The Ten Myths of DAB

[teamsaint]

I see where you are coming from....you can't apply DRM (or charge) anything in the analogue domain!

(iPlayer has a form of embedded DRM in it in so far as anything you have downloaded to view at a later date will become unviewable after a certain date if that is what they wish. Just thought I'd mention that!)

Stuff here.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?3770-BBC-Digital-rights-Management&highlight=digital+rights+management

Beware if you don't believe anything that is printed in the guardian though !!

[Bryn]

I see where you are coming from....you can't apply DRM (or charge) anything in the analogue domain!

(iPlayer has a form of embedded DRM in it in so far as anything you have downloaded to view at a later date will become unviewable after a certain date if that is what they wish. Just thought I'd mention that!)

I won't go into details here but the embedded DRM used for the iPlayer is very easily circumvented at present. Since even the copy protection used for Blu-ray was cracked some time ago, Digital Rights Management is not a panacea for the rights holders.

[Resurrection Man]

Stuff here.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?3770-BBC-Digital-rights-Management&highlight=digital+rights+management

Beware if you don't believe anything that is printed in the guardian though !!

Interesting link, thanks,ts. I do remember the original reference in the forum to this but have to admit that I glossed over it at the time. Now reading that article (which seems perfectly reasonable from the Guardian (for once )) it simply confirms how much Ofcom are in the pay of both the BBC, the mobile companies and commercial sector. Ofcom should be disbanded and started afresh. Actually, why stop at Ofcom. I think that ALL the so-called Of's should, well, Foff to be honest. None of them actually seem to do very much other than support the status quo and vested interests. Wasn't the Coalition going to get rid of Quango's? Have any actually gone?

One keeps up the fight and, for the first time, I did have an objection regarding a mailshot from a company upheld by the ASA. So perseverance pays off. I'm just keeping a watching brief on all those adverts for DAB...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Well its the only thing I have talked about on this thread, so I can't understand why you are questioning what I said.
In any case, do you not think its pretty relevant to the big picture here?

Good for you, but you wrongly tried construe my position on DRM in #83.

As it is, on DRM: if the BBC wants to create a revenue stream through an implementation of DRM then they'll do it first with DTT as the technology is in place from broadcaster to receiver. There's no sign of them doing that, and we've had DTT for over 10 years. The commercials do use types of encryption on DTT and Satellite. That's perfectly OK by me. It allows me choice of what I buy, and the commercials make money, and thus profits, to sustain their business, including paying for the digital infrastructure. Further, I think DRM could actually be hugely useful if, say, ROH were to create it's own TV channel and I could pay for operas I wanted to watch. Of course, I doubt that'll happen via a wireless media, more likely internet.

I should go and look at the (allegedly redacted) PWC report to see if they've accounted for those potential income streams, but then, what's the point here . . .?

[teamsaint]

[QUOTE=An_Inspector_Calls;243900]Good for you, but you wrongly tried construe my position on DRM in #83.

As it is, on DRM: if the BBC wants to create a revenue stream through an implementation of DRM then they'll do it first with DTT as the technology is in place from broadcaster to receiver. There's no sign of them doing that, and we've had DTT for over 10 years. The commercials do use types of encryption on DTT and Satellite. That's perfectly OK by me. It allows me choice of what I buy, and the commercials make money, and thus profits, to sustain their business, including paying for the digital infrastructure. Further, I think DRM could actually be hugely useful if, say, ROH were to create it's own TV channel and I could pay for operas I wanted to watch. Of course, I doubt that'll happen via a wireless media, more likely internet.

I should go and look at the (allegedly redacted) PWC report to see if they've accounted for those potential income streams, but then, what's the point here . . .?[/QUOTE]

I certainly didn't "wrongly try to construe your position" at all. Just asked a question.

The point about DRM, as the research in the Guardian points out, is that the BBC is busy implementing DRM strategies, but as a public body is unwilling to tell us why. If they don't want people to draw their own conclusions they need to be more open. And long term, DRM will open up possibilities both of extra revenue streams(at somebody's expense) or of restricting access to content. This could, potentially, be quite sinister.

