Ben Bradshaw has got it wrong. The BBC does not need “Stronger regulation” it simple need to be held to its charter. Like most organisation of this size, it can become complacent over time mission creep sees it incrementally change direction and expand. A short sharp slap is all that is needed. This complacency and bench marking against other commercial broadcasters for “the going rate” means it does need to look at how much it pays its stars and executives. The alternative maybe that BBC needs to groom new and emerging talent. This is likely to be risky as some failure can be expected. Risk = cost, so all the savings will not translate to the same overall cost reduction. However in a “knowledge economy” this talent pool could generate multiple benefits for the entertainment world and the exchequer.
Without the BBC the use of the internet for video would not be as advanced commercially as it is. The iPlayer has shown that good software and good content lead to high audiences. The consultants that jump on the band wagon and show the growth of video don’t understand the current phenomenon. Catch up TV (which is what iPlayer is all about) has two things to note – not all programming is viewed. The most popular broadcast TV also equates to the most viewed on the internet (content is king). It also relies on consumer memory. Most viewed catch up content is a few hours or days old. Viewing drops off sharply over time as the marketing, promotion, trailers news etc effects around the programme fade.
Long tail stuff? No one truly belivies this yet. Digitising old films and tape is only part (and expensive) of the costs. You then need to market it to make people aware and that isn’t cheap and as yet the success is unproven, therefore risky and back to risk = cost.
Are commercial organisations going to digitise their archives and push them to the market, to find a model that the consumers want? What is stopping them now? BBC on the other hand with the charter remit of “availability” will eventually do this and if it’s successful and they get sufficient market share, watch Murdoch and all the others bleating on about how unfair it all is.
The BBC works, it works very well, it needs a pat on the back occasionally and occasionally a crack of the whip but it does not benefit from a dam good thrashing.
Sunday 20 September 2009
Groombridge Place Gardens
I have a grandson (almost 2) and finding things to do is difficult. There is a tension between wanting to take him somewhere interesting and going to places that are aimed at older kids. With the recent spate of E.Coli infections resulting from petting farm visits the problem of finding somewhere was slightly worse this weekend.
I had taken him to Godstone Park Farm earlier this year which was an “OK” day out. With a mix of age range activities. Horton Park Farm, a month earlier, had been much better for the 18 month + age. I thought at the time I was being OTT as I had washed hands between every animal petting/feeding. Many parents just seemed to be doing it as they left the farm, and even them not all of them. The signes had simple said something like “Please Wash Your Hands After Touching The Animals” and not given any reason why. I can understand why such farms may have been reluctant to put up signs saying “DANGER E.COLI” but a more informative. “Children Are Susceptible To Infection From Animals – Hand Hygiene is Important – Please Wash Hands Frequently”. May have encourage the right response without instilling panic.
Back to this weekend and we found a somewhere to go called “Groombridge Place Gardens & Enchanted Forest”. Enchanted forest sounded interesting especially as the web site (www.groombridge.co.uk) said “designed to intrigue, amuse and entertain”. Set on a hillside (so expect to be walking up hill most of the time) along paths that are often less than pushchair friendly there is a long route around a wood with the odd place of inertest to discover. Except that places on the mab described as “Blue Pool” was in fact a muddy looking pond. The “Teepee” was just that, a Teepee. Similarly the “Standing Stone”, Double Spiral” where just that. I felt we were traveling around a forest to see an exhibition. I failed to see the intrigue to be amused or entertained. The “Giants Vineyard” was in reality a vineyard. The “Romany Camp” three, locked up, gypsy caravans parked side by side rather than in a portrayal of an active camp.
Even the formal gardens were less than immaculate. Simple things annoy me. I struggle at home (unsuccessfully) to keep my lawn free of weeds, clover etc but these where no better than what I would expect in a municipal park.
On the plus side, the Raptor Centre and its birds of prey demonstration was very impressive and the ice cream was excellent quality (why don’t they do a toddler size). But the Raptor Centre is funded by donations – not the entrance fee – and the ice cream is obviously extra. Overall the £9 per head was not worth it. A walk and a picnic in one of the many heaths and woods that litter the south east of England would have been just as good.
I had taken him to Godstone Park Farm earlier this year which was an “OK” day out. With a mix of age range activities. Horton Park Farm, a month earlier, had been much better for the 18 month + age. I thought at the time I was being OTT as I had washed hands between every animal petting/feeding. Many parents just seemed to be doing it as they left the farm, and even them not all of them. The signes had simple said something like “Please Wash Your Hands After Touching The Animals” and not given any reason why. I can understand why such farms may have been reluctant to put up signs saying “DANGER E.COLI” but a more informative. “Children Are Susceptible To Infection From Animals – Hand Hygiene is Important – Please Wash Hands Frequently”. May have encourage the right response without instilling panic.
