2.3 

2.3 

2.2 

2.8 

1.8 

No answer 

11.2 

7.4 

6.2 

7.3 

9.2 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

Yes 

81.1 

85.5 

83.8 

84.3 

84.6 

No 

2.7 

2.9 

3.6 

2.9 

2.7 

Indifferent 

1.7 

1.3 

2.1 

1.8 

1.8 

Other 

1.0 

0.9 

1.0 

1.2 

1.1 

Don’t Know 

2.3 

2.8 

1.9 

2.3 

2.2 

No answer 

11.2 

6.6 

7.6 

7.4 

7.6 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




There appears to be a generally positive response towards book 
readings being provided as audio downloads, with over 80% of 
respondents agreeing that the BBC should be allowed to offer these 
downloads over the internet. 

Some respondents felt that, although they agreed with the concept in 
principle, it was not particularly of interest to them. 

However many people felt that this would be of great benefit in 
particular to certain groups such as the visually impaired, those with 
reading difficulties, non-English speakers, the elderly as well as the 
public generally. 

It was felt by some that this would not detract from book sales but may 
well on the contrary increase sales. 

The main reservation was that any book downloads would have to be 
legal with the agreement of the book publisher/author/copyright owner. 
It may be that an abridged version only was used. 

Yes, definitely. I believe book readings are usually quite heavily 
abridged, so people will still want to buy the full length version on CD. 
Most readings are never released on CD anyway. – ID 9894: Individual 

 

Yes please. This is definitely one service that could benefit a much wider 
community that it already does. Just one example would be my 
grandmother, who already makes use of book reading services for the 
blind, but I'm sure would enjoy the ability to have a broader listen 
choice. I also listen to many internet broadcasts, such as LUGRadio and 
Perlcast, which feature technological interviews and discussions, and if 
there are similar technical, news or other audio programmes that would 
benefit from exposure to a wider audience, then this can only be a good 
thing in my experience. Currently I rarely listen to regular radio 
features (BBC or other), as I don't have a radio available to me during 
work and most of my leisure time. I do have internet and an MP3 
player, which I do listen to a lot. – ID 9931: Individual 

Yes, as Podcasts please. Radio shows should all also be more available 
and tracked with RSS. – ID 2640: The Open Source Community 

If they were in mp3 format, yes. Otherwise, again, you are limiting 
yourself to only a small percentage of personal digital music players. – 
ID 5775: Individual 

 

Absolutely – like the recording industry, the BBC must expect that by 
ignoring certain types of output whilst supporting others will lead to 
piracy and a dramatic increase in non BBC iPlayer use. - ID 6102: 
Journalist, Future Publishing Ltd. 




This is a very difficult one. There are IPR issues which apply particularly 
to books and talking books. On the other hand there is a market out 
there that is crying out for this service – the increasing numbers of 
people who are blind or partially sighted. Curiously Blackpool is a centre 
of innovation in this area http://www.blueiris.info/ so you ought to talk 
to them. My guess is that a popular talking book will boost sales of the 
original printed version. – ID 6181: Consultant, ITEM Associates 

 

Yes, this would be a valuable service for people who commute and 
importantly for blind people. It may also encourage listening to books 
for children if suitable material is published. – ID 9863: Individual 

 

I listen to BBC podcasts now in places where I never had a radio. It 
would be great if all media was available. - ID 6239: Individual 

 

Yes I have enjoyed many of the BBC radio presentations over the years 
and having them available from the source with no DRM restrictions 
would be a great joy. – ID 7887: Individual 

Yes. I personally believe that readings encourage rather than discourage 
book sales. For example, on at least three occasions I have purchased 
books and CDs after listening to “Something Understood” – ID 8323: 
ICT Consultant, CoroNet Information systems 

 

Yes, as with any other content. The potential for (extra) harm to the 
market from this would be minimal at best, given that radio broadcasts 
are easily recorded for later listening by conventional means already. 
Downloading has no more potential for harm than the original 
broadcasts. – ID 41: Individual 

 

I would see this as a valuable service. I often listen to book readings on 
BBC 7 and I do make use of the listen again service on the BBC web 
site. Bringing the catch up service and listen again service together 
would be beneficial for listeners and the BBC. – ID 135: Individual 

The benefits to educational users were also recognized. 

 

Yes - this could be very useful for schools to inspire children to read 
books themselves. It would be particularly valuable if supplemented in 
eBook form for re-reading. – ID 16805: Education Consultant, David 
Perry Associates ltd 

 

There are some concerns about revenue being taken from book/tape 
sales. 

 

I think this would be great; however I also see that this could cut into 
the sales of Books on Tape. However, as the programmes are already 


broadcast over the radio, one could argue that the present situation 
already cuts into the sale of audio books. I should think that if some 
sort of advertising is embedded into the audio download that everyone 
could be kept happy. This is not a major concern for me. – ID 200: 
Individual 

 

If the works are in copyright and not original BBC material then I 
suppose that would have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis with 
the publisher, but they should certainly be available to listen to online 
even if downloading is not part of the deal. – ID 10881: Confidential 

 

Yes. I was an early participant in Project Gutenberg, and believe in open 
and free publishing of non-copyright books. (This does not mean that I 
am against authors making profits from their books.) – ID 185: 
Individual 

 

Yes and no – this should be down to individual author’s rights and 
permissions, either that, or you need to help spearhead a PRS/PAS type 
system for the literary world. – ID 8205: IT Director, Hospitality Tills 
Ltd. 

 

I think this depends on the availability of the book in audio form. If the 
book is commercially available as audio, then it would probably be best 
for the author not to have to compete with the BBC. – ID 3101: 
Confidential 

 

Concerns 

 

No, the extra payments to authors would become an excessive drain on 
the licence fee funding; only BBC produced/funded content should be 
available as no further costs incurred. – ID 9876: Individual 

 

As someone who enjoys the opportunity to listen to the radio broadcast 
of book readings, my preference is to either buy the book itself or, on 
certain occasions, to buy the full audio recording of books that appeal to 
me. I would therefore see this option as having low priority. – ID 9878: 
Individual 

 

No. It would undermine sales of "taped readings" – ID 9907: Individual 

3.6.2 CONCLUSION 

Although 81% of respondents agree that the BBC should be allowed to 
offer book readings as audio downloads over the internet, some 
respondents felt that although they agreed with the concept in principle, 
it was not particularly of interest to them. 


However, it was recognized that this could be of service to certain 
groups such as the visually impaired, those with reading difficulties, 
non-English speakers, the elderly, as well as the public generally. 

It was felt by some that this would not detract from book sales but may 
well on the contrary increase sales and encourage reading of the actual 
books. The main reservation was that any book downloads would have 
to with the agreement of the book publisher/author/copyright owner. It 
may be that an abridged version only was used. 

 


3.7 Question 7 



 
The BBC Trust concluded there was fine balance between public 
value and market impact in deciding whether to allow the BBC to 
offer audio downloads of classical music. While such downloads 
could help introduce new listeners to classical music, they could also 
deter purchases of commercial recordings. What is your view on 
whether – and to what extent – the BBC should be allowed to offer 
radio broadcasts of classical music as audio downloads over the 
internet? 

3.7.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes – all 

3808 

2618 

545 

66 

3291 

Yes – some 

2877 

2058 

358 

24 

2518 

No – none 

677 

474 

95 

16 

586 

Indifferent 

993 

699 

127 

22 

859 

Other 

511 

380 

64 

9 

457 

Don’t Know 

199 

150 

17 

6 

169 

No answer 

1543 

768 

168 

22 

1024 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes – all 

35.9 

36.6 

39.7 

40.0 

37.0 

Yes – some 

27.1 

28.8 

26.1 

14.5 

28.3 

No – none 

6.4 

6.6 

6.9 

9.7 

6.6 

Indifferent 

9.4 

9.8 

9.2 

13.3 

9.6 

Other 

4.8 

5.3 

4.7 

5.5 

5.1 

Don’t Know 

1.9 

2.1 

1.2 

3.6 

1.9 

No answer 

14.5 

10.7 

12.2 

13.3 

11.5 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



Nearly two thirds of respondents (63%) felt that the BBC should be 
allowed to offer either all or some radio broadcasts of classical music as 
audio downloads over the internet. 

Many respondents feel that allowing downloads will actually encourage 
listening and the purchase of classical music. Once people have had the 
download of classical music, they will want to purchase the CD as it will 
be of a better quality: if people enjoy it they will buy it. 

However there are also those respondents who feel that downloads will 
detract from the sale of classical music. 

 


% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Yes – all 

35.9 

36.6 

37.0 

36.7 

30.4 

Yes – some 

27.1 

28.8 

32.3 

37.6 

30.0 

No – none 

6.4 

6.6 

6.0 

8.3 

9.2 

Indifferent 

9.4 

9.8 

9.0 

7.3 

14.3 

Other 

4.8 

5.3 

5.3 

0.9 

3.2 

Don’t Know 

1.9 

2.1 

1.5 

0.9 

2.3 

No answer 

14.5 

10.7 

8.8 

8.3 

10.6 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Yes – all 

35.9 

34.9 

36.6 

37.3 

37.6 

Yes – some 

27.1 

29.7 

27.6 

27.3 

28.1 

No – none 

6.4 

6.4 

6.1 

7.4 

6.5 

Indifferent 

9.4 

11.1 

9.8 

11.3 

8.6 

Other 

4.8 

6.5 

4.6 

3.8 

5.9 

Don’t Know 

1.9 

1.9 

2.7 

1.8 

2.3 

No answer 

14.5 

9.4 

12.6 

11.1 

11.0 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



3.7.2 AGREE WITH DOWNLOADING BROADCASTS OF CLASSICAL 
MUSIC 
Some respondents believe that this service may actually lead to 
increased sales of classical music. 
The types of people who enjoy listening to classical music (myself 
included) would not stop buying records just because they are available 
for download. It is possible that we would start listening to more music, 
but the amount of music we purchase would remain the same, if not 
greater. When it comes to classical music, an MP3-quality download is 
no more than a sample, encouraging the purchase of the real record. – 
ID 30: Confidential 
Consider this. The BBC's download audio quality is likely to be vastly 
inferior to a CD quality recording. Classical music deserves a good 
quality system for full enjoyment. I would imagine that with more 
people introduced to this genre of music through easier access, then 
actual CD (commercial recordings) sales would increase. A win win 
situation. – ID 9946 
Studies have shown that downloads - both illegal and legal - have 
actually increased the amount of commercial recordings sold, due to the 


fact that downloads allow people essentially to "try before they buy". – 
ID 10615 

 

Classical music is generally inexpensive, but needs more general 
exposure. Free downloads would ultimately lead to greater sales as 
interest increases. – ID 1069: Individual 

 

Being able to access new musical (or other offerings) helps stimulate 
markets, not shut them down. Allow a limited number of passages to be 
accessed and full collections can be purchased for those that have 
developed an appetite. Just as a chapter or two of a book helps sell the 
book better than any cover. – ID 4433: Confidential 

 

Allowing radio broadcasts over the internet will not harm commercial 
recordings, as most people who are serious enough about classical 
music have the means and desire to purchase uncompressed, physical 
copies. The internet streaming method will do a great deal to introduce 
new users to classical music and should absolutely be used. – ID 5379: 
Individual 

 

For many people online music downloading is just like taking a sample 
of something that they are interested in, and if it is good, they buy that 
CD. – ID 1117: Individual 

 

If you have the IPR why shouldn’t it be made available? Is the market 
for classical music that different from other forms of music? As in pop 
music, the performer and the performance matters. A fifteen year old 
recording by a competent BBC orchestra will not satisfy the needs of a 
Klemperer fan who wants to hear a version played by the Berlin Phil. My 
guess is that you will expand the market. – ID 6181: Consultant, ITEM 
Associates 

 

Others feel that classical music should be freely available to everyone 
and should not be different to any other form of music which is available 
to download from other sources. Also, the issue of licence fee payers 
already having paid for this output arises. 

 

As a music producer who has spent all of his life in the music business, I 
am vehemently against any kind of DRM (audio and video). Listeners 
should be allowed to download any broadcasted recordings, not just 
classical music ...why should there be a distinction anyway? Music is 
music, irrespective of genre. As long as the user “agrees" to a download 
agreement stating that they will only use the downloaded content for 
personal purposes and not ever copy it into a commercial production. 
After all, all we are talking about is the recording of a radio or TV 
program onto digital media, which is no different to what consumers 
have been doing for the last 35 years onto analogue media: TV onto 
VCRs and radio onto compact cassette. – ID 9892 


Why is classical music treated differently to any other form of music? 
Usually the download quality and obviously DVB quality are so poor I 
wouldn’t bother. – ID 92: Confidential 

 

The most popular classical music from the last century does not have 
any copyright and is freely and widely available for download on the 
internet, so it will not make any difference if you make it available for 
download or not – ID 241: Confidential 

 

Unless there are specific rights issues which would prevent it I believe 
all BBC material should be available as downloads. As much classical 
music is out of composer's copyright, if the BBC has commissioned a 
recording I think it should be free to use the recording as it sees fit. 
More than that, I think the BBC has an obligation to share the material it 
records with the licence-payers who have funded it in the first place. – 
ID 10881 

There is no logical reason to restrict any programme that has been 
broadcast free-to-air over analogue or digital radio from being made 
available to licence fee payers for listening at their convenience. – ID 
973: Editor, UK Free TV 

The public value of offering classical music downloads, far outweighs 
any negative market impact, in our opinion. – ID 1949: Confidential 

Having studied and consulted to music industry trade bodies on this 
matter for over a decade, I would argue that the BBC’s ability to offer 
this kind of recording would help to cement the BBC’s position as the 
worldwide market leader broadcaster and content creator. Further, I 
would posit that many regular buyers of classical recordings either 
already own or continue to purchase their desired repertoire of 
recordings. Serious classical music buyers tend not to simply buy the 
Classic-FM styled “greatest hits” but will explore key concerts and 
recordings of works. The likely immediate crossover over downloads 
made available by the BBC would presumably be parts of the folio that 
most collectors already own or will be encoded and compressed leading 
to an ultimately inferior sonic reproduction. Lastly, the BBC’s archive of 
live musical recordings (classic and otherwise) is unrivalled. Online 
delivery systems allow the BBC to make this archive available with a 
scope previously unthought-of. – ID 7643: Music Manager, Juicy 
Musical Creations Ltd. 

 

BBC Radio content, especially its classical and folk music broadcasts, are 
unique and can be quite unattainable from any other source. Making 
such recordings available would be providing a great service to the 
public. – ID 10653 

 

 


3.7.3 AGREE, BUT WITH RESERVATIONS TO DOWNLOADING 
BROADCASTS OF CLASSICAL MUSIC 


 

Others agree with the idea in principle, but believe that there could be 
some form of restrictions in terms of quality or tome limitations, or a 
subscription fee in order to protect commercial interests. 

