There might not be a necessity to do it at all. I cannot imagine hoardes of licensee's cancelling their TVL as they can watch the iPlayer for free.
That is the proposition. If you read this and other threads, you will see a variety of opinions on the matter of usage now and its potential growth in the future. Even the BBC Trust commented on it in their review of the LF (saying that a future law change might be necessary).
I would guess that when the iPlayer was first introduced, nobody knew how popular it would become which might be why some form of user access/screening was not built in. Perhaps if it was built in from day 1, it would not be popular at all.
It could have been built-in (at minimal cost) and switched on at a later date.
I'm not sure that the BBC's desire for iPlayer to be popular is that relevant, TBH. It does seem a slightly contradictory argument that they *should* spend money on iPlayer, instead of programmes; but *not* spend money on iPlayer security, instead of programmes.
I think most people who have used services or content of value on the web know that they will normally be required to register. I don't see iPlayer as any different to that.
Yes, I was told to behave in accordance with his perception of what I should be doing, or I would remain on ignore.
I think we're in danger of dragging the thread off-topic.
If you would like to discuss forum ettiquette on a new thread, I would be happy to do so, as long as the discussion remains relatively polite, respectful and constructive.
Not in the context of the discussion we were having.
Ah, sorry, so we are having a theoretical discussion rather than one rooted in the practicalities of the real world and real world business economics, where any real world requirements are ignored.
How would you enforce that
Simple (as stated) not not automatically mean fully enforcible. But yes, it would still have issues, and it would still have areas that would be difficult to enforce (just as there are those same issues with the existing LF enforcement).
We agree on that.
And no, I am not contradicting myself.
Well, you do seem to be supporting the concept of it having to be cost-effective. And this is where cost benefit analysis comes in (which you have said is not relevant to the context of this discussion). so there is a contradiction there ,as I see it. But that's another matter.
It could have been built-in (at minimal cost) and switched on at a later date.
I'm not sure that the BBC's desire for iPlayer to be popular is that relevant, TBH. It does seem a slightly contradictory argument that they *should* spend money on iPlayer, instead of programmes; but *not* spend money on iPlayer security, instead of programmes.
I think most people who have used services or content of value on the web know that they will normally be required to register. I don't see iPlayer as any different to that.
We are back on minimal cost again?
The reason I mention popularity is not to suggest that the BBC wanted it to be popular, but because if nobody used it then there is little point in locking it down or investing further in it.
I could see some users complaining that they have a TV License and are still expected to register for it.
The reason I mention popularity is not to suggest that the BBC wanted it to be popular, but because if nobody used it then there is little point in locking it down or investing further in it.
Hmmm... I thought lots of people were using it. No one knows how many of those are doing so with/without a licence, nor what proportion of live stream users are with/without a licence.
Actually, I will raise an FOI and ask the BBC if they have researched this.
I could see some users complaining that they have a TV License and are still expected to register for it.
Really?
Some people really do want to have their cake, keep it all to themselves and complain about the icing, don't they?
Who said that? I thought the general point was that it has the potential to become a problem and that people object to others "freeloading" by the use of it.
Ah, sorry, so we are having a theoretical discussion rather than one rooted in the practicalities of the real world and real world business economics, where any real world requirements are ignored.
We can do either. But crossing the streams will lead to confusion.
Simple (as stated) not not automatically mean fully enforcible. But yes, it would still have issues, and it would still have areas that would be difficult to enforce (just as there are those same issues with the existing LF enforcement).
That sounds like quite a vague response. Let's be specific: how do you think it would/could be enforced? Do you envisage "broadband detector vans", and if so, is there any evidence that such a thing is possible, within the real-world constraints of technology and personal privacy?
Well, you do seem to be supporting the concept of it having to be cost-effective.
It depends what you mean by "cost-effective". We are dealing with deterrent from crime, and as Dazinho said, even if people are deterred/prevented from this offence, it doesn't necessarily mean that more money will flow to the BBC.
And this is where cost benefit analysis comes in (which you have said is not relevant to the context of this discussion). so there is a contradiction there ,as I see it. But that's another matter.