Back to this weekend and we found a somewhere to go called “Groombridge Place Gardens & Enchanted Forest”. Enchanted forest sounded interesting especially as the web site (www.groombridge.co.uk) said “designed to intrigue, amuse and entertain”. Set on a hillside (so expect to be walking up hill most of the time) along paths that are often less than pushchair friendly there is a long route around a wood with the odd place of inertest to discover. Except that places on the mab described as “Blue Pool” was in fact a muddy looking pond. The “Teepee” was just that, a Teepee. Similarly the “Standing Stone”, Double Spiral” where just that. I felt we were traveling around a forest to see an exhibition. I failed to see the intrigue to be amused or entertained. The “Giants Vineyard” was in reality a vineyard. The “Romany Camp” three, locked up, gypsy caravans parked side by side rather than in a portrayal of an active camp.
Even the formal gardens were less than immaculate. Simple things annoy me. I struggle at home (unsuccessfully) to keep my lawn free of weeds, clover etc but these where no better than what I would expect in a municipal park.
On the plus side, the Raptor Centre and its birds of prey demonstration was very impressive and the ice cream was excellent quality (why don’t they do a toddler size). But the Raptor Centre is funded by donations – not the entrance fee – and the ice cream is obviously extra. Overall the £9 per head was not worth it. A walk and a picnic in one of the many heaths and woods that litter the south east of England would have been just as good.
Saturday 12 September 2009
BBC is about to open its iPlayer
The BBC is about to open its iPlayer technology to other broadcasters. The iPlayers success in the UK with consumers is unquestionable. It’s a good technology delivering quality content. On the other hand it is an ISP’s nightmare come true. Consumers are now down loading or streaming vast amounts of video over the internet. Business cases built on end users looking at web pages, even those rich with graphics images and audio would not have been too much of a problem. Video files and streams demand higher bandwidth.
There has been a bit of a yo-yo going on between where the bottle neck in the internet is for most of the life of the internet. Initially last mile connections into the home where too small, then the internet backbone then content servers, then back to the last mile etc etc. Backbone congestion gave rise around the 1990’s to the CDN, the Content Delivery Network. A way of getting video files to the end user without the content going across the internet for the vast amount of its journey from source to end user. Most of this was around events like music concerts, and sports finals rather than the distribution of regular TV programmes. The source of the content would pay a CDN provider so as to improve the end user experience. They would stay with the video longer (generally not full screen) see more “banner” advertising or buy the CD etc. More money from the end user more than paid for the services of the CDN. There were and still are some PayPerView and subscription video services but none have been a significant success to impact on the ISP.
You notice that the ISP took no part in this simply selling the end user the internet connection. However with the iPlayer in the UK the volume an constant nature of video means that ISP’s are being hit in two ways.
Video not only pushes up the bandwidth but also the total amount of traffic shipped. So ISPs are paying more for the likes of the BBC and ITV to deliver content to the end users. ITV gets increased advertising revenue (interestingly they make more money out of X factor online than they do from broadcasting it) but is costs the ISPs
Some ISP’s have, and are using “traffic shaping” reducing end users ability to access certain sites at peak times. No surprise that access the BBC site between 18:00 and 21:00 usually results in a slower connection with far more “buffering” messages than at off peak times.
ISP’s have a bit of a dilemma. The price for broadband is very competitive. ISP bundled in TV and mobile services to try and differentiate their offering but the broadband services are similar. So the ISP can’t charge the end user more for fear of losing customers to a competitor. If they do to much “traffic shaping” there customers may also walk to a competitor. One solution is that they charge the content owner. Content owners response is predictably hard ball and uses an instruction to take a sexual journey. So what is the ISP going to do – cut off the BBC web site or other who doesn’t pay.
All this is understandable and potentially manageable if you are just looking at the UK. What about content coming in from the US or Australia, India etc etc. It is too complicated for the ISPs to manage. From the content providers perspective it is equally too complicated they potentially have to deal with multiple ISPs.
A broker could sit in-between the two groups to aggregate content and ISP’s, but that has just added more cost. However if the CDN is also the broker and is able to remove cost elsewhere in the Mbit connection or the Gbyts shipped charges the exercise could be self funding. Another possibility is to insert targeted advertising. Targeting could use information about the way an end user is using the internet (specific profiling) or could be simple based on the time of day being used (statistical profiling). Advertisers could bid for the slot on the fly similar to the Google model.