 

Samples sure, but don’t just allow free downloads. It will harm the 
industry in the long run. Maybe give away a free track a week or 
something, iTunes style. – ID 3492: MD, Graphic/Web Design Company 

 

Where the broadcast of a live concert, we do not think this will damage 
the volumes of top quality studio recorded material purchased via DVD. 
With other material, it will be an advantage to the listener if it can be 
arranged. Perhaps the person downloading should pay, as with iTunes. – 
ID 3779: CEO, House Schools Group 

 

Offer it at a lower bit rate, people will be able to sample it and if they 
like it they will purchase music for the better sound quality version. In 
the past short wave radio introduced us to the BBC and we would record 
it to tape but the sound quality was terrible and in the end we would 
purchase the music. – ID 5659: Confidential 

 

I suppose the acid test is whether or not the material to be downloaded 
is available from any other source. If it is, then the BBC is entering a 
commercial marketplace for the material. If not - and what it provides 
at present is unique programming - then that is what we have the BBC 
for (as opposed to BBC4). Maybe, leave aside classical music already 
available from elsewhere, at least until you see how everything else 
works. – ID 9862 

 

The BBC should offer downloads of both classical AND pop music which 
has been recorded on behalf of the BBC. Again you may wish to 
distinguish between licence payers and non-licence payers. – ID 3424: 
Individual 

 

Given that classical music aficionados will sometimes have many 
different versions of a given work, it hardly seems credible that 
permitting the BBC to issue audio downloads will unduly distort the 
market. Even if that were the case, the Trust could impose conditions 
with regards to the level of audio fidelity permitted by simply restricting 
the bandwidth of any such audio downloads to 128Kbits or lower (if 
using AAC HE or other spectral technologies). – ID 6106: General 
Manager, Future Solutions UK Ltd. 

 

The BBC should allow radio broadcasts of classical music as audio 
downloads, but make them free only to those who have paid the licence 


fee. That way money raised from overseas can go to the copyright 
holders. – ID 9873 

 

I agree this is a sensitive area and is significantly different from book 
readings as it is not episodic. I suggest that time-limited free access 
would be appropriate, but that indefinite DRM-free access would not be, 
unless it was clear that there was an explicit release by the rights 
holders (where there is no intention to exploit commercially, probably 
relating to new works only) – ID 9875 

 

3.7.4 DISAGREE WITH DOWNLOADING BROADCASTS OF 
CLASSICAL MUSIC 


 

I feel that the current system of “listening again” to radio shows is more 
than adequate for this. As mentioned, if a classical recording is 
broadcast and downloaded, it could prevent it from being bought 
elsewhere. – ID 1401: Student Group within UCE 

 

N0, listen by all means, but buy the best recording available to keep. 
Live music is different, & I'm sure arrangements between artists, agents 
etc for concerts could be made to everyone’s satisfaction. – ID 9865 

 

Music of any kind should not be allowed as this would be impeding on 
other commercial services by a public body – ID 9877 

3.7.5 CONCLUSION 

The majority of respondents (63%) agree that all or at least some radio 
broadcasts of classical music should be available as audio downloads 
over the internet. It appears to be widely felt that this could encourage 
the wider appreciation of classical music and would not harm sales of 
classical music. Generally those who are interested in classical music will 
want a good quality recording of a classical piece and would not be 
satisfied with an audio download. By increasing potential exposure to 
classical music this in turn may actually increase classical sales. 

However, there are those who feel that there should be some limitations 
in terms of either the quality available, the time the material is available 
to download or the introduction of a fee, in order to protect commercial 
interests. 


3.8 Question 8 



3.8.1 TABULATIONS 

 
Part 1: How important is it to you that the BBC provides some means 
for parents to control which of its programmes are accessible on-
demand to children? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Very important 

2582 

1909 

260 

38 

2237 

Indifferent 

973 

720 

107 

13 

858 

Not very 
important 

2163 

1433 

365 

37 

1880 

Don’t Know 

96 

65 

14 

2 

88 

No answer 

4794 

3020 

628 

75 

3841 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Very important 

24.3 

26.7 

18.9 

23.0 

25.1 

Indifferent 

9.2 

10.1 

7.8 

7.9 

9.6 

Not very 
important 

20.4 

20.1 

26.6 

22.4 

21.1 

Don’t Know 

0.9 

0.9 

1.0 

1.2 

1.0 

No answer 

45.2 

42.3 

45.7 

45.5 

43.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Very important 

24.3 

26.7 

23.8 

29.4 

26.7 

Indifferent 

9.2 

10.1 

9.2 

7.3 

7.8 

Not very 
important 

20.4 

20.1 

21.5 

13.8 

21.2 

Don’t Know 

0.9 

0.9 

0.2 

0.9 

1.8 

No answer 

45.2 

42.3 

45.3 

48.6 

42.4 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

Very important 

24.3 

27.9 

28.6 

27.8 

25.8 

Indifferent 

9.2 

10.5 

9.9 

9.9 

10.5 

Not very 
important 

20.4 

18.3 

17.8 

20.0 

21.5 

Don’t Know 

0.9 

1.3 

1.4 

1.1 

0.6 

No answer 

45.2 

42.0 

42.2 

41.2 

41.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




Part 2: Is such a facility necessary? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Facility necessary 

1508 

1143 

120 

23 

1305 

Facility not 
necessary 

861 

626 

109 

10 

757 

Indifferent 

237 

151 

46 

4 

204 

Don’t Know 

87 

52 

21 

1 

78 

No answer 

7915 

5175 

1078 

127 

6560 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Facility necessary 

14.2 

16.0 

8.7 

13.9 

14.7 

Facility not 
necessary 

8.1 

8.8 

7.9 

6.1 

8.5 

Indifferent 

2.2 

2.1 

3.3 

2.4 

2.3 

Don’t Know 

0.8 

0.7 

1.5 

0.6 

0.9 

No answer 

74.6 

72.4 

78.5 

77.0 

73.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Facility necessary 

14.2 

16.0 

15.8 

21.1 

13.4 

Facility not 
necessary 

8.1 

8.8 

10.8 

6.4 

8.8 

Indifferent 

2.2 

2.1 

1.5 

2.8 

2.8 

Don’t Know 

0.8 

0.7 

0.3 

0.0 

1.4 

No answer 

74.6 

72.4 

71.5 

69.7 

73.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Facility necessary 

14.2 

16.9 

17.0 

15.8 

15.4 

Facility not 
necessary 

8.1 

8.4 

8.3 

9.3 

8.5 

Indifferent 

2.2 

2.4 

1.7 

2.3 

2.1 

Don’t Know 

0.8 

0.7 

1.2 

1.0 

0.5 

No answer 

74.6 

71.6 

71.7 

71.6 

73.5 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 






Part 3: Is it more a matter for parents to exercise controls over how 
children use the internet? 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

A matter for 
parents 

4854 

3434 

655 

74 

4260 

Not a matter for 
parents 

123 

91 

17 

2 

108 

Indifferent 

7 

2 

3 

1 

5 

Don’t Know 

57 

33 

14 

1 

53 

No answer 

5567 

3587 

685 

87 

4478 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

A matter for 
parents 

45.8 

48.0 

47.7 

44.8 

47.8 

Not a matter for 
parents 

1.2 

1.3 

1.2 

1.2 

1.2 

Indifferent 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.6 

0.1 

Don’t Know 

0.5 

0.5 

1.0 

0.6 

0.6 

No answer 

52.5 

50.2 

49.9 

52.7 

50.3 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

A matter for 
parents 

45.8 

48.0 

55.5 

51.4 

45.6 

Not a matter for 
parents 

1.2 

1.3 

0.3 

0.9 

0.5 

Indifferent 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

Don’t Know 

0.5 

0.5 

0.2 

0.0 

0.9 

No answer 

52.5 

50.2 

44.0 

47.7 

53.0 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

A matter for 
parents 

45.8 

47.3 

46.7 

47.2 

47.6 

Not a matter for 
parents 

1.2 

0.8 

1.5 

2.1 

1.4 

Indifferent 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

Don’t Know 

0.5 

0.6 

0.9 

0.5 

0.3 

No answer 

52.5 

51.3 

50.9 

50.2 

50.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




Just over 50% of respondents answered the first part of the question, 
“How important is it to you that the BBC provides some means for 
parents to control which of its programmes are accessible on-demand to 
children?” Of those who did reply, there was a fairly even split between 
those who thought it was very important (24.3%) and those who 
thought it was not very important (20.4%). 

When asked if they thought such a facility is necessary, three quarters 
of the sample did not reply. Only 14.2% of the overall sample felt that 
this facility was necessary. 45.8% of the overall sample felt it was a 
matter for parents to exercise control over how children use the internet 
(52.5% of the sample did not answer this question). 

Respondents in Ireland were more likely to think that the facility was 
necessary than in other parts of the country.

3.8.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Bearing in mind the proportionate low level of response to this question, 
there appears to be a mix of answers as illustrated below. 

Many feel that compared to what else is available on the internet, the 
output provided by the BBC is relatively tame. Also as children are 
increasingly more technically aware than their parents they are likely to 
get round any controls which are put in place. It should be down to 
parents to restrict what their children have access to or not as the case 
may be. Many feel that the BBC should not waste resources in this area. 

Others however feel that the BBC has an obligation to provide some 
kinds of control either in terms of warnings about content or some type 
of access restriction. Some suggest a form of registration using, for 
example, the TV licence fee number. 

BBC should provide parental controls 

As an educationalist, I think parental controls are very important. But 
these should be developed to give parents the flexibility of deciding 
whether they want to use the features or not. There is the need for 
parents to exercise greater control over the use of the internet, but 
giving an additional layer of protection could be seen as they way 
forward to making the management of content more accessible. – ID 
11013: Confidential 

 

The BBC should simply and clearly tag such content – both ‘inband’ (by 
an on-screen visual message and audio message) and ‘outband’ (by 
data tags in the container file), but must leave it to parents to restrict 
access to the content. – ID 973: Editor, UK Free TV 


Not very important yet, but in the future it may be. With the existing 
parental controls in Mac OSX and the upcoming ones in Windows Vista, 
however, this may be a process that is already in place. If there was 
some integration of these 2 OS’s parental controls into the OD service 
from the BBC, then it would be a good system – ID 1401: Student 
Group within UCE 

It is important to use warnings by whatever method in line with current 
regulations and moral codes. Warning systems currently work well on 
current delivery systems e.g. the 9 pm watershed and pre programme 
warnings of strong language etc. Again parental organisation is a factor 
and software is available to be used. Maybe some of it does not get 
used due to lack of knowledge so some form of tutorial could be made 
available by the BBC on common tools that can be used for all platforms 
and content media i.e. web browsers and media players. – ID 1971: 
Engineer, Internet Central Ltd 

 

This is vital and it is surprising that the question is even here. Whilst it 
is an ideal that parents should have oversight over every element of 
their children, the reality is that in (affluent) multi-child households – 
where there may be multiple computers – such oversight may be 
impractical. – ID 6106: General Manager, Future Solutions UK Ltd. 

With existing technology, it is very difficult for a provider to be sure it’s 
content is only accessed by those of appropriate age. However, whilst 
parents do have a responsibility to exercise control over their children’s 
Internet access, many are nowhere near as aware of security in this 
field as their children are So it would be worthwhile the BBC providing 
some form of content control–though it would not be realistic for parents 
to expect that it couldn’t be bypassed by those determined enough to do 
so. – ID 6680: Confidential 

 

Although this is an important issue, such protections should be 
addressed with non-technological methods. Thus, careful organisation 
and tagging can flag content as inappropriate for minors, but ultimately 
the control should be with parent to say “no” rather than trust a 
computer to block something for them. – ID 6850: IT Manager, Wycliffe 
Christian School 

I think there should be a standard way to flag programs, which allows 
web browsers and such to lock inappropriate content from children and 
which the BBC and all ethical users of the Internet should support. – ID 
7574: Confidential 

BBC should not provide parental controls 

In the real world it is unlikely that the BBC would be able to take on this 
responsibility any more than it does so with the watershed on TV, 


although some guidance would be helpful. Parents should be responsible 
and the BBC should not be producing offensive material in the first 
place. No more Jerry Springer - The Opera please. – ID 10881: 
Confidential 

 

It would be handy to have it built in, but ultimately it should be the 
parent’s responsibility. If it shows on TV with no restrictions, then there 
is no reason it should not be the same on the internet. – ID 7391: Youth 
Worker, All Souls Clubhouse 

 

It should not be the responsibility of the BBC to control such issues. 
Parents should already have parental controls installed on their 
machines, and if they don’t, then the children can already access 
content far more risqué than anything that the BBC can offer. – ID 30: 
Confidential 

 

None. Parents should meet their own content scripts. Macintosh allows 
users different accounts. My downloads cannot be viewed by children 
unless they are given access by me. My Mac has 3 accounts. Once 
logged in the computer becomes bespoke to that user, except my 
account! I can see all. – ID 1415: Confidential: 

 

This should be up to the parent to control. Your parental controls aren’t 
going to do anything about the WWW pages the child may be viewing or 
anything else. I really hope you don’t devote many resources to this. – 
ID 2577: Confidential 

 

The parents should be responsible for this. Placing the burden on the 
BBC is not feasible and will result in extra costs and overheads for 
something that determined kids will work around anyway. All restrictions 
get hacked sooner or later. – ID 4433: Confidential 

 

As many children have a better understanding of the Internet than their 
parents parental controls would be of little use. Parents need to trust 
their children. – ID 5317: Website Designer, Global Databases Ltd. 

I have no problem with parental controls in theory. In practice, parental 
control systems are typically defeated by all but the youngest children - 
leaving parents with misplaced confidence in the control systems. I 
think efforts to educate and encourage parents to monitor their 
children’s online habits have better payoff. – ID 8024: Confidential 

 

Not important. The same rules would apply to buying DVDs or 
controlling what their children watch on the TV. It is a parental 
responsibility for them to control what they see on the computer. – ID 
8163: IT Consultant, John Cooper Linux Consultancy Ltd. 

 


3.8.3 INDIVIDUALS 

As with organisations, some individuals who responded appear to be in 
favour of the BBC introducing some form of controls, to help parents 
“police” what their children watch, while other see the controls as 
unnecessary. 

BBC should provide parental controls 

Parents must never delegate their responsibilities. However I think that 
it is important that some kind of parental control is provided. Maybe 
this could be linked to the TV licence – provide a unique identifier to the 
licence holder that they can use to register a PIN number that could 
then be used to access content intended for more mature audiences. – 
ID 6 

 

I believe the BBC should offer some form of control for parents, many 
do not have the time, skills, or inclination to do this themselves. 
Security is simple to set up if you know what you are doing; the very 
vast majority does not. – ID 10 

 

That depends on the content; if post watershed programmes are to be 
offered then yes it should be controlled – ID 18 

 

Very important. Software like iTunes has a parental control facility. 
Something like this would be good. – ID 28 

 

If age sensitive material was to be included then controls should be 
made available and extensive information on how to use them offered to 
parents. Many parents are less technologically able than their children 
and simple (for the user) controls that can’t be over-ridden should be 
made available for parents who wish to take responsibility but don’t 
have the technical knowledge to do so themselves. – ID 41 

 

The API for software developers should include a framework for parental 
control and the new codecs should allow for grading and labeling of 
material to allow for parental control. This is important for parents, 
schools and any organisation legally responsible for minors. – ID 51 

 

Clearly it is up to parents, and children will probably find a way round 
most controls, but it must help parents, particularly of younger children 
to provide a mechanism that will help them to control viewing. So on 
balance yes it should provide a mechanism – perhaps just to post 
watershed programs. – ID 60 

 

Sky+ uses a PIN-based service to control access to adult material before 
the ‘watershed’. It would not seem unreasonable for the BBC to do 
something similar. – ID 61 




Parents must already be exercising control over their children either 
directly or through technological measures so the logical approach is to 
extend this rather than to attempt to define a new mechanism for 
control. There are already rating schemes for web-sites and by working 
with software vendors the BBC could reasonably add information similar 
to the watershed system already used, which could be accessed by 
commercial software as already used on families’ computers. It seems 
likely that any attempt to verify age directly on the BBC sites will fail, 
since there is no way to remotely identify a user’s age. As such a 
technological measure is likely to divert funds that would be better 
spent informing users of the nature of content so that they can make up 
their own minds. – ID 71 

 

Macs have fair parental controls built in. A PSB should not post 
unsuitable material on the internet in any case. – ID 7025 

Of paramount importance. Legislation should be created whereby all 
internet content has to be classified and be more easily identified 
according to genre – that is not to say censure, but some sort of 
certification applied to content that would allow parents to more easily 
filter to protect their children whilst not appearing to overbearing – ID 
1302 

BBC should not provide parental controls 

It is a matter for parents. It is not the BBC’s job to police the activities 
of this nation’s parents – any child with access to a computer can access 
material far more harmful than even the most explicit BBC-produced 
drama series, therefore the BBC should not waste time or resources 
implementing a protection scheme that can probably be easily 
circumvented anyway (lying about one’s age over the internet is not 
very difficult, last time I checked). – ID 8828 

 

With the content available on the internet, parents who have no means 
of control over what their children do on the net are irresponsible – the 
BBC should not concern itself with spending funds on something which is 
not in their power to control. – ID 5922 

 

The BBC should make rating information clearly visible and accessible, 
and then rely on parents to decide what is appropriate for children, as 
they should be monitoring internet use anyway. – ID 5379 

 

Parents should monitor what content kids have access to on the 
Internet. The BBC isn’t going to produce anything that will be as 
shocking as the abundant porn available already, without DRM. BBC 
monitoring provisions won’t protect young viewers from these sites. 