Yes, as I said, I guessed that someone would say that. :rolleyes:
I agree that the principle of CBA is relevant to any project.
We can speculate about how such an exercise might be conducted in this case, and there are non-cash benefits and dis-benefits that would have to be considered, too. So a straight cash-based CBA may not be appropriate or relevant to this specific case.
In terms of the original basic/theoretical proposition that iPlayer lockdown would be "cheap and easy" to do, CBA is not relevant, because the proposition of "cheap and easy" comes before a detailed analysis.
In terms of the original basic/theoretical proposition that iPlayer lockdown would be "cheap and easy" to do, CBA is not relevant.
CBA is always relevant. It determines the economic viability of a project. It is also an extermely good tool to prevent scope-creep.
Assuming the BBC did a CBA when they first started development of the iPlayer, they may well have included locking it down in the project. This is speculation - I really don't know.
Because, as I said and even YOU said, it is of little value.
I think you'll find that I said (or meant) that baseless speculation is of little value.
Secondly because you invariably use it in a negative sense to support your anti BBC agenda.
You mean I use it to support my posts in a legitimate way?
I don't have an "anti-BBC agenda", BTW, I have an "anti-abuse of innocent people by 'TVL'/BBC agenda". I also have a "pro-progressive taxation ethos" and a set of "BBC content/strategy/size/mission/cost/attitude concerns".
In principle, yes. In the context of the original theoretical discussion, not so much. Which is the point I was making.
Assuming the BBC did a CBA when they first started development of the iPlayer, they may well have included locking it down in the project. This is speculation - I really don't know.
In principle, yes. In the context of the original theoretical discussion, not so much. Which is the point I was making.
The point I have been making is that there is often a lot more to these projects than first appear therefore to say that something will be cheap and easy is not necessarily true.
Therefore we cannot say that a CBA is not required.
In principle, yes. In the context of the original theoretical discussion, not so much. Which is the point I was making.
I see.
CBA is always relevant.
The context of the original discussion was
“Since more than 97% of UK households already have TV sets, TV sales have increased over recent years, and estimated licence fee evasion is very low, the vast majority of people watching TV on computers or mobiles will be covered by the TV Licence they already have."
So actually very much so. No point in spending money on soemthing that isnt really required at the moment.
Yes, it was, as I have not given it a great deala of thought.
[ Let's be specific: how do you think it would/could be enforced? Do you envisage "broadband detector vans",
No, more likely it just closes an existing loophole somewhat (where some closure is better than the current situation).
and if so, is there any evidence that such a thing is possible, within the real-world constraints of technology and personal privacy?
Sorry, i thought that this discussion was in the theoretical world. Have you crossed streams, because it's confusing me now.
But the real-world answer is no, there is no technology that i am aware of. So, if it is unenforceable, then it is pointless even considering it, yes?
It depends what you mean by "cost-effective". We are dealing with deterrent from crime, and as Dazinho said, even if people are deterred/prevented from this offence, it doesn't necessarily mean that more money will flow to the BBC.
My concern is what is due to the BBC is sent to the BBC, not whether we deter or catch criminal behaviour. the only real way to achieve this is to have everyone with a unique userid/password, and make parents directly responsible for the actions and activities of the children and the devices that their children use. Such an approach would be draconian, and would be likely to cause consternation amongst libertarians. And would be likely to be the Poll Tax of the generation.
So that's the theoretical world, the real world would suggest that such a draconian move would be grossly disproportionate, and might involve the spending of considerable sums of money that we don't have in order to tackle a problem that is very small (albeit one which will grow over time). And one that would, in all likelihood, result in the ultimate downfall of the Government at the next election, so it would never happen.
In terms of the original basic/theoretical proposition that iPlayer lockdown would be "cheap and easy" to do,
And as I said, "cheap and easy" is relative, and as neither you or I are aware of the infrastructure that the BBC has (or uses), and how their internal IT processes are structured, you have nothing to relate it to, What is "cheap and easy" for one business might not be so for another, even those operating in the same business sector, or dealing with the same sizes of databases, record ageing or changing 9as i said earlier). But then again, if this is still the theoretical world, this does not come into play.
