Fifth Decade

Is Spooks one of the best TV series ever?

BBC1’s immensely fascinating insight into the world of counter espionage, as carried out by Her Majesties Secret Service in the guise of MI5, has an edge of reality that is both believeable, and reassuring at the same time. Certainly it makes one proud to be British, knowing such people carry out such tasks in such a selfless way. And relatively unthanked too.

Well, maybe they get an MBE here, a CBE there, maybe the Directorship of a QUANGO or so - or even a career in politics, as the last head of MI5 has only recently embarked upon.

Whatever, the program catches the reality of life as a spy in the same way that the Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister series’ both did for the civil servant/elected representative dynamic.

You get the feeling that these stories really happened, or could have happened. Strangely, it makes me like the US more too. Sure, they have an iffy President at the moment, but I don’t believe for a moment that all US secret service people think like he does. First of all they are far more patriotic (they served their country, George Bush never did) and secondly, they are far more intelligent. They just have to carry out some rather stupid orders at times.
Same for the MI5 staff. They aren’t stupid. And Spooks really shows that.

So, if you know someone from the secret services, pat them on the back for me. Tell them the public do appreciate their sacrifice, even though we cannot understand their burdens. We may even criticise the outcomes of their actions from time to time, but mostly, we are so glad they are there, protecting us.

The only thing I wonder about though, is when Harry says he believes in protecting “this country” which exact idea of this country does he mean? Does he mean the current Government (whichever one is in power right now) or does he mean the system of Parliamentary democracy with a Monarch as Head of State, or some private ideal?

Makes you think, doesn’t it?

It isn’t often I’m surprised these days. But just occasionally, every now and then, it suddenly hits me.

This evening I was watching as I often do “This Week” hosted by Andrew Neil, ex-editor of the Sunday Times, with regular participants ex-MP Michael Portillo and current MP Diane Abbott. The guest I found most interesting was surprisingly Katie Melua, a singer whose CD I coincidentally bought recently without knowing anything more about her (I’d heard her played on one of the ad-free, talk free, Swiss radio stations, either Radio Swiss Jazz or Radio Swiss Pop and so bought the CD online there and then).

No, this isn’t some fan mail about some sexy, good looking young singer who’s on a roll, after all, This Week is a politics show - and a good one for the most part. Although of course, she is all of the above too.

What was particularly interesting was what Miss Melua had to say. She’s a very bright girl with some very good ideas. Well, she’s a Doctor’s daughter. She also happens to be Georgian, an immigrant of 15 years into the UK which she arrived in at the age of 8. Her English is now perfect, and she has just taken on British Citizenship, which she is clearly very proud of. Her praise of Britain was great to listen to. If only more Britons spoke like that about their country!

The discussion was on immigration, Britishness, and integration. Katie said there was not enough teaching of or resources for, the teaching of English to older and younger new immigrants but perhaps too much political correctness in England when she arrived compared to her home country Georgia - or even to her first British home in Northern Ireland during the troubles where she had to learn Irish dancing and how to play the tin whistle, a complete contrast to England where nothing specifically British or English was required of her; Diane Abbot said the British tend to be most British when they are showing everyone how little British they actually are; Michael Portillo said in the fifties Britons were last proud to be British, while Andrew Neil in turn egged them on, or over-egged things as the flow demanded.

Then it hit me: none of these commentators, talking about Britishness, were actually English! Well, not completely. Katie Melua is a first generation immigrant from Eastern Europe. Diane Abbott’s parents came from Jamaica. Michael Portillo is half Spanish. And Andrew Neil is a Scot!

Now I’ve seen it all. Britain clearly is a most cosmopolitan society. And do you know what? It’s a lot richer because of that. The discussion was interesting, well-argued, stimulating and well researched. People with real experiences and relevant ideas came together without any particular cross to bear or chip on their shoulders, and although the discussion was short, it was very satisfying to listen to.