Time will tell whether this or another solution is used but whatever, the rise of video on the internet needs to be paid for. The tension between the end user, the ISP and the content provider is set to rise and the opening of iPlayer is more fuel to that fire.
There has been a bit of a yo-yo going on between where the bottle neck in the internet is for most of the life of the internet. Initially last mile connections into the home where too small, then the internet backbone then content servers, then back to the last mile etc etc. Backbone congestion gave rise around the 1990’s to the CDN, the Content Delivery Network. A way of getting video files to the end user without the content going across the internet for the vast amount of its journey from source to end user. Most of this was around events like music concerts, and sports finals rather than the distribution of regular TV programmes. The source of the content would pay a CDN provider so as to improve the end user experience. They would stay with the video longer (generally not full screen) see more “banner” advertising or buy the CD etc. More money from the end user more than paid for the services of the CDN. There were and still are some PayPerView and subscription video services but none have been a significant success to impact on the ISP.
You notice that the ISP took no part in this simply selling the end user the internet connection. However with the iPlayer in the UK the volume an constant nature of video means that ISP’s are being hit in two ways.
- One they are struggling to balance users demands across what is ultimately a shared bandwidth. ISP had gambolled that not all end users would be using the internet at the same time. That is they charged 10 users for a 2Mbit connection (potentially 20Mbit peak demand) but only provided 8Mbit from the local exchange into the internet. If the total demand exceeded the 8Mbit then customers’ maximum speed was reduced to cope. In the same way your telephone provider couldn’t cope if everyone connected to the exchange picked up the phone at the same time. Luckily not everyone wants to make a transatlantic call at the same time as very few would make it. It is this telco mentality (not necessarily wrong in the beginning) that drove this business model. (to make the telephone analogy complete this is the connection charge or the potential to make a call)
- The second thing that ISP’s gambled on was that most people sleep, go to work or otherwise have a life outside the internet. How wrong can you be? Based on this assumption, they pay for Gbyts shipped (to continue the analogy with telephones this is the usage/call charges).
Video not only pushes up the bandwidth but also the total amount of traffic shipped. So ISPs are paying more for the likes of the BBC and ITV to deliver content to the end users. ITV gets increased advertising revenue (interestingly they make more money out of X factor online than they do from broadcasting it) but is costs the ISPs
Some ISP’s have, and are using “traffic shaping” reducing end users ability to access certain sites at peak times. No surprise that access the BBC site between 18:00 and 21:00 usually results in a slower connection with far more “buffering” messages than at off peak times.
ISP’s have a bit of a dilemma. The price for broadband is very competitive. ISP bundled in TV and mobile services to try and differentiate their offering but the broadband services are similar. So the ISP can’t charge the end user more for fear of losing customers to a competitor. If they do to much “traffic shaping” there customers may also walk to a competitor. One solution is that they charge the content owner. Content owners response is predictably hard ball and uses an instruction to take a sexual journey. So what is the ISP going to do – cut off the BBC web site or other who doesn’t pay.
All this is understandable and potentially manageable if you are just looking at the UK. What about content coming in from the US or Australia, India etc etc. It is too complicated for the ISPs to manage. From the content providers perspective it is equally too complicated they potentially have to deal with multiple ISPs.
A broker could sit in-between the two groups to aggregate content and ISP’s, but that has just added more cost. However if the CDN is also the broker and is able to remove cost elsewhere in the Mbit connection or the Gbyts shipped charges the exercise could be self funding. Another possibility is to insert targeted advertising. Targeting could use information about the way an end user is using the internet (specific profiling) or could be simple based on the time of day being used (statistical profiling). Advertisers could bid for the slot on the fly similar to the Google model.
Time will tell whether this or another solution is used but whatever, the rise of video on the internet needs to be paid for. The tension between the end user, the ISP and the content provider is set to rise and the opening of iPlayer is more fuel to that fire.
Sunday 6 September 2009
Over population
The world is over populated. To save resources, to save the planet, reduce the birth rate. I’d rather have one kid that could have a really good life than six that were going to struggle.
Why is no one saying this? I think it is money and the economy. More people = more houses, cars, TV sets, loans etc. Older people don’t buy the latest fashion, gadget etc. So much of what is being produced and consumed has a worth that evaporates in times of crisis.
Unlimited growth in the human population is not sustainable. Something has to be done sooner or later.
Why is no one saying this? I think it is money and the economy. More people = more houses, cars, TV sets, loans etc. Older people don’t buy the latest fashion, gadget etc. So much of what is being produced and consumed has a worth that evaporates in times of crisis.
Unlimited growth in the human population is not sustainable. Something has to be done sooner or later.