CBA is not relevant, because the proposition of "cheap and easy" comes before a detailed analysis.
Ah, so "cheap and easy" is really shorthand for "back of a **** packet" proposal (or one written on a table napkin). and we all know how realistic those sorts of ideas turn out to be! And this is where CBA is always relevant, as the "back of a **** packet" proposals that are nowhere near practical nor likely or outwardly cost-effective will never make it as far as a detailed proposal (and thus a CBA). And any initial proposal will always have some degree of CBA applied to it in order to determine if it warrants further discussion or planning (even if that CBA is at a very rough level to justify further work).
I think you'll find that I said (or meant) that baseless speculation is of little value.
You mean I use it to support my posts in a legitimate way?
I don't have an "anti-BBC agenda", BTW, I have an "anti-abuse of innocent people by 'TVL'/BBC agenda". I also have a "pro-progressive taxation ethos" and a set of "BBC content/strategy/size/mission/cost/attitude concerns".
So what was the basis for your negative speculation about the BBC having "ulterior motives" earlier.
No, using it to imply or insuate a negative issue that doesnt actually exist. All to create a negative impression.
Really?
The fact that you have said that
. you have antithipy toward the BBC
. you "rejoiced" at the current cuts
. stated you want the funding cut by 75%
. claim bias yet cannot provide one single example
. invariably use the forum to comment negatively on the BBC
. erroneously claim that other funding methods that maintain funding such as council tax cant work
. erroneously claim entertainment is not part of the BBC remit
. erroneously claim the BBC are breaching human rights
Comments
T&Cs within forum T&Cs, now there's a new one.
No, it is reality. Your speculation can be referenced and quoted if necessary.
Its not allegedly. It can be referenced and quoted.
No, you frequently do it. It can be referenced and quoted.
It could have been built-in (at minimal cost) and switched on at a later date.
I'm not sure that the BBC's desire for iPlayer to be popular is that relevant, TBH. It does seem a slightly contradictory argument that they *should* spend money on iPlayer, instead of programmes; but *not* spend money on iPlayer security, instead of programmes.
I think most people who have used services or content of value on the web know that they will normally be required to register. I don't see iPlayer as any different to that.
I'm thinking that it is the life-blood of any forum, but I stand to be corrected.
No, just the forum Ts & Cs. You know the ones...
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/announcement.php?f=249
Yes, I was told to behave in accordance with his perception of what I should be doing, or I would remain on ignore.
I think we're in danger of dragging the thread off-topic.
If you would like to discuss forum ettiquette on a new thread, I would be happy to do so, as long as the discussion remains relatively polite, respectful and constructive.
Simple (as stated) not not automatically mean fully enforcible. But yes, it would still have issues, and it would still have areas that would be difficult to enforce (just as there are those same issues with the existing LF enforcement).
Well, you do seem to be supporting the concept of it having to be cost-effective. And this is where cost benefit analysis comes in (which you have said is not relevant to the context of this discussion). so there is a contradiction there ,as I see it. But that's another matter.
We are back on minimal cost again?
The reason I mention popularity is not to suggest that the BBC wanted it to be popular, but because if nobody used it then there is little point in locking it down or investing further in it.
I could see some users complaining that they have a TV License and are still expected to register for it.
How do you know this?
Never said it was against the rules. Why did you say that?
I can however point out and quote where even YOU said it was of dubious value. Which without any supporting evidence it obviously is of little value.
So you contradict yourself again.
Actually, I will raise an FOI and ask the BBC if they have researched this.
Really?
Some people really do want to have their cake, keep it all to themselves and complain about the icing, don't they?
Because, as I said and even YOU said, it is of little value.
Secondly because you invariably use it in a negative sense to support your anti BBC agenda.
Who said that? I thought the general point was that it has the potential to become a problem and that people object to others "freeloading" by the use of it.
That sounds like quite a vague response. Let's be specific: how do you think it would/could be enforced? Do you envisage "broadband detector vans", and if so, is there any evidence that such a thing is possible, within the real-world constraints of technology and personal privacy?