Well done the “This Week” team. Now I really have seen it all…

For some reason (no Newsnight on tonight according to the BBC2 website which showed the Newsnight Review program twice) I watched ITV News tonight, straight after having already watched BBC News, my standard. What a difference - and not a good one. Of course, ITV is a commercial station, but I had not idea it was quite so sensationalist.

Here is how the two News programs ran the story about the unsuccessful car bombs left in London on Thursday night:

The flavour of the BBC News report

Last night two car bombs were successfuly disarmed by security forces in Central London. This evening it was already business as usual as Londoners went back to the West End intent on celebrating the weekend. Everybody was calm, those interviewed said it wasn’t going to bother them. The reporter said most people seemed to be treating it as just another inconvenience that delays the buses and tubes (which is probably exactly how we Brits do treat things like this).

The flavour of the ITV News report

Shock! Horror! Two unexploded Baghdad style car bombs disrupted London today. Police cordoned off the centre of London after the killer bombs were found near Trafalgar Square and Downing Street. If they had gone off hundreds could have died. Imagine how awful this could have been! This could have been London’s worst terrorist attack! Many people out to enjoy themselves could have died! Look at all the nails I have in my hands next to these petrol and gas canisters in a car that looks like the one the bombers tried to murder hundreds of people with! Imagine what the nails could have done, killing and maiming innocent people like you, and me! Every reporter they had on the story said exactly the same thing - about what could have happened rather than what did happen. (They forgot to add that an asteroid could have landed on the Capital today that could have ended all life on the planet, propelled by an evil Empire of insect like aliens who could have fed on the corpses of millions of victims and the few survivors who would be writhing in agony as they were eaten alive).

Well, I think ITV played right into the terrorists hands there. Terrorism only works when you allow yourself to be scared into ways of living that you would not choose if you were not scared.

The BBC on the other hand were calm, professional, factual, truthful, and didn’t embellish the truth with wild speculations and over-descriptive scaremongering as ITV had done. The ITV report was pathetic.

To be fair, the ITV London News report that followed the main ITV news was a lot better. In this they actually said much the same as the BBC had done, concentrating on the reality of people just getting on with life and not really being bothered. In fact they even said that while the terrorists had been unsuccessful in scaring people off the streets, a rainstorm that settled in for the evening cleared people from the streets later on in the evening. This provided the scenes of empty (but wet) streets that the main ITV news ran with commentary saying the emptiness had been caused by the terrorists. Most irresponsible.

ITV - Whoever the editor for the main ITV news was tonight should be sacked or sent to report from Gaza. Tonight’s ITV news was the worst piece of journalism I have seen for as long as I can remember. Not only was it unpatriotic, scaremongering and wrong, it was also untruthful and deceiving. Now that’s just not right.

BBC - you certainly have the best News service. Keep up the good work!

Note: I have tried to capture the flavour of the various news bulletins through parody and descriptive prose, rater than through quoting anything that was actually said. However, it is clear that the thrust of the ITV story was to cause fear and didn’t worry if such fear might create anti-muslim feeling (isn’t there a law against this?). The thrust of the BBC report was to report the actual events calmly and accurately, with no overlay of “we want to scare you”.

Of course it’s a fix. We always knew that. Scandinavia votes for Scandinavia. Moldova votes for Romania, Romania votes for Moldova. And the Eastern Block? It’s almost a block vote… Maybe they should call it the East-European Song Contest next time.

The (currently named) Eurovision Song Contest has always plagued me. When I lived with my parents it was one of the most important programmes of the year for my mother to watch. I managed to escape it for a few years at University, but now it’s my girlfriend who can’t miss it. So I sit there, suffering. But like Terry Wogan, I don’t do it silently. I mean, there’s just so many opportunities to take the piss out of the contestants!

This year there were no Western European countries in the Top Ten, so apart from Germany, France and Britain turning up in the final next time automatically (because they basically fund the whole thing) all the other Western European countries will have to qualify in the semi-final. Which means they won’t get through because of the large number of Eastern European countries who block vote - or even have the government owned media invent the votes, they’re so “politically correct” - in an East-European autocratic kind of way.