Education
Education is a fundamental activity that enables humans in particular to “advance”. By learning from what has gone before we do not have to rediscover. The alternative would be for each generation to start from the same point as the previous.
Apart from the élite that could read and right most of the world until very recently learnt in two ways. The main way was from their parents, often following in the same trade. The additions stories, travelling minstrels and players would bring news and new ideas from the outside world that would expand the horizon.
Formal education for the masses was gradually rolled out form 1700’s gathering pace during the industrial revolution. However, it was only with the invention of the printing press (1436) and the increased availability of books that changed things. Books, and the ability to read democratised education.
To access this medium required the ability to read. If your parents couldn’t read, you needed to be taught by someone else. That required formal education. So the western world has had large scale formal education for something around 300 years (probably less). In the early days the amount of formal educations was relatively low a few hours a week, maybe just a Sunday school and even then only for a few hours. Children still got most of their education from the adults in their family including their social and moral education.
As more and more time and years are spent in formal education the social moral education has increasingly come from other children of the same age. You may say the teachers give this but in reality they are only trying to control a class so they can teach a specific subject, maths, geography, physics etc. Most interaction is with other children. As I watch my grandchild (nearly two) I notice that when he is in nursery his development of speech and hand eye coordination is increases. That sounds like a good thing but is it? He is developing because he is in a competitive environment where he is vying for with the other children for attention. He is “learning to interact with other children”. Great for preparing him for school, but is that the right foundation?
The art of parenting and parental responsibility is something politicians say is missing, but the parents only see their kids for a few hours most days. Even at weekends they want to spend their time in the relatively familiar company of other kids, not their parents or grandparents. And there are other social pressures on people; work, mortgages etc, that make the time parents spend with their kids less and less.
Humans do adapt the change in increasing formal education is having the biggest effect on our society. I understand that giving everyone the best education and start in life is a noble endeavour. I also believe that children should spend more time with their elder family members to build up adult social skills. Unfortunately not all families are the same and some may suffer while others gain.However, I thing fixing families is going to deliver more benefits than fixing education in the long term
Apart from the élite that could read and right most of the world until very recently learnt in two ways. The main way was from their parents, often following in the same trade. The additions stories, travelling minstrels and players would bring news and new ideas from the outside world that would expand the horizon.
Formal education for the masses was gradually rolled out form 1700’s gathering pace during the industrial revolution. However, it was only with the invention of the printing press (1436) and the increased availability of books that changed things. Books, and the ability to read democratised education.
To access this medium required the ability to read. If your parents couldn’t read, you needed to be taught by someone else. That required formal education. So the western world has had large scale formal education for something around 300 years (probably less). In the early days the amount of formal educations was relatively low a few hours a week, maybe just a Sunday school and even then only for a few hours. Children still got most of their education from the adults in their family including their social and moral education.
As more and more time and years are spent in formal education the social moral education has increasingly come from other children of the same age. You may say the teachers give this but in reality they are only trying to control a class so they can teach a specific subject, maths, geography, physics etc. Most interaction is with other children. As I watch my grandchild (nearly two) I notice that when he is in nursery his development of speech and hand eye coordination is increases. That sounds like a good thing but is it? He is developing because he is in a competitive environment where he is vying for with the other children for attention. He is “learning to interact with other children”. Great for preparing him for school, but is that the right foundation?
The art of parenting and parental responsibility is something politicians say is missing, but the parents only see their kids for a few hours most days. Even at weekends they want to spend their time in the relatively familiar company of other kids, not their parents or grandparents. And there are other social pressures on people; work, mortgages etc, that make the time parents spend with their kids less and less.
Humans do adapt the change in increasing formal education is having the biggest effect on our society. I understand that giving everyone the best education and start in life is a noble endeavour. I also believe that children should spend more time with their elder family members to build up adult social skills. Unfortunately not all families are the same and some may suffer while others gain.However, I thing fixing families is going to deliver more benefits than fixing education in the long term
Sod the USA and sod the Libyans
Where was the Lockerbie bomb crime committed? When the bomb was planted or the bomb exploded? Would it have been less of a crime if the bomb had not gone off? The powers that be decided that the crime was when the bomb went off! They were more than happy for the trial to take place under Scottish law. This prevented the US or the UK from having to lock any criminals up. Locking terrorists up could make that country a target of any follow-up terrorist activity to release Mr Megrahi.
Regardless of any ulterior motive of the UK, US or Libyan government have for being upset or pleased about the decision the Scottish applied “their” law. Some countries may chose to judge other countries’ laws and say that the hanging, or stoning, of adulterous women is barbaric, or that chopping the hands of thieves off, or killing a murderer by lethal injection, or electrocution etc, is uncivilised. However, I don’t see the US taking much notice of external condemnation of their questionable laws.