Parents should take responsibility for monitoring what their children see. 
– ID 75 

 

I think the responsibility lies with parents, but it would be useful to have 
some sort of rating system. It might be possible to include some sort of 
tag, which could be read by the client software to provide a filtering 
mechanism. – ID 88 

 

I guess that if the watershed hour is enforced on television and radio 
then the same should be true for the distribution of the same content. I 
understand that there are black and white lists of sites available to 
restrict computer access. I don’t know whether these are site wide or by 
page or sub domain. It may be that to enforce a restriction on a per 
item basis is onerous. Therefore a simple indication of the age group of 
the download would suffice. It would then be for the parents to restrict 
access. – ID 89 

 

I think there should be a warning before restricted age content, but 
more than that is just wasted effort, since kids learn very quickly how to 
circumvent any restriction. – ID 116 

 

Whilst it is important to provide some guidance and review of the 
programming accessible to children, it is exceedingly difficult, if not 
impossible, to effectively manage at the provider. The people best 
positioned to provide this guidance is the parents themselves. – ID 118 

 

I firmly believe that this is something that the parents must do. It’s very 
easy for concerned parents to limit internet access via router settings or 
admin settings on the pc. It’s not up to the BBC to decide what should 
be shown and what not, and a service to control accessibility can be 
easily circumvented anyway – so no added value there. Far more 
valuable is for the BBC to provide information on how to adjust the 
pc/router settings to limit access – many parents just won’t know how. 
– ID 141 

 

The BBC should support open standards such as PICS. That leaves it 
open to equipment manufacturers to offer “family-safe” and 
“unrestricted” equipment, and give consumers a full range of choice. 
The only effort required of the BBC is to determine the ratings of its 
programmes. – ID 157 

3.8.4 CONCLUSION 

While the response level to parts of this question was relatively low at 
around 50%, with the majority of people believing that it is a matter for 
parents to exercise controls over how their children use the internet, 
respondents seem to feel that the BBC should make some effort to help 


make this job easier for parents, without getting too bogged down in 
unnecessary DRM. 

It is felt that the children themselves will have the knowledge to get 
round controls to stop them accessing certain material and this would be 
a waste of the BBC’s resources to attempt to implement this. Also it is 
likely that children are able to access more sensitive materials from 
other sources, compared to that which is available form the BBC 

Some method of tagging programmes or giving parents advice on how 
to set up some controls for younger children would probably be 
advantageous. 

To summarize, as one respondent said: This is a difficult issue and more 
so because most children are more adept at using the internet than their 
parents. This will make it very difficult to come up with a scheme that is 
really workable. I do not have any suggestions on this one, but it is 
definitely an important area for research. – ID 9863: 

 


3.9 Question 9 

 
What are your views on whether the BBC should offer content from 
non-BBC providers on the on-demand service on its website? 

3.9.1 TABULATIONS 


 

 Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Should offer non-BBC 

2617 

1846 

363 

38 

2277 

More content 

323 

200 

70 

4 

280 

Should not offer non-
BBC 

2260 

1658 

238 

30 

1966 

High quality content 

496 

342 

81 

12 

435 

Other 

2738 

1986 

318 

45 

2401 

Don’t Know 

1508 

748 

203 

25 

1021 

No answer 

666 

367 

101 

11 

524 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Should offer non-BBC 

24.7 

25.8 

26.4 

23.0 

25.6 

More content 

3.0 

2.8 

5.1 

2.4 

3.1 

Should not offer non-
BBC 

21.3 

23.2 

17.3 

18.2 

22.1 

High quality content 

4.7 

4.8 

5.9 

7.3 

4.9 

Other 

25.8 

27.8 

23.1 

27.3 

27.0 

Don’t Know 

14.2 

10.5 

14.8 

15.2 

11.5 

No answer 

6.3 

5.1 

7.4 

6.7 

5.9 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Should offer non-
BBC 

24.7 

25.8 

24.2 

32.1 

31.4 

More content 

3.0 

2.8 

3.2 

0.9 

3.7 

Should not offer 
non-BBC 

21.3 

23.2 

20.8 

24.9 

20.3 

High quality content 

4.7 

4.8 

4.3 

5.5 

8.8 

Other 

25.8 

27.8 

31.2 

22.0 

23.0 

Don’t Know 

14.2 

10.5 

10.2 

9.2 

7.8 

No answer 

6.3 

5.1 

6.2 

5.5 

5.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Should offer non-BBC 

24.7 

26.3 

25.3 

23.3 

26.4 

More content 

3.0 

3.0 

2.6 

2.3 

2.9 

Should not offer non-
BBC 

21.3 

23.1 

24.3 

23.7 

23.5 

High quality content 

4.7 

4.1 

6.2 

5.8 

4.1 

Other 

25.8 

28.9 

25.5 

28.8 

27.6 

Don’t Know 

14.2 

10.5 

10.8 

10.5 

10.5 

No answer 

6.3 

4.2 

5.1 

5.6 

5.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



3.9.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Positive Views 

Approximately a quarter of those representing organisations are positive 
with regard to the suggestion that the BBC offer content from non-BBC 
providers on the on-demand service. Perceived benefits include 
simplification of access for the consumer, and provision of an enriched 
BBC offering, which could in turn increase the user base. 

Why not, as we all live in the real world, as the BBC is selling various 
programs to the “free-to-view” people, so why not in reverse? – ID 
3198: Confidential 

 

Assuming the non-BBC provider is happy with this, then there is no 
problem - it would enrich the website. – ID 6759: Network Manager, 

rocentres 

he content is available and of a high enough standard, this would add 
value to the service - ID 6578: Confidential 

 

Consumers are always looking for the simplest means to get what they 
are looking for or to search for material that might be of interest. Having 
a 'one-stop shop' would therefore be worthwhile. However, since the 
BBC has a very high reputation, I believe it should be made very evident 
which programming is from a Third Party source. - ID 6680: Confidential 

 

I would be all for it and I would imagine the content makers would be 
equally happy to be associated with a prestigious organisation – ID 
6365: Director, Asylum Interactive Ltd. 

 

If the licences/contracts can be made to allow this, yes the BBC should. 
All this contractual work desperately needs updating, as soon this will be 
a moot point. We are in the digital age, and content providers have to 
get used to it, contracts have to reflect it and suitable remuneration 


needs to be sorted out and agreed. Like other uses of digital technology 
across the broadcasting/production sector, we will soon look back and 
laugh at how slow we were to embrace the inevitable, and at the 
“luddite” attitudes to old business models that held us back. - ID 6571: 

ilm Producer, Phantom Pictures Entertainment 

'm sure that there are financial implications here. If non-BBC producers 
were prepared to have their material included, could you have a 
subscription service available as the free service? - ID 1043: Graphic 
Designer, PHA Multimedia 

 

If the BBC is broadcasting the material and the rights-holders allow it, 
why not? But it is not likely to happen in the case of US material. For 
example no Hollywood studio is likely to agree to free downloads of its 
product while it has a value in the marketplace. – ID 10881: 
Confidential 

Reservations 

It should be noted that respondents still had reservations, issues or 
conditions which they expressed in conjunction with their positive views. 

Concerns centered on control of content and maintenance of quality. 
The main other issue raised was that of costs and how they might be 
met particularly with regard to any implications on the licence fee. 

If it provides a revenue stream and the content is of an acceptable 
quality, why not? As the audience becomes increasingly atomised and 
diverse, this could help to put the creators of niche content in contact 
with a potential audience. This could work with education and training 
materials as well as with music, sport and light entertainment. – ID 
6181: Consultant, ITEM Associates 

 

As long as this doesn't mean advertisements I see no problem - ID 
8362: Confidential 

 

I won't be offended, unless it's jam packed full of advertising. That 
would kill it. Though I suppose I have no real answer as to how to 

ubsidise all this without it. – ID 7328: Confidential 

This would be moving in on other commercial site's business. I think it 
should be done in a manner to which it is providing a service which not 
everyone can get. If providing 3rd party content by the BBC is the only 
way most will have access then it's perhaps worth offering, especially if 
the BBC can make a profit and keep the licence fee as low as possible. – 
ID 2632: MD, MacAce.net (ISP) 

 


I think provided the quality is commensurate with the BBC’s own 
standards of quality programming, yes. – ID 5700: Confidential 

 

It would be entirely dependent on the quality of the non-BBC content. 
The public in the UK, and to an even larger degree those outside the 
BBC, consider the BBC’s output to be best of breed. Any third-party 
content must match that level of quality. Does the BBC sell third party 
content through its retail shops? – ID 7643: Music Manager, Juicy 
Musical Creations Ltd. 

 

Would you have control over the content? What impact would it have on 
YOU if THEY posted something inappropriate? – ID 5763: Confidential 

 

Yes, but only to the extent that it does not obfuscate the central 
principle of the British public already owning outright all the output of 
the BBC. If the inclusion of non-BBC content means it is more likely to 
introduce onerous DRM, then my answer changes to “no”. – ID 6850: IT 
Manager, Wycliffe Christian School 

Negative Views 

Less than 20% of organisational representatives were negative with 
regards to the suggestion that BBC offer content from non-BBC 
providers on the on-demand web service. 

Some respondent’s views were negative while understanding the 
reasoning for such a move, or hinted that they might not be averse to a 
move in this direction once the ‘BBC only’ offering was firmly 
established. 

I think the BBC shouldn't do this. Leave the non-BBC providers to sort 
it out themselves. – ID 7805: Confidential 

The BBC should only include non-BBC originating material where it is 
relevant to a program the BBC is creating, and not as a stand alone item 
– ID 1227: MD, Absolute Computers Ltd 

 

The service should be confined to the excellent and high quality content 
created by the BBC. – ID 8323: ICT Consultant, CoroNet Information 
systems 

 

Start with BBC only; add others later if it proves a success. It will 
simplify contract negotiations needed to start, and give you better 
leverage in those negotiations when they arrive. - ID 5640: Computer 
Support, Mactroopers LLC 

 

I feel the BBC produced content is a big enough resource to work from 
and manage as it is and taking on other provider's content would open 


up the project to far too much litigation and never-ending contractual 
negotiations which would hold back the project. ID 10653: An 
Claidheamh Soluis/The Celtic Arts Center of Southern California 

3.9.3 INDIVIDUALS 

Positive views 

Approximately a quarter of individuals hold the view that the BBC should 
offer content from non-BBC providers on the on-demand service on its 
website. However these views are strongly held and centre on concerns 
over dilution of the current high quality prestigious BBC offering. 

I think this is an excellent idea; this is a possible platform for emerging 
artists etc to circulate their work! – ID 10 

I think offering non-BBC content would be very useful, both from a 
consumers point and the BBC’s. The BBC could monitor the viewing 
statistics and use them to decide on which content they should seek to 
obtain viewing licences for in the future. – ID 135 

That's really up to the BBC, I don't see any harm in it and it's a nice to 
have. – ID 141 

I feel it would make the experience much richer and help make the 
BBC’s product the main place to go for on-demand content which could 
be important in an early market such as this. – ID 162 

If there is a demand, and no conflict with the charter, go ahead. Any 
costs to the BBC should be passed on to the consumer directly, not as a 
blanket charge in the licence fee. - ID 1069 

Reservations 

As with the organisations, those in favour of this move still have 
reservations or issues in need of clarification. 

Reservations centered mainly on issues of costs, split pretty evenly 
between two camps: - 

Firstly, some respondents feel that such a move would be positive, a 
move which could generate revenue from alternative providers. 

Secondly, some hold the view that this move might incur costs e.g. 
charges, royalties etc. from alternative providers, which in turn might be 
passed on to licence payers / service users. 


As a free service, yes, but not in competition with commercial providers. 
- ID 17 

 

If the BBC doesn't have to pay extra, it should come down to what is the 
highest quality and most popular content. If it costs more, BBC content 
should come first. – ID 48 

 

If they pay you lots of money which reduces the cost to the licence 
payer, then why not? (But please ensure that the programmes from 3rd 
parties comply with the high levels of quality set down by the BBC) – ID 
33 

Other reservations include issues regarding quality, content and 
copyright. 

I like that idea, as long as the content was of a good standard. – ID 38 

 

Whilst I have no strong opinion on this, I think the remit for the BBC is 
only to cover BBC content. My concern is the chance that provision of 
non-BBC content would dilute the range or quality of BBC-only content. 
– ID 107 

 

It would be good if the BBC could offer use of their service to non-BBC 
providers, as long as this does not negatively affect BBC on-demand 
content. Perhaps non-BBC providers would help fund the BBC's on-
demand service? – ID 3 

Negative Views 

Negative views again cover issues of cost and the BBC prioritizing its 
resources on programme making and maintaining quality. 

A service like this should be limited to content produced by, for, or in 
co-operation with, the BBC and content to which the BBC has obtained 
exclusive rights. Other third party content is generally available from 
other sources if viewers require. – ID 41 

Let’s deal with BBC content ONLY (this includes all current broadcast 
content). – ID 145 

No, they shouldn’t - the BBC have always been different and better than 
other channels and doing that would lower them – ID 146 

I think that the BBC should focus on its own content and do it well, 
rather than being 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. – ID 11013 

 

If there are costs involved then no. There may be occasions when it is 
the right thing to do, some major news story or whatever, but generally 


no. Unless they pay you! But be careful of being accused of accepting 
advertising. – ID 9873 

 

No, in fact there would be a significant cost benefit if the BBC simply 
made ALL of its content freely available to other commercial 
organisations. Let them develop and setup and charge for on-demand 
services, then those who wish to pay can by choice. Let market forces 
work, remove the ENTIRE cost of on-demand from the BBC licence fee 
payers, we do not want to pay for a minority service the majority of us 
shall not use. – ID 9876 

 

3.9.4 CONCLUSION 

 

On this question there seems to be a divide between those who have 
not given an opinion, those who think non-BBC content should be 
provided and those who do not. 