It depends what you mean by "cost-effective". We are dealing with deterrent from crime, and as Dazinho said, even if people are deterred/prevented from this offence, it doesn't necessarily mean that more money will flow to the BBC.
Yes, as I said, I guessed that someone would say that. :rolleyes:
I agree that the principle of CBA is relevant to any project.
We can speculate about how such an exercise might be conducted in this case, and there are non-cash benefits and dis-benefits that would have to be considered, too. So a straight cash-based CBA may not be appropriate or relevant to this specific case.
In terms of the original basic/theoretical proposition that iPlayer lockdown would be "cheap and easy" to do, CBA is not relevant, because the proposition of "cheap and easy" comes before a detailed analysis.
They absolutely do yes
Lots of people may be using the BBC iPlayer now, but when it was launched it was an unknown quantity - who knew how popular it would become.
CBA is always relevant. It determines the economic viability of a project. It is also an extermely good tool to prevent scope-creep.
Assuming the BBC did a CBA when they first started development of the iPlayer, they may well have included locking it down in the project. This is speculation - I really don't know.
You mean I use it to support my posts in a legitimate way?
I don't have an "anti-BBC agenda", BTW, I have an "anti-abuse of innocent people by 'TVL'/BBC agenda". I also have a "pro-progressive taxation ethos" and a set of "BBC content/strategy/size/mission/cost/attitude concerns".
I see.
The point I have been making is that there is often a lot more to these projects than first appear therefore to say that something will be cheap and easy is not necessarily true.
Therefore we cannot say that a CBA is not required.
Obviously people complained about you to the mods. Unless you are saying that they arbitarily banned you for no reason.
CBA is always relevant.
The context of the original discussion was
“Since more than 97% of UK households already have TV sets, TV sales have increased over recent years, and estimated licence fee evasion is very low, the vast majority of people watching TV on computers or mobiles will be covered by the TV Licence they already have."
So actually very much so. No point in spending money on soemthing that isnt really required at the moment.
No, more likely it just closes an existing loophole somewhat (where some closure is better than the current situation).
Sorry, i thought that this discussion was in the theoretical world. Have you crossed streams, because it's confusing me now.
But the real-world answer is no, there is no technology that i am aware of. So, if it is unenforceable, then it is pointless even considering it, yes?
My concern is what is due to the BBC is sent to the BBC, not whether we deter or catch criminal behaviour. the only real way to achieve this is to have everyone with a unique userid/password, and make parents directly responsible for the actions and activities of the children and the devices that their children use. Such an approach would be draconian, and would be likely to cause consternation amongst libertarians. And would be likely to be the Poll Tax of the generation.
So that's the theoretical world, the real world would suggest that such a draconian move would be grossly disproportionate, and might involve the spending of considerable sums of money that we don't have in order to tackle a problem that is very small (albeit one which will grow over time). And one that would, in all likelihood, result in the ultimate downfall of the Government at the next election, so it would never happen.
And as I said, "cheap and easy" is relative, and as neither you or I are aware of the infrastructure that the BBC has (or uses), and how their internal IT processes are structured, you have nothing to relate it to, What is "cheap and easy" for one business might not be so for another, even those operating in the same business sector, or dealing with the same sizes of databases, record ageing or changing 9as i said earlier). But then again, if this is still the theoretical world, this does not come into play.
Ah, so "cheap and easy" is really shorthand for "back of a **** packet" proposal (or one written on a table napkin). and we all know how realistic those sorts of ideas turn out to be!
So what was the basis for your negative speculation about the BBC having "ulterior motives" earlier.
No, using it to imply or insuate a negative issue that doesnt actually exist. All to create a negative impression.
Really?
The fact that you have said that
. you have antithipy toward the BBC
. you "rejoiced" at the current cuts
. stated you want the funding cut by 75%
. claim bias yet cannot provide one single example
. invariably use the forum to comment negatively on the BBC
. erroneously claim that other funding methods that maintain funding such as council tax cant work
. erroneously claim entertainment is not part of the BBC remit
. erroneously claim the BBC are breaching human rights
seems to suggest otherwise.