The Scots have in their law the notion of compassion. No one seems to be saying that this is a bad thing, just that in this case they shouldn’t have applied it.
Wrong!
The law is the law and nobody should be above it, or beneath it. The decision was the right decision, made for the right reasons.
I honestly wish that US and UK had the moral fibre to stick to the principles. Maybe some need to change, but pretending to have one set and applying another, destroys the trust of the world’s citizens. Something Scotland didn’t do.
Regardless of any ulterior motive of the UK, US or Libyan government have for being upset or pleased about the decision the Scottish applied “their” law. Some countries may chose to judge other countries’ laws and say that the hanging, or stoning, of adulterous women is barbaric, or that chopping the hands of thieves off, or killing a murderer by lethal injection, or electrocution etc, is uncivilised. However, I don’t see the US taking much notice of external condemnation of their questionable laws.
The Scots have in their law the notion of compassion. No one seems to be saying that this is a bad thing, just that in this case they shouldn’t have applied it.
Wrong!
The law is the law and nobody should be above it, or beneath it. The decision was the right decision, made for the right reasons.
I honestly wish that US and UK had the moral fibre to stick to the principles. Maybe some need to change, but pretending to have one set and applying another, destroys the trust of the world’s citizens. Something Scotland didn’t do.
Tuesday 1 September 2009
TV executives are frogs
So James Murdock has a go at the BBC and Ofcom at 2009 Edinburgh TV Festival (the James MacTaggart Lecture). One thing you have to admit about Sky and the Murdocks is their consistency. At any conference where I have seen any exec from Sky speak that have not deviated from blaming regulation and the BBC for the problems of the industry.
The pace is heating up as newspapers (a Murdock interest) are starting to diminish in circulations and revenue. Ask yourself how many people you see under 30 buying a news paper compared to those that don’t. Now think back just 10 years and the trend is obvious. Suddenly the BBC is the reason that the newspapers can’t charge for new online. I say suddenly but that really means that the Murdocks now see online revenues as the way forward but realise that if they charge the customers will just go to a free service provider.
The BBC and Ofcom are part of the market and BSkyB needs to get used to it.
One of the things he says is wrong is central planning and limited choice. This from a media empire that is “controlled” by the head of News Corp!
On the other hand (as with most propaganda) there is an element of truth. The BBC does dominate online news and not just in the UK. It’s a respected non-sensational source of news. With breaking news it will not present speculation as fact and is consequentially slower the CNN and Sky News. But the real problem is news is a commodity with a very short shelf life. Murdock may say that TV regulation is based on spectrum scarcity and that there is no choice, but news scarcity and limited access is how the newspaper got so big and powerful.
Like magicians the aim is to misdirect you so you are not looking at what they are really doing.
Murdock says that we have a analogue thinking in a digital age but he then wants to limit and control and to commercialise the digital age when the digital age is about freedom and choice. Trying to put the gene back in the bottle is difficult if not impossible. While his analogy of TV executives as frogs in water gradually being heated is one of the most accurate I‘ve heard for some time.
The pace is heating up as newspapers (a Murdock interest) are starting to diminish in circulations and revenue. Ask yourself how many people you see under 30 buying a news paper compared to those that don’t. Now think back just 10 years and the trend is obvious. Suddenly the BBC is the reason that the newspapers can’t charge for new online. I say suddenly but that really means that the Murdocks now see online revenues as the way forward but realise that if they charge the customers will just go to a free service provider.
The BBC and Ofcom are part of the market and BSkyB needs to get used to it.
One of the things he says is wrong is central planning and limited choice. This from a media empire that is “controlled” by the head of News Corp!
On the other hand (as with most propaganda) there is an element of truth. The BBC does dominate online news and not just in the UK. It’s a respected non-sensational source of news. With breaking news it will not present speculation as fact and is consequentially slower the CNN and Sky News. But the real problem is news is a commodity with a very short shelf life. Murdock may say that TV regulation is based on spectrum scarcity and that there is no choice, but news scarcity and limited access is how the newspaper got so big and powerful.
Like magicians the aim is to misdirect you so you are not looking at what they are really doing.
Murdock says that we have a analogue thinking in a digital age but he then wants to limit and control and to commercialise the digital age when the digital age is about freedom and choice. Trying to put the gene back in the bottle is difficult if not impossible. While his analogy of TV executives as frogs in water gradually being heated is one of the most accurate I‘ve heard for some time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)