 

Where respondents think that non-BBC content should be provided, the 
positives are seen as the additional content and wider choice which 
would be on offer. However there are caveats relating to the quality of 
the offering provided and also the potential costs which could be 
incurred, which could be passed on to the licence fee payer. 

 

Conversely this could also be seen as an opportunity to raise revenue. 

 

Those in opposition to this option, feel very strongly that the BBC should 
restrict its offering to BBC content only, as non-BBC content can be 
obtained elsewhere and may not meet the high quality standard of the 
BBC. 


3.10 Question 10 

What are your views on how the BBC should make available on-
demand content on services run by other providers – such as multi-
channel services or internet-based audio and video downloading 
services? 

3.10.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Good idea/should 
offer 

1088 

714 

193 

22 

938 

Offer only BBC 
material 

1466 

1095 

134 

24 

1250 

Expand offerings 
in iTunes 

312 

215 

57 

7 

272 

Other 

4839 

3489 

620 

68 

4282 

Don’t Know 

530 

353 

78 

8 

443 

No answer 

2373 

1281 

292 

36 

1719 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Good idea/should 
offer 

10.3 

10.0 

14.0 

13.3 

10.5 

Offer only BBC 
material 

13.8 

15.3 

9.7 

14.6 

14.0 

Expand offerings 
in iTunes 

2.9 

3.0 

4.1 

4.2 

3.1 

Other 

45.6 

48.8 

45.1 

41.2 

48.1 

Don’t Know 

5.0 

4.9 

5.7 

4.8 

5.0 

No answer 

22.4 

17.9 

21.3 

21.8 

19.3 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Good idea/should 
offer 

10.3 

10.0 

8.5 

13.8 

13.4 

Offer only BBC 
material 

13.8 

15.3 

14.0 

12.8 

13.8 

Expand offerings 
in iTunes 

2.9 

3.0 

2.5 

4.6 

3.2 

Other 

45.6 

48.8 

52.4 

47.7 

48.4 

Don’t Know 

5.0 

4.9 

6.8 

6.4 

3.7 

No answer 

22.4 

17.9 

15.8 

14.7 

17.5 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 




% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Good idea/should 
offer 

10.3 

10.2 

8.7 

9.8 

10.3 

Offer only BBC 
material 

13.8 

15.6 

14.0 

16.9 

15.6 

Expand offerings 
in iTunes 

2.9 

2.9 

3.3 

2.7 

3.0 

Other 

45.6 

48.5 

50.1 

47.2 

48.7 

Don’t Know 

5.0 

4.3 

4.8 

4.6 

5.1 

No answer 

22.4 

18.5 

19.1 

18.8 

17.3 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



The general wording of this question appears to have caused some 
confusion, resulting in a lack of focus in the range of responses. Nearly a 
third of respondents either didn’t answer this question or replied “don’t 
know”. Nearly half the respondents gave a wide variety of answers, too 
numerous to be analysed because of this lack of focus. 

3.10.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Operating System / Platform Neutrality 

Views on iPods / iTunes 

A significant proportion of organisational respondents hold the view that 
iTunes would provide a broader platform for distribution of the BBC 
services. Others mentioned using iTunes as one of a range of services 
using open source formats such as MP3 or MP4. 

Don't be foolish: iTunes and iPods are the format - by choice - not by 
monopolistist control. Microsoft will use the BBC to force their non-
compliant-with-Macintosh Zune Media Player to be the sole player for 
their content. Shame on you for only supporting one operating system: 
the dirty one! NDAs tell no stories of money and influence deciding to 
herd the masses into using just one operating system. The Microsoft 
NDA is truly a contract with the Devil. – ID 1529: Confidential 

I think iTunes is a great way to offer BBC programming to many people. 
But there should also be a way for non-iTunes users, like Linux users – 
ID 7930: Deacon, Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church 

Personally, I am opposed to monopoly of distribution and feel that the 
BBC should take advantage of such services as iTunes to promote its 
offerings. I see no harm at all in a broader distribution through other 


services or providers. It's all a matter of consumer choice. – ID 6680: 
Confidential 

The BBC should make all its programmes, video and audio available as 
podcast on iTunes, so it works on Mac OS X and iPods. – ID 5210: R and 
D, University of Cambridge 

To be honest this is already solved, you can’t compete with iTunes or 
even YouTube – ID 3914: IT, IntenCity XGN 

Yes, iTunes. Be a pioneer. – ID 9052: IT Teacher, The Bolitho School 

You should have a presence on the iTunes store – ID 7517: Confidential 

Multiple Platforms 

A significant proportion of organisational respondents strongly hold the 
view that distribution should not be restricted to a single platform / 
service provider. A small proportion also mentions the problems 
associated with differing technical requirements of multiple platforms. 

If it allows the BBC to provide its content to users in a platform-agnostic 
way --- DO IT. Put it up on Apple's iTunes Store, Microsoft's Zune.net, 
Real.com, etc. It might allow the BBC to avoid the overhead costs of 
online distribution by letting them provide the server hosting and 
system management. And it would solve the DRM problem too. The 
only hang up could be the lack of quality control. ID 10653: An 
Claidheamh Soluis/The Celtic Arts Center of Southern California 

All BBC content should be in an open format, viewers should be free to 
use the software of their choice – ID 7759: Confidential 

Via any number of routes, direct streaming links, downloads, podcasts, 
iTunes-like placings, just don't use WMP or RealPlayer use open 
standards such as MP3 or MP4 - ID 6880: Systems Admin, Leeds 
Institute of Molecular Medicine 

Yes, it should. Certainly on the Mac-compatibility front, if the BBC can't 
or won't immediately run a cross-platform service, then all the content 
should be available via iTunes. Of course, then the BBC will have to 
quickly realise that customers of iTunes are not time restricted in their 
downloads, and get over the ludicrously outdated contractual models (as 
SAG has had to in the States) that seem to require limited viewing time. 
– ID 6571: Film Producer, Phantom Pictures Entertainment 

Having had the experience of developing systems to deliver media to 
multiple digital service providers for large record labels first hand, it is 


certainly something feasible to do. The problem largely lies in the fact 
that most of these services have different technical requirements in 
terms of the encoding, metatagging and delivery. Should the BBC be 
allocating its resources in this way? Additionally, the number of market 
competitors is continually increasing leading to further resource drain. – 
ID 7643: Music Manager, Juicy Musical Creations Ltd. 

I would hope that the BBC will exploit both relationships and technology 
to achieve widespread dissemination of their content. Technology such 
as BitTorrent/Multicast, etc and other download mechanisms are 
critically important from a consumer point-of-view. – ID 8960 
Confidential 

You should not tie yourselves to a single provider. Make agreements 
with as many other services as possible. - ID 7805: Confidential 

General Concerns / Advice 

Again, if the opportunity to engage such content from a commercial 
competitor is available, the BBC should refrain from undermining such 
providers. The BBC's on demand proposal isn't simply a transition for 
the corporation itself, but will influence the way in which its commercial 
competitors move into on-demand. To step on their toes so early could 
undermine the UK's transition as a whole. Do it right and it'll help shift 
the consumption and quality of UK broadcasting in all of its forms. – ID 
6102: Journalist, Future Publishing Ltd. 

 

Yes is the short answer. The proviso has to be that you have competent 
lawyers to make sure that you have the right to withdraw from the 
agreement at short notice should you consider the total package an 
inappropriate context for your programme.- ID 6181: Consultant, ITEM 
Associates 

Concerns regarding commercial issues / ethics 

Some respondents feel that the platform should be specific to the BBC 
so as not to break ethical codes and breach issues surrounding 
commercial operations. 

This should be left to other content providers, unless it has a social 
benefit to help get material published that would not otherwise get an 
audience – ID 1227: MD, Absolute Computers Ltd 

The service should be confined to BBC content, and not attempt to 
compete with other multi-channel and downloading services. – ID 8323 
ICT Consultant, CoroNet Information systems 

 


Indexing such services is fine, but promotion - even of BBC Worldwide 
services - would be commercial and unethical. – ID 973: Editor, UK 
Free TV 

Again, this would be moving in on other companies business and the 
BBC may hold an unfair advantage here. As an ISP, if the BBC were to 
offer "free-internet with your TV" many businesses would face problems. 
– ID 2632: MD, MacAce.net (ISP) 

Bringing in media delivery services run by other providers runs the risk 
of tempting this initiative to have a commercial aspect. Also such 
streaming audio and video sites are low quality and do not readily 
permit full downloads for permanent off-line storage.- ID 6850: IT 
Manager, Wycliffe Christian School 

Fine, although the licence payer funds the BBC and content should not 
be used to provide a profit for others. – ID 8362: Confidential 

The BBC should not make on-demand content available by other 
providers, as this would spread user interest in the BBC's offerings. – ID 
3101: Confidential 

Again, it would be great - but there's a wealth of good BBC content to 
get up there first. – ID 366: Cold as Fire Designs 

 

Again, the more the merrier. Initially though I think the focus should be 
on its own (BBC) content. – ID 7547: Confidential 

3.10.3 INDIVIDUALS 

As mentioned earlier, the general wording of this question appears to 
have caused some confusion, resulting in a lack of focus in the range of 
responses. 

Positive comments 

Views of individuals seem to largely reflect those of the organisational 
representatives. 

Using YouTube, Joost (when it's ready), and Torrent sites are fine as 
long as it doesn't infringe copyright. – ID 9869 

I think the BBC should allow content run by other providers, but, this 
question is not well written, there is nothing to suggest what you may 
be considering. - ID 10 


The BBC could become a major player in this entire industry. They 
should embrace whatever they can at a pace they can manage. All of 
these ideas sound great. – ID 160 

This could help drive people to the service, and help provide revenue for 
the BBC – ID 38 

The BBC should aim to be a market leader in all new, reasonably 
popular broadcast/publishing technologies. - ID 214 

The more of a one-stop shop the BBC can become the better its success 
will be .Provided that bandwidth is not lost to BBC services. – ID 233 

More options are better. It certainly won't hurt the BBC for its 
programming to be available from multiple venues – ID 239. 

I just want to be able to download the content from the BBC site on 
Mac, Windows, Linux, etc and played on standard media players. - ID 48 

The more the better but not at the detriment of offering BBC 
programmes and services. – ID 165 

BBC radio is already available over the internet. I listen to many shows 
on Radio 1. However, you should change from using real player to 
something more modern like flash. - ID 285 

In doing this [ making available …..], you will be increasing the mind 
share of the BBC. This can lead to increased revenue and interest in 
areas of production that may not be realised if the content is restricted 
to this section of the globe. Also, this opens another pathway for 
content to be viewed on more equipment. Not everyone likes to actually 
watch their programs on their computer, if they have an investment of a 
32"+ TV screen – ID 224 

The bittorrent protocol would be ideal for handling large amounts of 
data transfer – ID 49. 

I believe that the BBC already does, and yes, absolutely, the BBC, as a 
content producer, should make full use of whatever channels are 
available to it (for example, by making content available through 
Telewest's on demand service, as it already does) – ID 1267 

Concerns 

I'm not sure how this would be done and if the cost would outweigh the 
benefits. Perhaps the BBC should monitor these other services and buy 


rights to broadcast those shows that are in demand or that BBC viewers 
show interest in watching via the BBC services. – ID 135 

Lower quality video and audio streams is a must. Also DRM should be 
VERY strict with other services. Offer BBC property on other services 
should be a means of enticing viewers to your service. – ID 269 

Such content should only be available where it's possible to do so under 
similar conditions of use (time limits etc) and without extra payment to 
the provider. It should also be made available through all and any 
providers who are prepared to supply it under these conditions. 
Anything else is liable to offer indirect commercial advantages to 
particular service providers. – ID 41 

If you mean Google or YouTube, then no. By visiting the BBC website I 
know that what I see and hear is to a standard; when visiting other sites 
this is never guaranteed. However, Apples ITunes would provide a great 
way of sharing content. – ID 6239 

BBC Only 

Negative responses are focused mainly on the view that this should be a 
BBC only service, perhaps hosted by a customized / BBC specific 
provider. Other negative comments focused mainly on costs and 
commercialism. 

The content and the medium should be independent. If other 
companies can provide a better medium through which to deliver the 
content then that should be embraced, with the caveat that the end 
user cost of such features is reasonable. - ID 194 

The BBC should try to ensure a top quality delivery system of its own. 
If it chooses to allow secondary distribution on other systems that would 
be fine. But it should not "outsource" distribution. – ID 328 

I would prefer the BBC to concentrate on providing a well thought out 
and usable system to access their own content rather than trying to 
provide too much and not as well. – ID 297 

Similarly, I do think that the BBC should manage their own distribution 
but that if other venders wanted to carry BBC material then, given that 
they would honor the BBC licences and revenue models, it would be 
good that the BBC could allow them to re-distribute the material. So I 
do think that BBC should allow other providers to carry BBC material. – 
ID 231 


Again, content from other providers has nothing to do with the BBC. 
Notes telling the BBC's audience of these services, perhaps including 
links, are fine, but all other content should be limited to the BBC itself. – 
ID 5922 

3.10.4 CONCLUSION 

It should be noted that the phrasing of this question caused some 
confusion amongst respondents, making it difficult to analyse the 
responses. 

The majority reflect the views expressed earlier towards the suggestion 
that the BBC make available on-demand content from other providers. 

With regard to how the BBC should make available on-demand content 
from other providers, the majority of responses tend to echo earlier 
discussion of the pros and cons of the different platform options 
available. 

Across both groups there is significant support/demand for platform 
neutrality/multiple platforms, along with positive feedback towards the 
use of iTunes as a channel of distribution. 

Those respondents against on-demand content from other providers 
again repeated their view that the service should be restricted to BBC 
only due to issues of ethics and commercial operations. Indexing or 
providing links to other services would be acceptable to a small 
proportion of this group. 

Other concerns include issues quality of audio and video streams and 
issues of costs to both the BBC and to the service users. 


Other 

0.2 

0.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

Don’t Know 

5.4 

4.3 

8.5 

5.4 

5.6 

No answer 

28.7 

28.3 

25.5 

26.0 

24.3 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

4459 

3214 

559 

58 

3887 

No 

498 

348 

70 

17 

427 

Not sure 

2014 

1436 

295 

34 

1766 

Other 

25 

17 

2 

0 

22 

Don’t Know 

569 

397 

59 

14 

485 

No answer 

3043 

1735 

389 

42 

2317 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non – UK 

Org 

Individual 

Yes 

42.0 

45.0 

40.7 

35.2 

43.7 

No 

4.7 

4.9 

5.1 

10.3 

4.8 

Not sure 

19.0 

20.1 

21.5 

20.6 

19.8 

Yes 

42.0 

45.0 

46.0 

52.3 

44.2 

No 

4.7 

4.9 

3.7 

4.6 

6.5 

Not sure 

19.0 

20.1 

20.8 

17.4 

18.9 

Other 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

Don’t Know 

5.4 

5.6 

6.2 

5.5 

8.8 

No answer 

28.7 

24.3 

23.2 

20.2 

21.7 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

South 
West 

South 
East 

Yes 

42.0 

45.8 

46.5 

44.5 

44.0 

No 

4.7 

4.7 

4.8 

5.9 

4.7 

Not sure 

19.0 

19.7 

19.9 

20.2 

20.5 

Other 

0.2 

0.2 

0.1 

0.5 

0.2 

Don’t Know 

5.4 

5.1 

5.7 

5.1 

5.5 

No answer 

28.7 

24.5 

23.0 

23.8 

25.1 

Total 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 



Question 11 




Do the revisions proposed to BBC Service Licences to allow the new 
services to go ahead seem appropriate? 

