OSC Analysis: iPlayer
To accompany the Open Letter to Ashley Highfield at the BBC, the OSC has put together a more detailed appraisal of his current position on the iPlayer.
We warmly welcome Ashley Highfield's entry into the open, public debate on the iPlayer.
As the man responsible for the iPlayer, Ashley is uniquely suited to answer the questions that have arisen around the iPlayer, and the technology choices he has made. Questions that others have not been able to answer.
As we begin, we respectfully request that we keep the discussion grounded on the merits of the case, and avoid "not in love with the anti-christ" comments that credit neither of us, or indeed anyone they might be taken to apply to.
We welcome your offer to engage in conversation with the Free and Open Source (FOSS) communities, it is certainly not too late and goes a long way to correcting any potential 'fault in communication' you take full responsibility for.
As we understand it, the arguments you have advanced for the technology choices you have made may be formulated as the following seven:
1) The 'We had to start somewhere' argument. The largest possible audience is PC users running Microsoft, therefore the iPlayer had to be built to that and can be extended to others later if it is economically viable. Unfortunately, the last percentage point might have to be left out.
2) The 'The rights holders made us use DRM' argument. They insist that the BBC's Future Media and Technology department include DRM in the iPlayer because they will lose their livelihood, and the BBC cannot afford to compensate them for this.
3) The 'DRM can't be done with FOSS' argument. FOSS means the source code is available, and if people can see the source code they can break the DRM.
4) The 'DRM must be time-limited' argument. BBC can give free content, but only if it self-destructs in 7 days. Even the BBC's own content cannot be given away because OFCOM and the BBC Trust won't let them.
5) The 'It's not exclusively Microsoft' argument. The streaming deal with Adobe proves this. Mac and Linux users can get streaming content.
6) The 'We love FOSS' argument. Research projects like Dirac prove the BBC are good FOSS citizens.
7) The 'iPlayer is a beta, give us a break!' argument. It was only 'launched' as a beta in July, it's going to get better and better and be really good when it's finished.
The issues around bandwidth and Kontiki are not specifically our issues, although we suspect they are a problem for iPlayer users. Similarly, the issues around the commercial arrangements with ISP's are not our issues. Finally, the possible future configurations of the iPlayer are not our issues, we would like to focus on the arguments for how you got the iPlayer to where it is now.
If we have missed any of the arguments, or misunderstood them, it would be great to clarify this. For now, we'll make our responses to the seven points we believe you have made.
'We had to start somewhere'
It is entirely possible, even simple, to build platform independent delivery mechanisms. The internet is ubiquitous proof of this. Google, facebook, joost, myspace, lastfm, firefox, skype and any number of online applications in widespread global use avoided the platform specific trap, and we assert that iPlayer could easily have done so too. This would also have avoided the problem you now have of bringing the iPlayer to obvious platforms for it such as portable media players, mobile phones, laptops, consumer electronic devices and PDAs. As it stands, consumers now have to purchase these devices with Microsoft operating systems installed or miss out on the BBC's excellent content. Whilst Microsoft's dominance of the desktop is well noted in most jurisdictions, it does not, currently, enjoy massive market share in these other devices. Indeed, in several it's market share is currently negligible.
'The rights holders made us use DRM'
Other organisations are far better placed than us to comment on DRM issues, and will most likely take you up on your offer of dialogue. We will note a few points in passing however. We understand entirely that content rights holders wish to be compensated, and wholeheartedly agree that they should. It does not follow however that the only solution, or even the obvious solution, to this is DRM. It may also be noted that the 'content rights holders' are not the only people with 'rights' that should be considered. The users of your software have rights too, and it is questionable whether their right in this matter have been adequately considered. The question then becomes how to balance the rights of all parties, and it is not at all clear that DRM is the answer, let alone the only answer.
'DRM can't be done with FOSS'
This, and similar arguments, are widely discredited. DRM can, and has, been done with FOSS. Comparable encryption technologies are widely implemented in Free Software (we cite PGP, SSL, and VPN implementations as merely a few) and are at least as secure, if not more so, than 'black box' proprietary solutions.
'DRM must be time-limited'
This assumes that the argument for DRM is accepted, which it is not. In any case, time-limiting is not inevitably linked with DRM, so one may accept the time-limit 'rights' of the content holders without accepting the necessity of DRM.
'It's not exclusively Microsoft'
The streaming 'version' of iPlayer is not the iPlayer, and the BBC Trust have made clear that it does not meet the terms under which your proposal was approved. The full iPlayer download software (which is the whole rationale of the iPlayer) requires Microsoft DRM and requires a Microsoft operating system (currently XP but soon to include Vista) and requires software components written to the Microsoft operating system and technology stack. It is exclusively Microsoft.
'We love FOSS'
We agree. The BBC has a long and proud history of supporting open public standards and has excellent FOSS credentials. Projects like Dirac are an obvious choice for a platform neutral iPlayer and we wonder why they were rejected. The views of the BBC engineers working on these technologies would be a welcome addition to the public debate.
'iPlayer is a beta, give us a break!'
This was not entirely clear in the publicity surrounding the launch. However, leaving that to one side, the questions are not around the capability of the software to improve, but around the suitability of the technology choices in enabling your department to meet the worthy goals of the iPlayer project, and to meet the requirements laid down by yourself and the BBC Trust. We would all love to give you a break, but once you have answered the legitimate concerns of the increasingly large number of people questioning your decisions, and to their satisfaction.
Finally, Ashley, we sincerely hope that you realise that we have sought this conversation because we respect and admire the BBC, appreciate the enormous talent of BBC engineers, and ardently want a successful, usable iPlayer that all fans of the BBC can use. We share your vision of the iPlayer, and hope you can get it back on the tracks.
 |
News & Events 
This is a common misconception. The iPlayer brand has always referred to a variety of platforms and a variety of services. It was always intended to cover pretty much everything in this set of proposals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consult/closed_consultations/ondemand.html
Streaming might not be iPlayer to the OSC, however it is the iPlayer to the BBC, and always has been.