So, it looks like Western Europe will be frozen out of the running for the foreseeable future. Until the organisers have had as much as they can take of non-Western hospitality and change the rules that is. And they do need changing.

It’s improved tremendously since the BBC’s Terry Wogan’s been the compere though. His wit and charm have enlivened many an otherwise tedious and boring evening, although he was a bit tame this year I thought. Probably been warned about what he said about other countries’ entries. He summed it up well this year though “It’s been a great evening - not musically - but it’s been a great spectacle…”

Isn’t it amazing how many people are willing to make a spectacle of themselves?

First thing you have to understand is that most people believe the BBC to be the de rigeur news organisation in the world, compelled by its Charter to be unbiased politically, economically, and in fact in all areas.

But when it comes to Microsoft, the BBC does seem to have quite a few MS fanboys in its technical department. Not surprising when you read stuff like “Bumbling BBC gives away millions to Microsoft with exclusive 2 year viewer lock-in! ” which shows that someone in the BBC has crossed the line in being so wedded to their own idea of what is best they have now put themselves into the position of having to try and support their technical decision through manipulating the “bias balance” towards Microsoft. Go to any Mac forum with a UK flavour and you’ll soon see posts related to bias on behalf of the BBC in favour of Microsoft. Is it imaginary, or real?

For an example of the kind of thing I mean, look at these two reports of the recent San Diego court which has just fined Microsoft $1.5 Billion for infringing on patents for MP3 encoding and decoding technology.

The MacWorld website, not renowned for its music coverage, wrote the most informative piece, giving quite a lot of background detail and information on what happens next. The BBC website, however, really didn’t give much information out at all, with very little background and no mentions of what happens next, or why.

Considering how big an issue digital music is right now, any court case about the subject is surely a hot topic. You only have to look at the bloglists to see that it is indeed a Big Story right now - particularly the Digital Rights Management issues of restrictions against normal users.

One Blogger, Blue Magnolia, is so cross at the abuse of power the BBC is currently exhibiting they have set up an ePetition on the UK Government’s website asking for people to register their unhappiness with the way the BBC are doing things. You should drop by and sign it - it only takes a minute and will help rein in the mad Microsoft machine the BBC has become.

You should sign the petition even if you are not a Mac or Linux user, because it is the principle of BBC neutrality that is at stake here. Anyway, even Windows users are affected - if you are running Windows 95/98, Windows ME, or Windows 2000 on your computer your needs are being ignored too.

Now, maybe the BBC is being a good boy and following the government’s wishes - after all, Bill Gates did visit Tony Blair a few years ago just before a number of big decisions about which platform to use were up in the air, particularly the issue of whether Governments should use an Open Document Format or a proprietary one (it was around the time when the City of Munich announced it was moving away from Microsoft onto Linux to save money and prevent accusations of favouritism; they wanted a non-proprietary format for word processor files too).

Tony Blair is apparently a self-confessed non-expert when it comes to computers, so you can imagine him being easy to bamboozle in these matters, even if he did have some advisors around him. Since then, there have been many decisions in favour of Microsoft technologies when many of them are insecure, unreliable, or just so complex they are difficult to implement. (See Reforming the NHS and it’s National Insurance funding system for some associated information).

As usual, I’ve digressed slightly - but only because the spider’s web of intrigue crosses into many areas, background information comes from many places, and the motivation for some actions may at first appear unrelated, but are frequently causal.

I’m going to post more examples of BBC bias here, and please add any you find yourself in the comments below too. Together, we the people have a voice that cannot forever be ignored.

Isn’t blogging great?

Examples

1. One example is this story on the BBC website “News that Microsoft has been fined for violating MP3 patents belonging to Alcatel-Lucent could have widespread fallout for the industry.”

The story is a follow-up about a subject that primarily affects Microsoft and its customers, Dell and Gateway Computer, due to the patent infringements inherent in the Windows Operating System. Yet the principal photograph used to illustrate the story shows only Apple equipment, none of which has been affected by the Court case yet.