3.11.1 TABULATIONS 


 


Just over 40% of respondents said that the revisions proposed to BBC 
Service Licences, to allow the new services to go ahead, seem 
appropriate. It should be noted however that many respondents applied 
codicils to their support. 

Nearly a third of respondents felt unable or unwilling to provide an 
answer at this section and a further fifth were “Not sure”, mainly due to 
a lack of information or knowledge on which to base their opinion. 

A selection of phrases is provided below to highlight the range of 
opinion. 

3.11.2 POSITIVE COMMENTS 

Organisations 

Only if the content is platform agnostic: by making it exclusively 
available to just Microsoft OS users through just their Media Player 10 
technology, you are running counter to the BBC's stated purpose "...to 
enrich peoples lives with great programmes and services that inform, 
educate and entertain". Going ahead with the current DRM plan could be 
interpreted as a commercial endorsement of Microsoft's products which 
would run you afoul with your statement that the BBC "...does not have 
to serve the interests of advertisers, or produce a return for 
shareholders. This means it can concentrate on providing high quality 
programmes and services for everyone". Opening up your current 
programming, archive recordings, and other unique content to 
EVERYONE via an online on-demand service will be wonderful. – ID 
10653: An Claidheamh Soluis/The Celtic Arts Center of Southern 
California 

 

Without the 30-day restrictions, and the opening of the BBC archive, 
yes. However, if it’s restricted to mainstream, populist content only, the 
BBC will neglect those early adopters who drive mainstream acceptance 
of changing media consumption. Remember that MP3 has been around 
for almost a decade, yet it took the iPod to draw it from geek-dom to 
the mainstream. – ID 6102: Journalist, Future Publishing Ltd. 

Individuals 

They seem innovative and groundbreaking. I would love to see it 
become a reality. – ID 5775 

 

They seem somewhat cautious, but appropriate. – ID 5379 

 


Yes, the key focus remains to provide users with a means of watching 
recent programs and live programs. – ID 161 

 

They do, however I would like to see a more definite time on when the 
content provided must be viewable by all software vendor’s products. - 
ID 205 

The world of content delivering, recording and storage is changing and I 
don't agree with all the conclusions. Yes it will provide significant 
benefits to consumers - pretty much what the BBC should be doing in 
my mind. 13 weeks is not too long in my opinion, the advent of digital 
video recorders, YouTube etc. is already having an affect on the 
secondary market and how people view record and store files. As the 
secondary market is already being affected by some technologies I think 
the 13 weeks should stand. Yes things should be platform agnostic, 24 
months is too long a period in this rapidly changing technology area to 
rectify for other platforms. Additional broadband costs to the consumer 
should not be worried about (as long as the site notifies users that 
increase bandwidth may be required). It’s the customer’s choice 
whether they use it. – ID 165 

The revisions appear appropriate on the whole, but a solution to the 
matter of proprietary DRM requirements has to be found as a pre-
requisite of any such service starting. – ID 41 

So long as the BBC will be governed by the Trust's recommendations 
and any consumer’s concerns, such as my own, as voiced in this 
questionnaire, are considered and taken on board. Especially the 
operating system/platform concerns as voiced in question number 5. – 
ID 9892 

3.11.3 REASONS FOR ‘NO COMMENT’ 

A high proportion of respondents were unable or unwilling to give their 
views at this stage. The main reason for holding this view seems to be 
that they do not feel adequately informed to make a judgment. 

Organisations 

Haven't looked at this in enough detail to answer. – ID 6181: 
Consultant, ITEM Associates 

 

Haven't seen the revisions to this section, so can't comment – ID 8205: 
IT Director, Hospitality Tills Ltd. 

 

I could not comment on this without more understanding of the changes 
- ID 6578: Confidential 


Individuals 

The current proposal seems to be an unhappy compromise. - ID 328 

 

Can't comment as I have not read the changes referred to -. ID 91 

3.11.4 NEGATIVE COMMENTS 

Organisations 

It appears that the licence change would require strict DRM to be 
properly enforced, and this is clearly not something that the customers 
want, at least in the long run. Note that recently, many famous figures 
in the industry have spoken out against DRM, including Apple's Steve 
Jobs, music executives 
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6362069.stm) and even 
Microsoft's Bill Gates! Clearly, these technologies are not favoured by 
the customers or the leaders, and should be avoided at all costs. ID – 
30: Confidential 

No, they seem to lock Free Software users completely out. – ID 8595: 
Confidential 

No. They fail to understand the nature of the internet and are not in the 
interests of licence fee payers. – ID 973: Editor, UK Free TV 

The revisions seem sensible and I understand the reasoning to 
recommend a Microsoft DRM-based approach. However, this would 
ignore a growing market of users who simply won’t be able to use it. I 
appreciate that it would take more time and money to find a suitable 
Mac approach but would urge that segregating 5 or 10% of your 
customers is platformist – ID 2632: MD, MacAce.net (ISP) 

No, because they curtail traditional fair use rights. – ID 10615: 
Confidential 

Individuals 

No. "The Microsoft-based DRM strategy for seven-day TV catch-up over 
the internet”. Locking the content to Microsoft's DRM excludes licence 
payers from benefiting from this service. In addition, this technology is 
trivial to circumvent and subsequently adds unnecessary cost and 
complexity to the service. As a technology professional, this appears to 
be a very naive decision and a bad precedent to set. "The protection of 
children from unsuitable content." This is technically impossible to 
implement and police, any attempt to do this will again add unnecessary 
cost and complexity. The BBC should instead encourage parents to be 


responsible for their children’s use of computers and the Internet. - ID 
172 

 

No. Why should the BBC pay for a MS only implementation and THEN 
pay for a non-MS implementation. I think the BBC would be better off 
implementing this correctly the first time. Correctly is defined as 
platform agnostic. – ID 75 

 

No. I must disagree with some of the proposed revisions, particularly on 
the fee. - ID 331 

 

No, they appear to put too much emphasis on requiring DRM and 
arbitrary unproven restrictions. – ID 9863 

 

No, keep it simple, keep the BBC a program creator and broadcaster at 
a basic level and let external commercial organisations develop other 
spin-off support products – ID 9876 

 

The core purpose of the licence fee paid by customers should be for the 
BBC to continue to provide quality programming across a broad 
spectrum of interests. The online services should be seen as an 
important peripheral service and, as suggested in some of the other 
answers in this survey, be looked at as commercial undertakings. – ID 
9878 

 

I think they are too restrictive. Make content available long term and 
that can be watched again and again. – ID 9901 

3.11.5 CONCLUSION 

In principle, two fifths of the respondents view the revisions proposed to 
BBC Service Licences to be appropriate to allow the new services to go 
ahead. 

It should also be noted, once more, that the move is viewed by the 
majority to be a positive step for the BBC. Concerns and objections 
raised at this section reflect those raised earlier in this study and centre 
on issues relating to platform, access and costs, with the addition of 
several references to concerns over proposed timing / time restrictions. 

 


3.12 Question 12 

 
Are there any other issues you would like the BBC Trust to consider 
in relation to the proposed services? 

 

3.12.1 TABULATIONS 


 

Absolutes 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Open source 
service 

1377 

889 

222 

26 

1154 

Limit use of DRM 

417 

304 

48 

9 

362 

No 

1597 

1204 

184 

20 

1410 

Other 

3774 

2580 

581 

75 

3275 

No answer 

4109 

2590 

455 

47 

2714 

Total 

10608 

7147 

1374 

165 

8904 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

UK 

Non - UK 

Org 

Individual 

Open source 
service 

13.0 

12.4 

16.2 

15.8 

13.0 

Limit use of DRM 

3.9 

4.3 

3.5 

5.5 

4.1 

No 

15.1 

16.8 

13.4 

12.1 

15.8 

Other 

35.6 

36.1 

42.3 

45.5 

36.8 

No answer 

38.7 

36.2 

33.1 

28.5 

36.6 

Total 

106.3 

105.8 

108.5 

107.4 

106.3 



% 

Total 

UK 

Scotland 

Ireland 

Wales 

Open source 
service 

13.0 

12.4 

13.8 

15.6 

11.5 

Limit use of DRM 

3.9 

4.3 

5.0 

6.4 

2.8 

No 

15.1 

16.8 

14.5 

20.2 

17.1 

Other 

35.6 

36.1 

37.3 

35.8 

40.1 

No answer 

38.7 

36.2 

35.7 

29.4 

34.1 

Total 

106.3 

105.8 

106.3 

107.4 

105.6 

 

 

 

 

 

 

% 

Total 

North 

Midlands 

Sth West 

Sth East 

Open source 
service 

13.0 

12.2 

12.3 

10.4 

13.2 

Limit use of DRM 

3.9 

3.9 

4.3 

4.3 

4.3 

No 

15.1 

17.1 

17.9 

17.6 

16.5 

Other 

35.6 

37.1 

37.2 

34.9 

35.2 

No answer 

38.7 

35.8 

34.0 

37.8 

36.9 

Total 

106.3 

106.1 

105.7 

105 

106.1 






At this final opportunity for respondents to address any further issues, 
the main specific issues raised centered on a repetition of concerns 
expressed earlier, regarding choice of distribution platform/operating 
systems and the resulting restrictions to access. 

3.12.2 ORGANISATIONS 

Operating System / Platform Neutrality 

Access Issues / Platform 

The majority of respondents to this question suggest that multiple-
platforms are employed. Many insist that Mac and Linux users must not 
be excluded. Several of these representatives of organisations 
suggested usage or consideration of either a range of platforms or 
‘open-source’ software. 

Several of these requests appear to be driven by overseas user’s need 
to maintain access. 

You are a public broadcasting company in a united Europe, starting to 
develop itself on the Internet. You should not limit yourself to the 
geographical boundaries of the UK in your thinking, which is old 
thinking. – ID 9065: Confidential 

 

The BBC has produced, over the times, delicious content to the world. 
Many countries only have the opportunity to appreciate very rare 
samples. By making it widely available, in a non-DRM format, the BBC 
would be fulfilling a priceless social value. The karma points should be 
enough to make sure the decision makers may re-incarnate as a godly 
entity :) – ID 8595: Confidential 

 

A small charge will be paid (£1.50 sounds fair enough), which then 
allows the end user to keep the show, with all profits going direct to the 
BBC. This could not only help the general public with TVOD services, it 
may also help drive the cost of the TV licence down, which in turn would 
please people who wouldn't use the TVOD service. – ID 1401: Student 
Group within UCE 

Let the BBC be a long-time archive open for everybody from all over the 
world. Make sure that it is platform independent, compatible with at 
least Windows Media Player (Windows) and QuickTime (Mac and Linux). 
Find methods for internal storage and logistics that are ready for quick 
implementations of new formats. – ID 1969: CEO, FileMaker Center, AS 


For total control and reliable cross platform support it may be wise to 
consider creating your own standalone applications for the 3 main 
operating systems. That way you control the user experience and 
control the content and can provide a consistent experience across all 
platforms and everyone on the 3 most important platforms can access 
the content. Take a look at steam and the open-sourcing of the second 
life MMO and winamp radio and VLC. - ID 213: Confidential 

As mentioned, one idea suggested from the group that could be an 
option, is to enter in an agreement with Apple to sell shows via iTunes. 
This has worked very well in the States, is open to OSX, Windows and 
Linux customers, and will, in short, be a lot fairer. – ID 1401: Student 
Group within UCE 

As a specialist in the field of media distribution across the Internet and 
the piracy thereof, I believe the most important consideration needs to 
be the long term scalability of the proposed services. The biggest and 
most exciting element of this delivery mechanism is how it is evolving in 
terms of speed, efficiency and quality. As a public service, I believe it is 
of the utmost importance that the BBC's services should be built on an 
open platform to allow for future scalability and as wide access as 
possible. Tying the service to a closed proprietary system has a number 
of technological, ethical and moral hurdles that need to be considered 
extremely carefully. – ID 7643: Music Manager, Juicy Musical Creations 
Ltd. 

It is extremely unfitting and appalling that you support private 
monopolies with taxpayer’s money (cable in NL, Microsoft) – ID 9065: 
Confidential 

Concerns regarding DRM 

Questions relating to Microsoft software, time limits and 
“downloadability” all lead to DRM, digital rights management. I strongly 
advise against any moves towards DRM, as it is not safe as has been 
shown by recent events at Sony, it is not workable, as is the case with 
the new Microsoft Vista operating system and it is not sustainable, as 
every new encryption will be cracked in a matter of days - as the past 
has proven. Content should be free - not as in free for no money, but 
free as in how the customer chooses to consume. – ID 5922 

There should be no use of DRM. Free formats should be used and the 
emphasis is on equal access to everyone regardless of whatever system 
they use and not an exclusive Microsoft service. - ID 4634: IT System 
Manager, BDA 

 

 

 


Other comments 

 

Several respondents again took the opportunity to express concerns 
raised earlier in the study regarding quality, content and control. Other 
comments included suggestions more specifically related to their 
organisation’s or representative group needs. 

 

The content must be good quality as there is a huge amount of bad 
content and porn out there. The BBC must show that the Internet and 
data networks in general should be used for good things not bad and 
take the net back from the porn and tat merchants. – ID 1971: 
Engineer, Internet Central Ltd 

 

Multiple devices. High quality (bit rates) unlike the current live and 
highlights for sports events which is rubbish quality. – ID 847: Manager 

 

We believe that such services effectively create a narrowcasting 
infrastructure between the Corporation and its audience, especially 
those in the 16-35 age groups. We believe that the creation of such an 
infrastructure affords the Corporation an opportunity to deliver 
programming that educates and informs as well as entertains and we 
strongly urge the Trust to encourage the Corporation to seize the 
opportunity presented by these proposals to deliver what could be 
termed Reithian public broadcasting to as wide an audience as possible.- 
ID 6106: General Manager, Future Solutions UK Ltd. 

 

All videos MUST have subtitles – ID 4634: IT System Manager, BDA 

 

3.12.3 INDIVIDUALS 

Operating System / Platform Neutrality 

Access Issues / Platform 

 

In a similar manner to the organisations represented, individuals took 
the opportunity to reiterate points and issues raised earlier in the 
questionnaire. Again the subject of operating system and platforms was 
dominant, with the majority of this concerned group suggesting that the 
service should be available across multiple platforms or in slightly less 
instances via open source platforms or as a platform independent 
service. 