If you want to pay for every single piece of content every time you play it, and are happy to hand over yet more, and more sophisticated control to those with their fingers on the digital buttons, then good for you, (as you put it).

[Resurrection Man]

......

I should go and look at the (allegedly redacted) PWC report to see if they've accounted for those potential income streams, but then, what's the point here . . .?

I'll save you the trouble.

Here



and here



and here



and just exactly HOW did PwC arrive at this alleged benefit figure of £780 million?






and this is what Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall said : We understand that you commissioned a report from PWC last year into the costs and benefits of digital switchover in radio, but you didn’t publish it. We know, therefore, what we have learned from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport about what it said. It appears that it found, for example, that the benefits could – and I emphasise the word “could” – outweigh the costs by £437 million after 2026, but that conclusion is hedged about with quite a lot of caveats to do with what would have to happen in order for that good outcome to eventuate, and that if those things didn’t happen, then quite quickly you would get into a position where the costs would outweigh the benefits. Can you tell us a bit about that report? In particular, can you tell us why you haven’t published it? Do you think that, given what it appears to say – I choose my words carefully – about the constraints on potential for benefit, that it should have been available to inform the Government’s digital policy? ….. [edited]

Mr Peter Davies [Director of Radio Policy & Broadcast Licensing, Ofcom]: We were asked to commission it by the Government. We then commissioned it from PWC with a lot of input from various government departments and then submitted it to the Secretary of State.

Chairman: So you decided not to publish it.

Mr Stewart Purvis [Partner for Content & Standards, Ofcom]: …. [edited] On this particular occasion, it was decided in conjunction with the Department that work would be sent to the Department. Perhaps the most important thing is for Peter to respond to your characterisation of the work, but, in a sense, we have not hidden the piece of work. Indeed, I think it is now available to you. Is that right?

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: In, as they say, a redacted form.


Good enough for you?

[amateur51]

I'll save you the trouble.

Here



and here



and here



and just exactly HOW did PwC arrive at this alleged benefit figure of £780 million?






and this is what Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall said : We understand that you commissioned a report from PWC last year into the costs and benefits of digital switchover in radio, but you didn’t publish it. We know, therefore, what we have learned from the Department for Culture, Media & Sport about what it said. It appears that it found, for example, that the benefits could – and I emphasise the word “could” – outweigh the costs by £437 million after 2026, but that conclusion is hedged about with quite a lot of caveats to do with what would have to happen in order for that good outcome to eventuate, and that if those things didn’t happen, then quite quickly you would get into a position where the costs would outweigh the benefits. Can you tell us a bit about that report? In particular, can you tell us why you haven’t published it? Do you think that, given what it appears to say – I choose my words carefully – about the constraints on potential for benefit, that it should have been available to inform the Government’s digital policy? ….. [edited]

Mr Peter Davies [Director of Radio Policy & Broadcast Licensing, Ofcom]: We were asked to commission it by the Government. We then commissioned it from PWC with a lot of input from various government departments and then submitted it to the Secretary of State.

Chairman: So you decided not to publish it.

Mr Stewart Purvis [Partner for Content & Standards, Ofcom]: …. [edited] On this particular occasion, it was decided in conjunction with the Department that work would be sent to the Department. Perhaps the most important thing is for Peter to respond to your characterisation of the work, but, in a sense, we have not hidden the piece of work. Indeed, I think it is now available to you. Is that right?

Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: In, as they say, a redacted form.


Good enough for you?

Seems pretty clear to this bear of little brain, thanks RM

Over to you, AIC

[An_Inspector_Calls]

and just exactly HOW did PwC arrive at this alleged benefit figure of £780 million?

No idea. On page 2 of the 'redacted' report (how come it took me less than a minute to find it via Google again? Maybe the question and answer session you refer to happened in 2009, and it's now 2012 . . .) they mention an NPV of £437m (as did the good Baroness in 2009), not £780. Don't you think it's slightly odd that you're publishing copies of what you claim to be a redacted report freely in this thread?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

The point about DRM, as the research in the Guardian points out, is that the BBC is busy implementing DRM strategies, but as a public body is unwilling to tell us why. If they don't want people to draw their own conclusions they need to be more open. And long term, DRM will open up possibilities both of extra revenue streams(at somebody's expense) or of restricting access to content. This could, potentially, be quite sinister.