The BBC story does say that others might be affected by the ruling, but surely other users of the Microsoft Windows OS and music players that primarily play MP3 tracks would be first in line? You can see a list of those companies licenced to do so - the list of MP3 licencees.

Lower down in the story, there is a photo of some Creative MP3 players, but it’s buried. Nowhere is there a photo showing the Microsoft logo, or that of any other manufacturer. Without a picture of a wide range of products from different manufacturers it is a clear bias against Apple.

Digital Rights Management. Who needs it, apart from BillyG and StevieB that is?

Do the big music and film studios need it? Well, they think they do, but Steve Jobs doesn’t think so. He has posted his Thoughts on Music on the Apple website. He says he wants to remove DRM completely:

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat.

So who really needs it? Who has most to lose if there is no Digital Rights Management anymore? Continue reading ‘Who needs DRM?’

Yes, it’s true, the Executive of the BBC is giving Microsoft the equivalent of millions in revenue. For free. On an exclusive basis. They don’t seem to have even realised the commercial implications of what they are doing. But this blogger does.

The BBC wants to begin offering a BBC on-demand TV over the internet service. It’s a very laudable aim - giving viewers 7 days to freely download a program they missed, and then a further 30 days to watch it before it disappears in a puff of smoke. OK, electrons, but let’s not get pedantic.

The problem is, they are planning to use a Microsoft-based DRM strategy. Not only will the strategy be based only on the Microsoft platform, but it will also need Windows XP or above and Media Player 10 to work. If you have a computer that uses Windows 3.1, 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000, or any Linux or Apple Macintosh computer the BBC will thus exclude you - even if you have paid your licence fee.

Before everything is finalised though, it has to go through a Public Value Test or PVT, and the Conclusions of the BBCTrust [pdf download, 167 kb] which now sits above the governors and the Executive are now available for public scrutiny.

I’ll save you reading through the entire document (it’s pretty yawn inducing overall) but I recommend you read just two bits.

On Page 10, near the bottom it says:

The BBC Executive proposes a digital rights management solution which would require consumers to be using Windows XP (or above) and Windows Media Player 10 (or above) to be able to access seven-day TV catch-up over the internet.

You have to hand it to the Microsoft sales guys, don’t you? They really got into the BBC’s britches! No wonder the BBC is gently pushing Vista - it’s fundamental to their ideas for DRM, so of course they are looking favourably on any press release from Microsoft and even gave Bill Gates an easy time of it when Huw Edwards interviewed him this week.

Then, at the top of Page 11 they go on to say:

Our understanding is that the BBC Executive aspires to offer an alternative DRM framework, which would enable Apple and Linux users to access the service, but has yet to identify a satisfactory solution. In either case, we will expect this to have been addressed within 24 months.

This is the most dangerous point. It basically gives free rein to Microsoft to build a dominating presence in the nascent TV over internet market in the UK. Not only that, but it allows Microsoft free access to BBC television for at least 2 years, as the BBC Trust only require a proposed solution, not an implemented one, within 2 years!

By that time, Microsoft will have used the advantage thus gained to deal a mortal blow to Apple in the home environment for entertainment, or will at least have dramatically clipped Apple’s wings so expansion into that space will have been made only by Microsoft, and not by Apple. First mover advantage would then give yet another monopoly market share to Microsoft. In the UK, the BBC is clearly the dominant player.

The BBC may argue that they had to pick one technology, and don’t have the resources to develop solutions for two. Since their revenue comes mostly from the UK TV Licence Fee - which has just been increased - I can understand their resources are limited to their £4 billion per year income. Which is why it is all the stranger that they haven’t asked Microsoft to pay millions for this exclusive arrangement. Well, not to the BBC anyway. It’ll certainly be worth that and more to Microsoft who get to lock consumers out of Apple and Linux, just at a time when the pendulum is beginning to move in that direction and away from Microsoft.

It isn’t as if there are not already some well-tested alternative solutions in place. Apple has very successful Movies and TV Shows sections with DRM in it’s iTunes store which serves both Microsoft and Apple computers. Linux I know less about, but there must be some alternatives out there for Linux too.

