[lee92]

Hi

If the BBC stopped hosting all its video files on its own servers and paying Akamai and whatever CDN networks it used to cache them, it would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds of license fee money.

They could opt out of advertising being displayed on the videos completely. I believe Google would easily absorb the whole operation smoothly, the only thing that would change would be the video player on the iplayer page would be a youtube player as you see everywhere.

The bottom line would be massive cost savings for the BBC.

What do you guys think.

[MJH1962]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee92

Hi

If the BBC stopped hosting all its video files on its own servers and paying Akamai and whatever CDN networks it used to cache them, it would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds of license fee money.

They could opt out of advertising being displayed on the videos completely. I believe Google would easily absorb the whole operation smoothly, the only thing that would change would be the video player on the iplayer page would be a youtube player as you see everywhere.

The bottom line would be massive cost savings for the BBC.

What do you guys think.

An absurd suggestion.

[Tom2023]

I don't pay the TV tax so couldn't careless what they waste your money on

[ovbg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee92

Hi

If the BBC stopped hosting all its video files on its own servers and paying Akamai and whatever CDN networks it used to cache them, it would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds of license fee money.

They could opt out of advertising being displayed on the videos completely. I believe Google would easily absorb the whole operation smoothly, the only thing that would change would be the video player on the iplayer page would be a youtube player as you see everywhere.

The bottom line would be massive cost savings for the BBC.

What do you guys think.

Why don't you ask 4oD if it works. They have both their Youtube player as well as spending quite a fair sum on their own, and which one do most people use?

It is an interesting idea, but I don't think it would work. For a start, the Youtube interface is shocking in comparison to iPlayer's. Second, how would they achieve offline downloads (with their DRM)?

You know, the BBC iPlayer is actually the benchmark for FTA and/or public television for the entire world. There are plenty of other services out there, but so far none of the FTA channels have anything close to what BBC's iPlayer provides.

Be proud of what you have, no one else anywhere in the world is as lucky.

[td1983]

It would most probably constitute free advertising of YouTube, which as you know the BBC is forbidden to do because of the way they're publicly funded.

[DRHOWELLS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by td1983

It would most probably constitute free advertising of YouTube, which as you know the BBC is forbidden to do because of the way they're publicly funded.

Agreed. The BBC Trust would never allow this.

[The Phazer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lee92

Hi

If the BBC stopped hosting all its video files on its own servers and paying Akamai and whatever CDN networks it used to cache them, it would save hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds of license fee money.

They could opt out of advertising being displayed on the videos completely. I believe Google would easily absorb the whole operation smoothly, the only thing that would change would be the video player on the iplayer page would be a youtube player as you see everywhere.

The bottom line would be massive cost savings for the BBC.

What do you guys think.

I think you don't really know much about how it works.

And I think it would cost more in third party licensing costs than the BBC would save.

And I think it would be a breach of European state aid law.

[noise747]

So they would go from paying one overseas company to another. Fantastic idea and we can have Google spying as well.

Not that I pay the BBC, so it makes no odds to me now, they already wasted millions, so let them carry on for all I care.

[Sue_Aitch]

BBC's and BBC America's Youtube Channels already exist. Why would the BBC Trust sanction such a move as the OP suggests is beyond my imagination, and i have a pretty good imagination.

[barbeler]

I'm getting increasingly disappointed with the iPlayer as there seems to be Hairy Bikers and crap quiz shows all over the place and very little that is actually worth watching. Perhaps it's simply a reflection on the dumbing down of the BBC content.

[ovbg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by barbeler

I'm getting increasingly disappointed with the iPlayer as there seems to be Hairy Bikers and crap quiz shows all over the place and very little that is actually worth watching. Perhaps it's simply a reflection on the dumbing down of the BBC content.

I guess you skip the incredible documentaries that the BBC broadcast then?

[MeMeMeI]

I wonder if the different members of Freeview and Freesat with their own players could no work more together and as a whole maybe get better terms from anyone hosting their files. I often think why so many players, why not have one iplayer you select the channel on, just as you do with either your TV or Set top box?

[ovbg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MeMeMeI

I wonder if the different members of Freeview and Freesat with their own players could no work more together and as a whole maybe get better terms from anyone hosting their files. I often think why so many players, why not have one iplayer you select the channel on, just as you do with either your TV or Set top box?

You mean like YouView?

[MeMeMeI]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovbg

You mean like YouView?

Not exactly I meant on the normal Freeveiw boxes with the iplayer built in and a Lan connection

[Aye Up]

To be honest it wouldn't save the Beeb much if any money at all. The reason why the main broadcasters maintain and continue to invest in their own catchup is it allows them to control content while serving ads where need be. It means they are not splitting the ad revenue with Youtube or any other third party. Our broadcasters much as we may dislike some of the crap on tv are class leading. Its only right they should control how its distributed. I do believe the BBC has reciprocal distribution arrangements with the major ISPs so the content is mirrored on their networks saving on bandwidth. I don't believe akamai is used for everything the BBC puts up on iplayer. We should consider ourselves lucky really....catchup tv is available across most platforms and is accessible for those that want it. Our broadcasters have also pooled resources on occasion to enhance their online offerings.

So will it save money....no as the BBC would then have to renegotiate all of the content rights given how open youtube is. This would be expensive and would also result in some iplayer youtube content being slowed down to a lower quality. You will generally find all the UK isps have a good arrangement with our broadcasters which enables the majority of content to flow without restriction. You need only look at youtube on virgin media to see my point.

[derek500]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aye Up

To be honest it wouldn't save the Beeb much if any money at all. The reason why the main broadcasters maintain and continue to invest in their own catchup is it allows them to control content while serving ads where need be.

With Sky's On Demand, the content of the four main PSB catch up services are on Sky's servers.

This allows for ad free content on ITV and C4 (not sure about C5) and broadcast quality 1080i HD for BBC iPlayerand and C5.

With Demand 5 even shows that are on SD broadcast channels 5US and 5* are available.in HD.

[ovbg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by derek500

With Sky's On Demand, the content of the four main PSB catch up services are on Sky's servers.

This allows for ad free content on ITV and C4 (not sure about C5) and broadcast quality 1080i HD for BBC iPlayerand and C5.

With Demand 5 even shows that are on SD broadcast channels 5US and 5* are available.in HD.

True, although that is behind a pay-wall.

Much like Hulu Plus then in the US, where they aggregate various network's catch-up services (to a point)

The pros are that you have many shows from different broadcasters all in the one place (though not everything), and Hulu Plus is then responsible for offering the good platform support.

On the other side, this costs money for the viewer as they have to make money out of this (whilst paying the broadcasters to stream their content), they also have to put ads on as well (though not many) to help fund it.


But basically it is possible behind a pay-wall, but could it work for free?