If you want to pay for every single piece of content every time you play it, and are happy to hand over yet more, and more sophisticated control to those with their fingers on the digital buttons, then good for you, (as you put it).

Your first paragraph is obvious and true. There's an interesting interesting debate to be had about any conflicts between funding through the licence fee and by subscription. That might be an increasingly relevant as the BBC's output is spread internationally (to non-licence-fee payers) via the internet. Perhaps it'll be a good thing for the BBC to be prepared? But linking that debate to the DAB/FM debate is stretching it a bit. If the issue raises its head, it'll be in the field of DTT not in radio.

I've never said anything at all about paying for ALL output, merely that I'd certainly welcome smaller players being able to enter the field of broadcasting. Examples of this are places like ROH, NT, Glyndebourne, even Bayreuth, opening up their output to subscription/paying customers - get out more, go to the Cineworld showing of Parsifal from the MET later this year. And what Cineworld are doing now, will be available in our homes before too much longer.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

No idea. On page 2 of the 'redacted' report (how come it took me less than a minute to find it via Google again? Maybe the question and answer session you refer to happened in 2009, and it's now 2012 . . .) they mention an NPV of £437m (as did the good Baroness in 2009), not £780. Don't you think it's slightly odd that you're publishing copies of what you claim to be a redacted report freely in this thread?

Ah, here we have it children: it's no longer redacted.

The government’s response to the Committee’s statement, published in June 2010, was:

“The Cost Benefit Analysis produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers, to accompany the work of the Digital Radio Working Group, was widely distributed amongst broadcasters and consumer representatives. However, there were technical difficulties which prevented the initial publication of the report on the DCMS website; these were rectified and the report published in February 2010.”

the report published in February 2010

[amateur51]

Ah, here we have it children: it's no longer redacted.


the report published in February 2010

Any chance of a link, oh shouty one?

[Resurrection Man]

No idea. On page 2 of the 'redacted' report (how come it took me less than a minute to find it via Google again? Maybe the question and answer session you refer to happened in 2009, and it's now 2012 . . .) they mention an NPV of £437m (as did the good Baroness in 2009), not £780. Don't you think it's slightly odd that you're publishing copies of what you claim to be a redacted report freely in this thread?

What on earth are you going on about? Sarcasm rarely is successful.

Maybe I can do better? If you scroll up the previous page and look at the bottommost image there is a table. And on this table is a column. This column says NPV millions 2009. Now look to your left and there is another heading called Incremental Benefit...with me so far? Now look down that column and, gosh, what do I see? A figure of £780 million against DRWG policy. Clear now?

[Resurrection Man]

Any chance of a link, oh shouty one?

Thank you for reminding me, Ams. I made a formal request to see a copy of the unredacted version and was refused.

He's probably referring to a completely different document. <doh>

EDIT: And still waiting for an explanation from our economics Maestro as to how someone without a TV licence is actually paying to listen to the radio. Bit beyond me, that one.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

What on earth are you going on about? Sarcasm rarely is successful.

Maybe I can do better? If you scroll up the previous page and look at the bottommost image there is a table. And on this table is a column. This column says NPV millions 2009. Now look to your left and there is another heading called Incremental Benefit...with me so far? Now look down that column and, gosh, what do I see? A figure of £780 million against DRWG policy. Clear now?

As I said, in #98, on page 2, in the main summary, PWC state an NPV of £437m, as did your Baroness in the Parliamnetary debate. The number you're quoting is one of many discussed in the PWC, some referring to different sceanrios (as I supercilliously pointed out in #11), some referring to different incomes streams. Figure 2 of that report shows the variability of the various income and cost streams. The most important figure in the published PWC report is the £437m on page 2. Clear now?

I answered your point about radio listeners without TVs not contributing to paying for the service in #81 - to the effect that the numbers involved are piddling. There's no economic merit in further work.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Any chance of a link, oh shouty one?

http://www.google.co.uk/