 

The BBC should not be developing new technology beyond your 
distribution system. Instead, you should provide contents conforming to 
open and documented media formats, and ensuring they are properly 
documented for the benefit of technology developers and ultimately 
consumers. I speak in a professional capacity as (1) a technology 
developer (including not least your own web server software). (2) A 


standards developer and Invited Expert with the Worldwide Web 
Consortium. (3) A published author in receipt of royalties for original 
contents. My knowledge of other relevant matters such as media 
production and impact on other media providers is negligible. – ID 157 

 

Yes, support Linux as well; you can do this by using formats that are not 
encumbered by patents. The ogg formats are a good example. - ID 106 

Making sure the service is available for MacOS, AmigaOS and Linux. – 
ID 65 

Open source software is what is changing the world. It is growing and 
will continue to grow. Please keep Linux users in mind as this is 
implemented. – ID 154 

 

I would just like to make the point again how important it is for you to 
allow Linux and Mac users to be able to use this service. – ID 13 

Make them open and transparent. If YouTube can provide a platform 
independent service, then I am sure that the BBC can also manage to 
do so - ID 6 

Offer programmes in a wide range of formats: pod cast as much as 
possible. Consider using open-source software at the BBC, and keep in 
mind the end users who may have Linux, Mac or older operating 
systems. Don't assume that Microsoft will be the standard forever. - ID 
9074 

Concerns regarding DRM 

Again DRM was a major focus for discussion, viewed to be a poor choice 
by a significant proportion of respondents. It should perhaps be noted 
that several of these respondents appear to hold the perception that 
DRM equals a choice of a Microsoft only DRM solution. There are, albeit 
isolated, some instances of support for DRM. 

Please forget about DRM. It does not work and only causes problems 
for consumers. I cannot see any benefit in the BBC spending licence 
payers money on DRM technology. The industry is slowly moving away 
from DRM anyway. It does not stop pirates from obtaining, copying and 
illegally distributing copyrighted material. It does get in the way and 
cause problems for genuine consumers. Nobody wins. - ID 179 

Don’t waste time with DRM or proprietary formats. Use open formats so 
that any modern browser user has access. Only use watermarking for 
the media. – ID 274 


Moving to a different DRM platform, or to DRM-free, in the light of 
recent remarks and surveys in relation to this matter. - ID 46 

I would again propose doing away with DRM constraints as they only 
punish legitimate users and do next to nothing to stop determined 
persons from obtaining the protected content. By opening up the 
framework, the incentive to make these works available illegally 
elsewhere will be greatly diminished, so BBC would in fact gain back 
control of their properties. – ID 246 

Internet related: No DRM - it will be hacked anyway, why waste money 
and irritate people with it? Good quality please, no 64kbps real media 
files. A download service based on the bittorrent protocol should be 
investigated. Let us use standalone players. – ID 327 

Just keep in mind that relying on DRM and expecting any chosen 
implementation to continue functioning without being circumvented is 
short sighted in the extreme. Please use an open format that non-
Microsoft fans can make use of - after all we pay the licence fee too. It 
seems utterly unreasonable that the BBC should be blocked from doing 
things just because other organisations wish to do the same or similar 
as a commercial activity. - ID 194 

If a proprietary DRM system does end up becoming used there must be 
a fixed timeline for enabling users of all computing platforms to access 
the content, rather than an "as soon as it is convenient" style 
statement. It would not have been reasonable to implement digital TV in 
say the London area without having a timeline for rollout to the rest of 
the country. Again, hopefully the use of DRM and restrictive 
technologies can be reconsidered and a different approach arrived at. – 
ID 9863 

Quality/Content Issues 

Several respondents took the opportunity to reiterate issues raised 
earlier in the study, most commonly their concerns centre on issues of 
quality, content and control 

 

Make sure that the content is only provided to those with a valid TV 
licence. – ID 222 

 

Yes. Please consider the down-the-line consequences of getting people 
accustomed to restricted content will cause. The BBC Trust should trust 
the people it's serving. - ID 224 

 

Personally, I would also like to see content from people currently outside 
the industry altogether - maybe some kind of open access 
programming, or showcasing of new talent. – ID 264 




Perhaps no downloads would be a better route (than DRM locally) and 
just allow reasonable quality streaming direct from source (which can be 
centrally controlled). Like a You Tube service for programmed content. – 
ID 165 

 

Ensure that the quality of the content available can be made as high as 
possible - even HDTV if the users broadband connection is suitable. With 
the availability of 8mb ADSL connections this should be possible. – ID 
297 

 

Intrinsically, the BBC is a broadcasting service representing this nation 
and providing its people with a high quality product/ set of products. If 
what the BBC does in fact accords with this basic principle, I have no 
objections. I would not wish the BBC to kowtow to pressures to reduce 
standards or to represent this nation’s culture less well to its people or 
those abroad. The quality of the BBC website is an exemplar of what the 
Corporation can achieve at its best. – ID 350 

 

Content should be streamed not downloaded. That way you have more 
control over the content and require people to come back to the 
website. - ID 290 

 

Why not join forces with Xbox live and show tournaments etc! – ID 76 

 

Overseas/Global service 

 

Respondents based overseas were keen to make the point that they 
should not be excluded from access to the service, remarking in many 
cases that they would be prepared to pay for access to/usage of this 
service. 

 

I do not intend to live in the UK for the rest of my life. At some point in 
the future my family and I do intend emigrating. I would find it 
invaluable if I could access the service from outside of the UK. I would 
quite happily pay for this service as I'm sure many non-UK based people 
would. – ID 135 

 

Please remember there are many viewers of your service abroad. We 
don't pay the licence fee, but (I believe) we pay indirectly via our cable 
subscriptions. If money is an issue, consider offering paid subscriptions 
for overseas viewers. - ID 351 

 

As an Irish language speaker, I believe that there are not enough 
programmes made available through the medium of Irish. Under the 
Irish Language Act it is imperative that there is adequate provision 
made for Irish language consumers. – ID 10083 


3.12.4 CONCLUSION 

 

Respondents took the opportunity to reiterate points made earlier in the 
study with around two fifths choosing not to comment any further. 

 

For both the organisational representatives and the individuals studied, 
concerns centre on issues of platform and access, particularly for Apple 
Mac and Linux users. A contingent of overseas based respondents took 
this opportunity to raise the benefits of access to BBC services from 
their bases around the world. 

 

As highlighted earlier in this study a significant proportion of 
respondents are concerned regarding the use of DRM, due to this 
system’s perceived ‘short shelf life’ and the cost and security issues 
associated with this service. 

 


4. E-MAIL AND POSTAL RESPONSES 

 

The majority of the 136 freeform replies were sent by individuals. Six postal 
responses were received, 4 from individuals and 2 from organisations. 

 

The majority of the 136 freeform replies were in response to the issue that 
the on demand service would not be available to non-Microsoft users. The 
majority are in favour of open source software and a platform agnostic 
approach. A sample of responses is given below. 

 

Extract: The Public Value Test has not gone far enough in its market 
considerations and impact on consumers and licence fee payers. Even though 
the BBC plans to introduce alternatives to Microsoft Windows Media Player 
“eventually”, the failure to launch a technology neutral service from the start, 
will prevent adoption of other currently available software (fully capable and 
most obtainable free of charge) and indirectly promote sales of Microsoft 
products………………… It is important that a fully adequate, technology neutral 
solution be adopted with the launch of iPlayer to avoid inadvertently side 
stepping the Article 82 Ruling. – Postal, Chief Executive, Open Source 
Consortium. 

 

Your recent consultation proposes the use of Windows media player and DRM 
protected downloads. I would like to protest in the strongest terms possible. 
Not everyone uses Microsoft products and you are in danger of stopping 
Linux and Mac users accessing your content. I object to the BBC wedding 
me to a single proprietary supplier like Microsoft. Come on BBC keep things 
open. ID 41 

 

Having read the document it seems clear that the BBC is going to shut out 
from the service any licence payer who does not use a Microsoft OS. This is 
discriminatory in a Public Body paid for by myself and millions of the 
population. Will I receive a refund on my licence fee because I am unable to 
access services? Somehow I doubt it. There are millions of Mac OS users 
as well as many educational and business users who are going to be cut out 
of the system. This is wrong and needs urgent reconsideration before it is too 
late. ID 42 

 

I have had a quick read through the document. The main item of interest to 
me was that you are talking about a Microsoft based DRM approach. I do 
note that, at the start of page 11, that you propose to require a platform-
agnostic approach ''within a reasonable timeframe''. Why not specify that the 
timeframe be zero, i.e. you adopt a platform-agnostic approach from day 
one? I also think that it would be a good idea if you either used standard, 
documented and free-to-use protocols. If you did I suspect that you would 
see innovative players that would be to everyone's benefit. I am also 
concerned that you seem to be limiting access through NTL/Telewest. ID 
116 

 


Just a quick note to let you know that as someone who enjoys Radio 4 
podcasts, the decision to use a specific vendor's applications would be very 
silly indeed - locking the BBC into Microsoft would mean that I, and many 
others like me, would be totally unable to use them. Go for an open standard 
like the way you have done with RSS - by far the solution which reaches 
100% of the market is superior to the one that reaches 90%. Thanks for the 
good job you've done so far. ID 113 

 

I have heard that you are planning to make your TV content available for 
download over the internet, which I think is great, but I am concerned as a 
Mac user that this will be unavailable to me. Will it be possible to access this 
service if you don’t have Windows? ID 64 

 

It is of critical importance that non Microsoft users (Apple and Linux) are not 
denied access to this service just because they prefer to use a more reliable 
system than, say XP. ID 73 

 

Think first! I can’t speak for the UK but in the US, the 75% of the people 
smart enough to watch your programming are the same 75% smart enough 
to buy a Mac. Think please! ID 79 

 

Please make sure that whatever system you adopt is compatible with Apple 
computers and iPods etc. The Mac platform is a growing one and it would be 
inexcusable for these people to be excluded from such an important 
innovation. I am a great supporter of new technologies (as are many Mac 
users), so please do not exclude us from this new service. Also remember 
that the majority of Mac users are using non-Intel machines and so the 
possibility of using Windows does not exist. ID 81 

 

I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to being locked out of 
your proposed iPlayer despite being a full licence payer because I use, in 
common with millions of others, a Macintosh computer. It would be appalling 
to launch this system for Microsoft WMP only. ID 88 

 

Availability of content on all platforms: I trust the player will be made 
available for all connected digital playback platforms, not just those powered 
by a single operating system vendor such as Microsoft? I am a Linux user, 
an operating system represented by roughly 8% of the computer user base, 
and I do not want to be stuck with a bill for a new PC and a copy of Windows 
Vista with all its attendant security problems and bugs just to watch BBC 
content. ID 119 

 

There are also concerns about the proposed use of DRM. 

 

I have been at odds recently to cancel my licence and just get a monitor 
(LCD/Plasma) to watch solely DVDs as TV doesn't fit into my time and I can't 
my life round TV scheduling. On demand would definitely convince me to 
keep the licence (to be honest Planet Earth alone is worth it!). But it needs to 


be Mac compatible and back to QuickTime. I used to watch BBC World on 
QuickTime years back. Quality was great. Since going Real Player and/or 
Windows MP, it's fuzzy, soft and unreliable, and that's on Mac AND my PC 
laptop. It mustn’t have ANY DRM that would stop me transferring it to my 
iPod and/or watching in a hotel using my laptop, as that’s annoying and 
eventually someone will crack the code anyway as they always do. You're not 
meant to be allowed to put your DVDs into your iPod, but I have the entire 
NYPD Blue DVD collection in my iPod for when I'm bored, rubbish TV in the 
hotel room. Looking forward to it. ID 91 

 

I have the following concerns which I would urge you to take note of: i) As a 
licence payer and also a user of an Apple Mac computer, I am concerned that 
the BBC is proposing not to offer the service to Apple Mac, Linux and users of 
Microsoft Systems prior to 'XP' for up to a period of 24 months. The BBC 
remit is public broadcasting and this should be 'platform agnostic'. ii) I am 
concerned that if a 'platform agnostic' service cannot be achieved 
immediately, then a revenue stream should be generated from the platform 
that offers the DRM rights. Failure to do so is irresponsible on the part of the 
BBC and also encourages a monopoly situation. iii) I am not convinced that 
the proposed Microsoft DRM technology is secure enough and stable enough 
for the proposed use. ID 69 

 

I think the BBC must be in the forefront of new internet services if it is to 
remain relevant. In general, I would be in favour of no Digital Rights 
Management restrictions at all, nor a 30 day download limit. However, that is 
not a popular position for commercial organisations. In that respect it would 
be a major mistake to tie the BBC exclusively to Microsoft. The latest Vista 
software appears to be an attempt by Microsoft to stake a monopoly claim 
over DRM for everything from Blu-Ray and HD-DVD replay right through to 
music downloads. Microsoft is demanding a frightening level of control over 
its customers' (victims?) computers. It's very possible that this will be legally 
challenged, both in the US courts and by the EU authorities. In the meantime 
use of Apple's OS and free systems such as Linux is growing. It would, in my 
opinion, be a travesty to freeze these innovative platforms out of the 
reckoning. In particular, the open-source sector has been responsible for 
major innovation, such as the Squeezenetwork internet radio system (on 
which the BBC radio is unfortunately not available). What is certain is that 
trying to predict what will happen with the internet is very difficult. Keeping 
one's options open may be the best bet, both for the BBC and the consumer. 
ID 124 

 

I see from your Proposal document re On-demand Services that you are 
considering the use of DRM. If you insist on DRM as a "control" then the BBC 
will have to provide a fully cross platform player to cope with DRM as the 
only platform that currently supports DRM is the Windows platform - and I 
sure would not use that excuse for an operating system. Failure to provide a 
cross platform DRM capable player will preclude my use of the BBC website. 
I will also start a legal action based around the fact that as a TV Licence 


payer in the UK the BBC will be spending my money without me getting the 
benefits. – ID 15 

 

On demand is great: I wanted to add my support for BBC on demand 
services. Having paid for the development of programmes, it is a small extra 
cost to make them more widely available and the BBC should do that where 
possible. Broadly, the Provisional Conclusions and Public Consultation 
document seems reasonable, though I have a couple of comments 1) the 
executive should be left to decide whether they are risking syndication 
revenue, rather than having constraints imposed by the trust to protect 
them. 2) Commercial concerns of third parties seem to have taken a little too 
much priority over the benefit of licence payers e.g. banning non DRM 
distribution of audio books merely serves to support a market which is failing 
to provide reasonably priced online material. If the BBC were to allow 
downloading of the relatively small number of book readings, then that would 
both benefit the public, and encourage book publishers to consider their own 
online download service. ID 123 

 

There were also some concerns about the cost involved – either the cost of 
having to change to a Microsoft system or the cost of an increased licence fee 
– in particular for those who weren’t going to use the service, or for those 
who would be able to use the service who aren’t licence fee payers. 

 

How much are the Licence Fee Payers going to be paying for the running 
costs of the BBC iMP (iPlayer)? ID 83 

 

A small but significant concern I note your intention to approve making BBC 
programmes available over the Internet. I don't have a TV and don't intend 
to get one, but I do have a computer (without a TV card). Since BBC 
programmes would under your proposal be accessible to the likes of me, 
whether I want them or not, would TV licencing legislation become applicable 
to me? I don't want to pay for your decision when I have no interest in 
watching TV programmes. The question applies at present to very few 
people, but if licencing DIDN'T cover PCs, some people might avoid the 
licence fee by watching BBC programming only through their PC, in 'catch-up' 
mode. You need to avoid penalising me, OR creating a loophole for others. 
Legal clarity is needed. ID 127 

 

Responses to the specific questions asked in the consultation, were given by 
a number of respondents and a sample of these is given below. Issues raised 
were largely in line with those raised through the online responses. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


4.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Agree to Trusts proposals subject to modifications? 