The provisional conclusions are open to consultation for a period of eight weeks, following which a final decision whether or not to approve the proposals will be made by the Trust by 2 May 2007.

If you use an Apple Mac or a Linux box, you need to ask why as a licence payer you are being penalised for choosing a more secure computer; if you use Windows you should ask why Microsoft has not been asked to pay for this vastly commercially advantageous deal that will guarantee them a protected market share for at least two years.

You can send in your complaints to pvtconsultation.ondemand@bbc.co.uk or by snail mail (always gets the BBCs attention) to this address:

On-Demand Consultation
BBC Trust
35 Marylebone High Street
London W1U 4AA

The Minister with responsibility for TV in the UK is Tessa Jowell, who must be looking for a good platform on which to rebuild her reputation right now after the Mills-Berlusconi affair. You can e-mail Tessa Jowell at tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk

Update
Ofcom first raised the issue of competition, so are also involved. You can reach them here:
Ofcom Board members and their email addresses

As the Ofcom website is very difficult to navigate to a point from which you can actually do something I’ve also copied the names and emails of their main movers for you:

Chief Executive Officer
Ed.Richards@ofcom.org.uk

Chief Technology Officer
peter.ingram@ofcom.org.uk

Partner, Competition
sean.williams@ofcom.org.uk

Peter Ingram you may remember was involved with the EU’s legal case regarding Microsoft’s alleged abuse of monopoly power which Microsoft have so far lost every round of, but have still to change their attitude regarding lockins of users and lock outs of competitors of their software.

I’ve had a look at the EU website too. The EU’s Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, is clearly going to need to look into this matter. Here’s a relevant excerpt from her website:

“As European Commissioner for Competition, my aim is to promote a fair and free environment for business in Europe.

The job involves both setting EU-wide rules to guarantee fair competition, and enforcing them fairly and with vigour, to prevent and punish any breaches. That means making sure that:

• companies do not carve up markets or fix prices amongst themselves;

• taxpayers money is used to pursue socially desirable objectives without disproportionately distorting competition or wasted when public authorities grant subsidies to business“.

(The italics are mine, just to highlight the areas which this BBC action is moving into.)

Clearly, the BBC-Microsoft deal will carve up markets; the two year timescale will significantly distort competition; and the lack of a fee being charged to Microsoft is in effect a subsidy. It’s a subsidy because a canny commercial broadcaster would have wrung a high price for giving such a hugely advantageous arrangement to a software company that is just beginning to lose market share in both the internet and desktop computer markets.

In effect, the BBC are giving Microsoft a two year season ticket for free.

To contact Neelie Kroes:

Neelie Kroes
European Commissioner for Competition
Neelie.Kroes@ec.europa.eu

Further info:
The Guardian on the BBC iPlayer

University of Auckland Computer Science Department Paper by Peter Gutmann
A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

One of the right wing UK gutter press editors, Paul Dacre, is getting desperate to increase his readership figures by getting some cheap publicity from attacking the BBC. He says “it’s too big, its journalism starts from the premise of leftwing ideology, and its a monolith distorting Britain’s media market…”

What’s really happening though is that the internet is pulling advertisers away from the old fashioned media of the traditional Fleet Street press while UK commercial TV is being crucified by Satellite TV. Communications media are evolving, and Mr Dacre doesn’t like it.

Like many right wingers, in defence he attacks. He can’t attack the internet as too many people love it to bits. He can’t attack commercial TV because they’re having a hard time too. And he can’t attack the Murdoch family owned Sky Satellite TV because as a newspaper journalist he may one day need to get a job somewhere in their empire - which might be his intent all along. So he picks an easy target: the BBC.

Why attack the BBC? Well, for right wingers like Mr Dacre it’s far too intelligent. How can he get away with the stories his newspaper has spouted as truth for years when the BBC website is calmly giving readers a balanced view of world affairs with in depth analysis that allows them to make up their own minds?

Continue reading ‘Is the BBC a monolith?’