 

4.1.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – ORGANISATIONS 

 

Urban Wimax is the leading UK company in the provision of WiMAX 
telecommunications services. The company is currently providing fixed high 
speed access and advanced voice and data services to small and medium 
sized companies in London, with plans to roll out services to most major 
urban areas. The company also intends to participate in forthcoming 2.5GHz 
spectrum auctions, which will enable the provision of new mass market 
advanced mobile services using mobile WiMAX technology. Urban Wimax 
notes with interest the BBC's plans to provide on demand services via 
internet simulcasting and multicasting. We wholeheartedly support these 
proposals, and the BBC Trust’s provisional support for such services. We 
believe that WiMAX-based services will ultimately represent major channels 
for the delivery of advanced demand video services to both business and 
consumer markets, and the availability of BBC content will, we believe, be 
essential in ensuring the success of such services. ID 6 Sasha Williamson, 
CEO and Founder, Urban Wimax Networks Plc 

 

We are very concerned about the impact on our business of the BBC’s 
proposed iPlayer. We are a medium-sized independent production company. 
Twenty two of our programmes will be appearing for sale on DVD later this 
year. We had 3 more programmes which we offered to the DVD company, 
but they are not interested because, in my judgement, they fear these 
programmes will have been free to download on the iPlayer. Here is 
justification of the BBC Trusts concern that the iPlayer will affect DVD sales. I 
note that the BBC Trust decided to ask for just 30 days in which downloads 
could be viewed, instead of the previous 3 months. May I urge that the Trust 
re-consider, to insist that the downloads can be viewed for a still shorter 
period – perhaps the 7 days in which they can be downloaded? Essentially 
the BBC is seeking to get extra value from our programmes without paying 
for it. We would be happy if the BBC could make downloads available on a 
commercial basis, but I understand the Government is opposed to this. In 
default I would urge a 7 day viewing period. – Postal, J. Bulger, Fulmar TV 
and Film Ltd. 

 

4.1.2 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

I would like to say that I consider it essential that the BBC adopts a platform 
agnostic approach to Rights Management in a reasonable timeframe. ID 1 

 

No, they exclude licence payers who do not have the latest technology – ID 
70 

 


In general I am very pleased that the BBC is considering a legitimate way of 
catching up on programmes missed. Unfortunately I am quite upset that I 
may not be able to use it as my wife and I both use Linux on our PC's at 
home (due to the high cost of Microsoft licences) and I predominantly use 
Apple Macs in work. I presume there would be no way of downloading a 
programme to transfer to another operating system or portable device. On 
the whole I do believe this is an important area for the BBC to be looking to 
improve. ID 5 

 

Putting aside certain technical reservations (set out below), I am in favour of 
the BBC providing on-demand services of a general nature similar to those 
proposed. The points I bring to your attention in Q5 (below) are however 
not to be underestimated in their significance. If the BBC is only able to 
provide on-demand services using proprietary Microsoft formats, viewable 
only to Microsoft's customers, then no on-demand service should be provided 
at all until this shortcoming has been resolved. The above point is discussed 
further below, however in summary it is the BBC’s remit to provide public 
service broadcasting and act in the public's long-term interest, certainly not 
to further the interests of a US-based multinational company in extending its 
de-facto monopoly influence from one industry sector to another. ID 47 

 

It is inevitable that the BBC must provide on-demand services. Broadcasting, 
as we currently understand it, almost certainly will not survive this decade. 
ID 53 

 

In my opinion the development of a new player by the BBC is wrong. There 
are already too many different players around, the main ones are Windows 
Media player - requires Windows proprietary files, PC only and DRMed Apple 
Quicktime - PC+MAC, can play many formats including the open MPEG4 
standard Real Player - PC+MAC requires Real file formats. My first point 
then is to say that the BBC should chose an industry open file format - i.e. 
MPEG4 not a proprietary one (WMV or RM). Second, how to impose licenced 
viewing - rather than DRM? It seems to me best if the BBC could develop 
plug-ins for the commercial viewers rather than its own player. This could 
implement licenced viewing on existing platforms. A subscription could be 
sold valid for 1 year. Third, a point of which little has been made. I have 
read somewhere that the BBC will limit (by geographically checking IP 
addresses) the viewing audience to the UK! This is absurd. Who in the UK 
would bother with watching TV over the internet, or playing catch-up of 
programs they have missed in the last couple of days? Very few. In the UK 
the channel for viewing is surely Freeview + TV interface + computer + 
display. With the computer programmed to record the programs you want. 
This is available technology (see EyeTV + Apple TV for example). The 
audience for TV is world wide, and that is where the BBC will find its internet 
audience, as competition to the rather poor, expensive satellite coverage and 
availability that exists today. And by the way, doing deals on the side with 
YouTube and other P2P delivery people just downgrades the BBC’s image and 
they should abandon any such alliances. Fourth, the imposition of DRM and 


a 7 day limit takes away consumers rights, then tries to sell them back! No 
way can this be accepted. I have a legal right to record any program and 
keep it for as long as I want, and view it any time. So 1: the iPlayer is not 
required and is a waste of money to develop. Plug-ins for existing players is 
the way to go. 2: Better to sell annual licences by subscription to streaming 
services and let people plan their own program recording for future viewing. 
3: Your audience is world-wide. This is where the BBC is most respected and 
where you can grow payback for you investment. Not in UK. 4: DRM is 
wrong, you should licence TV world wide as you do in UK. 5: There should 
be NO time limit on downloaded/recorded content. ID 3 


4.2 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Priority for BBC to invest in –on-demand services? 

 

4.2.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES - INDIVIDUALS 

 

Yes. In the past the BBC has been a world leader in TV and radio, and should 
continue to invest in new, adjacent technology areas, in order to keep its 
services relevant in today’s age, as well as in programme content creation. 
ID 47 

 

Yes, as long as it is platform agnostic, flash based for instance so Linux, older 
windows and Mac users could access it – ID 70 

 

Absolutely. At home I watch very little television as I have little time to sit 
and watch. However, I spend significant amounts of time traveling, sitting in 
airports and foreign hotel rooms, starved of anything that resembles decent 
programming. This will be a wonderful resource. It will also enable me to sit 
outside with my telescope with Patrick Moore telling me what to look for in 
the sky this month. Fantastic! – ID 90 

 

Negative response 

 

I do not agree that it is a priority for the BBC to be investing in this area. 
Priority should be given to programme production. The amount of resource 
needed for this project is disproportionate to the number of people it will 
serve. ID 60 


4.3 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Length of storage window? 

 

4.3.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

I am not generally in favour of DRM, and question its usefulness. I suggest 
carefully evaluating the economic and social effects of having freely 
available, unrestricted recording facilities (e.g. VHS video tape) and 
evaluating the usefulness of DRM in that content. Learn from the past. If 
you are not already aware of it, I draw your attention to the recent public 
statement on DRM made by Steve Jobs of Apple: 
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughtsonmusic/. My views on DRM are 
broadly in line with Jobs in that it has proved counterproductive to the online 
music industry and impotent to prevent unauthorised distribution of 
copyright material it purports to protect. I expect it to prove equally so in the 
field of on-demand video services. ID 47 

 

There should be no time limit, just as is the case with analogue video tape. 
There has been no attempt to show that the status quo, i.e. the ability to 
videotape broadcasts, has any negative impact on the BBC or on anyone else 
ID 63 

 

Forever. DRM won't stop people from grabbing your content if they want, it 
will just annoy members of the public whose favorite episode of Fawlty 
Towers suddenly vanishes, and their local shop doesn't have the DVD. If 
your aim is to irritate the public, then limiting how they can use your 
programmes will achieve it admirably. ID 120 

 

15 days min. and no more than 28 days – ID 70 

 

I see little point in imposing a time limit. For two reasons: a) It is already 
possible to record transmitted programmes in a computer-readable format 
and keep them indefinitely - record to a £150 hard-drive recorder 
(sometimes called a PVR) and either move to a computer or burn onto a 
DVD. Alternatively, fit a £20 TV receiver card into the computer and record 
straight to the computer's drive. b) DRM is far from infallible and it probably 
won't be long before anybody who wants to will be able to remove it from 
downloaded programs and keep then indefinitely. Using DRM is comparable 
to securing your house with locks that 50% of the population can open. What 
do you gain? – ID 90 

 

 

 

 


4.4 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Series stacking? 

 

4.4.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

I would consider "series stacking" to be a useful feature and agree with the 
Trust's proposals as to what nature of series/programmes are appropriate to 
stacking. I would expect the kinds of series that are "stacked" to be refined 
over time as the technology matures and its commercial and sociological 
effects, usage patterns, etc, become better known. ID 47 

 

Series stacking would only be used by a minority of people. Not really that 
important. ID 60 

 

I do consider series stacking to be a useful feature. I would expect all 
'popular' series to be made available for series stacking (note: episodes of all 
series should be made available for download/viewing after original 
broadcast, but only 'popular' series for stacking - popularity could be judged 
on broadcast audience figures/download numbers). Perhaps all episodes in a 
given series could be made available, and when the final episode is 
downloaded and viewed, the entire series is available for a further 30 days. 
After 30 days, the entire series would expire in an attempt to ensure DVD 
sales aren't affected. ID 18 

 

The DVD market as it currently exists isn't going to survive. If the BBC 
doesn’t provide DRM free content, someone else will, and then the BBC will 
be an irrelevance. This is tough, but it is the state of the market, and 
attempting to buck it isn't going to work. ID 53 

 

I support the series-stacking proposal. I don't buy DVDs of BBC 
programmes, since I rather resent having to pay again for a programme I 
already paid for though my licence fee. I would expect any regularly-
scheduled limit run programme to be included. Soap operas would be 
excluded, but programmes such as Top Gear would be included since they 
are limited-run series. I think all episodes of a series should be available, 
but I refer to my comment for question 3 with regard to time limits. – ID 90 


4.5 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Catch up available to non-Microsoft users? 

 

The majority of the freeform replies seemed to be in response to this 
issue. 

 

4.5.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – ORGANISATIONS 

 

 I am the Editor-in-Chief for LXer - Linux News. It has been brought to our 
attention, by our U.K. readers, that your proposal seems geared exclusively, 
or nearly so, to Windows users. I have a few questions that I hope you will 
be willing to answer. (1) The proposal and questions, especially Question 
#5, indicate that the BBC Trust have essentially ignored the growing Linux 
and Mac segment. Has the BBC Trust considered the negative economic 
impact of pushing the markets toward a single platform, especially one 
whose vendor has been convicted in numerous countries and US states of 
anti-competitive practices (ironically, in the realm of multi-media software in 
the EU)? (2) How will low-income people who have been given Linux 
computers access content provided by the BBC, if the content is only 
available on Windows systems? Are they to be expected to run "pirated" 
versions of Windows (which was recently cracked by Iranian crackers)? (3) 
It has been said that the BBC's proposal has the effect of only being able to 
watch a program if you own a Sony. But if you own another TV brand, you 
can't watch it. That will be the effect if you offer content only for Windows. 
In this era of multi-platform environments, free, open and standardized 
formats, why would the BBC Trust narrow its scope so? ID 28 DC Parris, 
Editor-in-Chief, LXer - Linux News 

 

4.5.2 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

As a Linux user, I am particularly pleased to see that you have picked up the 
BBC on their intention to use a Microsoft-only solution and that you have 
recommended that they use a platform-agnostic approach instead. Please do 
not back down from this position. ID 4 

 

It is absolutely essential that any service offered by the BBC is not limited to 
Microsoft users. It would be unwise and unjust to grant Microsoft a 
monopoly position. It would be grossly unfair to those sections of the public 
that use non-Microsoft operating systems such as Linux and Mac. The BBC is 
a public body – the source of its influence, reach and glory. ID 2 

 

Extremely important! A large number of users here and in other countries do 
not use MS products - for varying reasons including price, security and 
reliability. Limiting access to MS users would be completely unacceptable to 
those (arguably more enlightened) users who rely on Apple, Linux and other 
Unix options. The BBC is surely a place where open standards should be 
protected and encouraged. Those standards are arguably technically 


superior, as well as being outside the control of a company with a terrible 
record of abusing its’ monopoly position with predatory and destructive 
business practices. ID 7 

 

A complaint about iPlayer I understand the BBC is planning to introduce a TV 
on demand Internet service, very laudable, but it's only going to be available 
to those using Windows XP. I don't have Windows XP, I'm a silver surfer, 
and have no wish to constantly update my system even if I could afford it. 
This will create a monopoly situation, which apparently I am funding through 
my licence fee to a bloke who's a multi-billionaire already. I gather Channel 
4 will do the same. If they get money from the public purse their service 
should be available to all. I hope at the very least, though I doubt it, that 
Microsoft are paying the BBC a couple of billion to ensure they have no 
competition. The other day I discovered I couldn't access a football match 
on my computer, despite the commentator telling me I could, because I 
needed Internet Explorer. Therefore, far from those in authority encouraging 
us “wrinklies” to get involved with new technology, they are actually ensuring 
only the rich will be able to afford to do so. But then, the gap between rich 
and poor has increased in the last ten years, so no change there then. I'm 
appalled. ID 8 

 

It is not in the interest of licence payers or the general public to insist that in 
order to make any use of the proposed on-demand services one must also be 
a paying customer of a single, specific third party commercial entity, namely 
Microsoft. Consider this a second de facto "licence fee", payable not to the 
BBC but to Microsoft. Is such a mandatory payment from all BBC on-demand 
users warranted? This problem is made all the more important by Microsoft's 
entrenched, near-monopoly position in the market for desktop PC operating 
systems. Providing services only for this platform, even if only for a limited 
period of at most 24 months will further stifle healthy market competition in 
this area (including home-grown British innovations) and further reinforce 
Microsoft's dominance. Public service broadcasting should be built on open 
standards, unencumbered by proprietary intellectual property. A definition of 
"open" for these purposes might include: 1. Standard is published and 
widely available without onerous conditions attached. (e.g. similar to 
publications of ISO, IEEE, etc). 2. Third-party implementation of the standard 
is royalty free (although the content delivered by the standard may of course 
be chargeable, i.e. via licence fee). 3. Working implementations available 
from several vendors/suppliers. 4.Ideally one freely available reference 
implementation, preferably under an Open Source compatible licence. In any 
case, the standard should not be limited to a specific subset of platforms that 
the BBC decides to "bless" (such as Windows, MacOS and Linux, all of which 
are mentioned explicitly), but available on any current or future platform that 
the consumer wishes to use. Which is better? Progressive technological 
improvements fueled by market competition/consumer choice or a 
monopolistic monoculture of players based on only Microsoft software, with 
essentially insurmountable barriers to market entry for other device vendors. 


It is in the hands of the BBC to stimulate movement towards one or the 
other. ID 47 

 

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. I will not use Microsoft's software. The BBC should 
not be in league with any company - Microsoft, Real Networks or anyone 
else. Tying the service to Microsoft's software would make the service 
unavailable to me. Don't do it! ID 63 

 

As a non-Microsoft user through choice I feel that it is vitally important 
that I not be forced to use proprietary software to access any public 
service. There are about 100 registered GNU/Linux users per million UK 
population according to http://counter.li.org/reports/arearank.php, the 
actual number is likely to be /much/ higher. There are an even larger 
number of Apple Mac users. Added to this there are large numbers of users 
of other OSes - Solaris, BSD, et al. You would be actively discriminating 
against a large chunk of the population who has chosen not to use 
proprietary software. This does not represent value to these members of the 
public. Open standards accessible to all members of the public 
represent a better value service for everyone, and do not require any 
significant additional investment. Public services should never depend on the 
products of a single neo-monopoly. If a significant bug were found in the 
Microsoft media player that the BBC chose to make content available for, no 
member of the public would be able to securely access any BBC content. 
Forcing people to use a single programme to view your content is putting the 
public at significant risk cf. recent security risks in YouTube's flash content. 
Open standards mean different implementations, which at least reduces the 
risk for /some/ people. The BBC's own freely available Dirac codec 
represents an excellent open codec project: 
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/10/bbc_develops_codec/ The BBC 
should invest in technologies that, like Dirac, serve the interests of the public 
and support the independence of the BBC rather than technologies that 
serve the interests of defacto monopolies and make the BBC dependent on 
the whim of a US corporation with no stated public service mission. ID 120 

 

I feel that it is vital that open source software standards are applied - this 
would preclude the use of Microsoft formats. As a Mac and Linux user I would 
feel insecure if the BBC was tied closely to the Microsoft Company. The main 
aim of the software should be to make it open and accessible to everyone 
rather than tied down with rigid DRM. Please - don't go down the Microsoft 
path. ID106 

 

Very important. Any BBC Video on demand service should be platform 
agnostic. Whilst this doesn't mean the technology has to be open source, a 
user should not be locked in to a particular operating system. A BBC Video on 
demand service would be akin to forcing viewers to buy a particular brand of 
television to watch BBC programming. ID 18 

 

 


The BBC has a high public reputation; as time goes forward it will be more 
and more dependent on the good will and respect of the British public. It 
cannot afford to get into bed with an illegal foreign monopoly. This isn't 
simply a moral question, it's a hard, pragmatic one; the BBC needs the 
support of the articulate intelligentsia and they are precisely the people who 
don't use Microsoft. ID 53 

 

VITAL, why penalize someone for not using Microsoft? May the none 
Microsoft users get a rebate on the licence fee? Could the DRM not be 
platform agnostic and linked to the licence? Like the licence itself is the 
DRM? On any platform, 3 computers registered only? I use Windows 2000 
and would be excluded; I have an older Mac and Linux machine so your 
current proposals exclude my family. Could you buy the new PC for people 
like me then it would not matter? ID 70 

 

It is essential that ALL users are able to access the service not just 
Windows users. I am a member of a computer group where there are only 2 
members who use Windows and the rest use Linux of many forms and Linux. 
I use a Mac and will not be using a windows computer. By using an open 
DRM which I know exists it would also save the encoding for separate 
versions. Whilst Linux has a smaller market share now, it is expected to rise 
and it would be wasteful to convert for a few users now. Having a single DRM 
will save substantially on encoding and would also mean that it would make 
navigation of the website easier. No need for separate pages for each 
operating system and the public will not ring in saying why is it not available 
for Mac or Linux? The BBC is supposed to be providing a service for all. 
Using a Windows DRM permanently excludes Mac and Linux users. I am 
unable to watch any Windows files with DRM even with having a Windows 
player (Flip 4 Mac) available. ID 78 

 

Absolutely vital, and I applaud you for including this. My main home 
computer/video system/entertainment centre is an Apple iMac running OSX. 
I also have two laptops running various (and regularly changing) flavours of 
Linux. ID 90 


4.6 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Offer audio downloads of book readings? 

 

4.6.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

I cannot see why not, as long as authors and performers are not deprived of 
due royalties. ID 2 

 

By making these book readings available, it allows access to programmes 
often scheduled at difficult times - the argument for putting all content on 
this service. ID 9 

 

There should be no blanket genre-wide prohibition against making content 
available on-demand. This should apply equally to book readings, classical 
music or any other genre of significant cultural and artistic importance. 
However, there should not necessarily be a mandate to make everything 
available - wouldn't it be better to take a more flexible approach depending 
on the economic viability and public benefit, assessed on a per-title basis. ID 
47 

 

Yes. The BBC's argument is that this would have a negative effect on sales 
of books or CDs of book readings. I'm not convinced; I think that books and 
readings are largely complementary. The BBC's readings always seem to be 
abridged anyway, so again shouldn't compete with commercial readings. 
(I'm making an assumption that commercial CDs are unabridged. Either way, 
I don't see book readings making me buy any fewer books.) ID 63 

 

If there are no licencing issues, then this would appear to be a beneficial 
service. ID 18 

 

If again they are limited, to licence payers and UK users only – ID 70 

 

I would like to see these. I've come across some wonderful books through 
Radio programmes but I seldom hear more than 10% of the episodes. 
Series-stacking of "Book at Bedtime" would be great, since it is often way 
past my bedtime – ID 90 


4.7 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Offer audio downloads of classical music? 

 

4.7.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

The future of so much of our entertainment now seems to lie in download. 
The BBC must be prominent in this field. Thus the long term view seems to 
favour offering classical music and whatever else the public wants by 
download. As long as authors and performers are rewarded for their work, 
the means of distribution are not important, and have changed and will 
change. Others will move into this market. The BBC should be there first. 
ID 2 

 

Overall I would err towards providing audio downloads of classical music on 
the grounds that it would introduce new listeners and revitalise interest in 
the genre. Classical music should not be conceived as being "elite", 
"expensive" or "boring"... it has an important role to play both for both 
current and future generations. If it is specifically singled out for exclusion 
this will only serve to reinforce the "elitist" misconception. ID 47 

 

The BBC should provide on line classical music. I consider it will increase CD 
sales as it will promote the genre to a greater audience. ID 60 

 

This is perhaps the area that interests me most. I think the BBC should 
make available downloads of all of its own concerts. I don't expect the BBC 
to provide copies of commercial CDs, therefore I don't expect downloads to 
be available of programmes that simply broadcast CDs or whole works from 
CDs. Again, I don't see this as putting record companies out of business. I 
think they and the BBC can compete fairly and survive (and prosper). 
Classical music is unusual in that we tend to like different performances of 
the same works, so it's quite usual to have more than one recording of 
several pieces in our libraries. Again, don't forget that we have been able to 
record analogue broadcasts for years! ID 63 

 

Again, similar to television broadcasts. Audio should expire 30 days after the 
initial playback/listen. If a user wishes to listen again, then it is reasonable 
and fair to expect that user to make a purchase. A value added feature would 
be giving users the option to make a purchase directly from the BBC 
(although it is recognised that this is probably outside the scope of the 
current on demand programme of projects). ID 18 

 

Classical music would benefit but since the music business would complain 
either use public domain copies or time limited versions i.e. that they could 
only be used for 30 days. – ID 78 

 


I think it would be appropriate to offer DRM-free recording of BBC events 
such as the Proms. For audio it's more likely that I would buy a CD than 
remove the DRM. – ID 90 


4.8 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Parental control? 

 

4.8.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

I do not understand the “or”. Is not the “facility”, itself, the parental control? 
The bottom line of child protection should lie with the parents. The BBC 
should aid them discretely. ID 2 

 

Considering the nature of much of the TV, radio and Internet content today, 
it is with some reluctance that I would agree with the proposal to implement 
parental controls. What is really needed of course is responsible parenting, a 
job which can never be automated. ID 47 

 

Whilst not a parent, I believe it is a good feature and one which is technically 
easy to implement. As such, this type of facility is not necessary, but 
preferable. ID 18 

 

Leave to parental control, but cooperate with any third party companies who 
may decide to sell commercial software for controlling access. ID 19 

 

It is doubtful whether the technical fixes proposed will work in practice, and 
the BBC is better off not offering something it cannot deliver. Remember that 
the people who broke the DRM on DVDs were under 16. ID 53 

 

Parental controls are possible but parents should take more responsibility. 
Having to register with a credit card may prove nothing as the child could 
borrow the card to register. ID 78 

 

Quite important, and getting more important as my 3-year-old son grows. 
This is one area where Apple's OSX operating system is streets ahead of 
Microsoft. I can set up an account with total and exact control over what my 
child can do or watch. I say who he can receive email from, what programs 
he can run and what websites he can visit. – ID 90 


4.9 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Offer content from non-BBC providers? 

 

4.9.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

At this stage I see no need for the BBC to offer TV content solely produced 
by others. As a producer and a provider the BBC has two areas to compete 
in. At present the area of production should be the one to be most stoutly 
defended. ID 2 

 

Assuming this would take a similar form to how content from non-BBC 
providers is shown on existing TV channels and radio stations, I would not 
see this as a problem provided the Corporation's remit as a public service 
broadcaster was not compromised. ID 47 

 

Yes, where the provider agrees (of course!) In these days where the BBC is 
obliged to use external production companies, it's difficult to argue "pure 
BBC" content anyway. ID 63 

 

If the BBC considers such content broadcast-worthy then there is no 
immediate reason why it could not be made available. ID 18 

 

If any other than the BBC wish to offer content then they should be allowed 
but the playing field should be level with no preferential service either way. 
ID 78 

 

It depends on what is meant by non-BBC providers. If this means 
programmes broadcast on BBC channels that are bought in, then yes they 
should be offered. I do not believe that content unconnected with BBC 
broadcasts should be offered. For an example of how this could hurt the 
service, see Amazon.co.uk. They have allowed third-party sellers to offer 
items through their channel, with the result that it can be hard to find 
something actually being sold by Amazon. – ID 90 


4.10 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

How to offer content from non-BBC providers? 

 

4.10.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

Any download is inevitably carried on services run by other providers. It 
doesn't matter to me whether I get the product direct from the BBC or via 
someone else, just as I don't mind buying goods direct from the factory or 
via a retailer. It's a case of what's convenient. The BBC might end up 
paying less for distribution! ID 63 

 

Not sure if I understand the question. This sounds more complicated than it's 
worth. I don't believe it's a feature users would expect and if my 
understanding is correct, this is introducing considerable scope creep to the 
original intentions of the on demand services proposed. ID 18 

 

The BBC has a strong and trusted brand. It needs to protect that brand both 
by making sure that content it produces is clearly branded and is not passed 
off as the work of a third party, and by making sure that content produced 
by third parties is not passed off as being from the BBC. Beyond that, I do 
not see that it matters who owns the servers from which the content is 
downloaded. ID 53 

 

If these services expand too far then the service could be deemed to be 
extending outside the area of its remit. It may be better to put permanent 
downloads services in terms of third parties. These should not be exclusive 
arrangements i.e. Mac and iPod users could use iTMS, Windows and Linux 
users could use another service. ID 78 

 

I am an iPod owner and I would very much like content offered by the BBC to 
play on that system. As an alternative, if I could get BBC content through 
Apple's iTunes service, that would be acceptable. – ID 90 

 


4.11 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Do revisions seem appropriate? 

 

4.11.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – INDIVIDUALS 

 

 

Yes. The video content (at least) should be limited to television licence 
holders only, irrespective of the transmission technology (RF carrier, 
Internet, cable or optic fibre circuits, etc.) ID 47 

 

Unaware of the revisions and unable to comment. ID 18 

 

No comment; too technical for my level of knowledge and time available to 
read reports. ID 19 


4.12 FREEFORM RESPONSES 

 

Any other issues? 

 

4.12.1 FREEFORM RESPONSES – ORGANISATIONS 

 

This is a perfect opportunity for the BBC to release HD content to the UK. 
The UK is massively behind the US in terms of HD content, with Sky offering 
the only real option. Given the boom in HD ready screens in the UK it is 
almost the duty of the BBC to offer a HD option. ID 50 Director, Izisys 
Limited 

 

4.12.2 FREEFORM RESPONSES - INDIVIDUALS 

 

I have already answered the questions link but having re visited the 
document "Provisional Conclusions and Consultation document" and seen the 
“within 24 months for the support of Linux”, had to add that is unacceptable. 
An open solution should be presented from the outset or no solution enacted. 
To not do so means greatly favouring the continued economic monopolistic 
dominance of Microsoft, contributing to market distortion (especially as the 
BBC is such a large dominant force itself) and as the support being delayed is 
for a minority makes it liable to never be completed. Therefore having such 
platform agnostic support before release should be a prerequisite ID 54 

 

Please take the new Playstation 3 into consideration: people will watch video-
on-demand mainly on TV! ID 61 

 

I think the Trust is worrying too much. I would like on-demand services to 
go ahead, with fewer restrictions than the Trust wants to place on them. I 
don't think the sky will fall in on anyone (in terms of anyone being put out of 
business) if they do. I don't think they will really excite people much; mostly 
they will solve two old problems: 1) The programme is on opposite 
something else I want to watch or listen to and 2) The programme is on 
when I'm busy doing something else. If you want more licence money from 
me, that's fine too. We get far more for our money from the BBC than do 
Sky's customers. ID 63 

 

The BBC's current audio live streaming service, which is tied to commercial 
software 'Real Player' only available on certain computer platforms, should be 
replaced with an open source standard such as OGG format. This would allow 
users to listen to live BBC radio at their (internet connected) computers 
which run operating systems for which Real Networks have no compatible 
software, such as RISC OS. ID19 

 

What access will be available from overseas? I frequently travel, and 
accessing live content from overseas would be good. That brings up a 
further issue: the BBC has many fans in many countries that currently 
download programmes through "unofficial" channels. Will you open access to 


iPlayer to them, and to me when I'm abroad? Do you plan to limit access to 
this service to licence payers? If so, how? Will it be possible to transfer 
content to portable devices such as an iPod? – ID 90 

 

Disagree with DRM 

 

There are clear technical and moral imperatives here. DRM is not accepted 
by the market; organisations which use DRM fall into disrepute, and there is 
a widespread feeling that it is OK to pirate their work, since the means they 
use to protect it are unfair. Furthermore, every DRM scheme proposed to 
date has been broken, and the legal regime required to prop up these 
inadequate technical solutions is inimical to a free society. Finally, the BBC, 
as a public service body, cannot require that all its licence payers buy the 
product of any single company - let alone a foreign company which has been 
found to operate an illegal monopoly by the courts of three continents. ID 53 

 

The service needs to cover ALL operating systems and open DRM is the only 
solution to this problem. – ID 78 

 

Disagreement with Ofcom’s comments 

 

I believe that the BBC Executive's proposals for on-demand content are in 
the best interests of the audience. The objections of Ofcom and the BBC's 
commercial competitors should be disregarded as they do not have the best 
interests of the audience at heart. It would be a shame if the BBC had to 
offer a worse service because of the commercial interests of non-BBC 
companies. I do hope that the BBC is able to proceed with the best possible 
on-demand service (in terms of the interests of the viewing and listening 
public). I wish the BBC every success with this venture. ID 125 

 

I have just a few short comments to make that I hope will be useful. Firstly 
I agree with the need for platform agnostic approach and the urgent need to 
find solutions for non-Microsoft and apple users. It is likely that consumers 
will be moving towards Linux and other operating systems and being tied to 
Microsoft will not win the BBC many friends in the IT community. Secondly I 
find it remarkable that Ofcom should try to reign in the BBC's provision of 
on-demand services to protect 'the market'. Surely it is the BBC's job to 
provide maximum value for money (which it does in my view) for the license 
fee. It is up to the market to deal with the reality of a healthy, popular and 
reasonably well funded Public Service Broadcaster. The existence of the BBC 
is why the British television market is generally so healthy and competitive 
compared to the broadcasting environment of other countries. I would like to 
be able to download classical concerts etc. if it were not for Radio 3 I would 
not buy any classical music at all, so the industry needs to think of the longer 
term benefit of creating a market and having a population educated enough 
to be able to make consumer choices in these fields. My apologies for 
writing in haste on these matters, but I feel quite strongly that Ofcom have 


no right to tell the BBC to 'mind the market'. The market will have to look 
after itself! ID 126