Actually there is no legal impediment to accessing the fta video and audio.

The only restriction is on accessing the metadata and that is only that the BBC claim it is a breach of their copyright in the compression tables.

The DTLA say that manufacturers of DTCP products MUST NOT apply DRM to FTA content. BBC are trying to argue to DTLA that content is protected and to Ofcom that it is fta.

Request to Ofcom is very misleading in several ways. E.g. The D book version with content protection requirements has not been agreed. Major bust up with Samsung and Sony opposed to BBC. Broadcast meant to start 2nd December but spec and broadcasting license not sorted shows the mess the BBC is making.

Can't be bothered to Mod down all the people who didn't realise that you were saying that the all the lossless systems would have same audio quality but that "Audiophile" idiots would claim that there are differenced.

I understood anyway.

Fill in form on MPEGLA website. Receive license sign license, send cheques.

Fair point.

No you are not in violation of the license because you haven't signed it.

The question is whether you are infringing on the patents that the license is a means to acquire rights to use.

At least in the UK personal/experimental use of patented technology is I believe not infringing although sale, commercial use and distribution are.

So to answer the question you need to understand the patent laws of your country and also what patents apply.

My guess is unless you are distributing MPlayer no one will bother you even if you are infringing on peoples patents.

You can contact MPEG-LA for the license contract and list of patents.

However in the near future you can expect everyone to have an H.264 (MPEG4 part 10) (AVC) decoder installed so I wouldn't worry too much.

I accept you main point about the cost of including MPEG4 AVC (H.264) decoders due to the patent license cost.

However I have read the licenses from the MPEG-LA and they are pure patent licenses for payment. There is no requirement on DRM at all! That part of your post is completely wrong.

Good point about BT's costs. I've just been reading the Digital Britain report and this is really the "Middle Mile" problem it talks about.

What seems to be needed is competition (or tougher regulation) on the intercity/intertown networks.

My point that the BBC don't have an ISP to pay still stands.

Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP. They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.

BT's cost is only on its internal network, they won't be paying someone else for bandwidth.

BTs customers are paying for a connection speed e.g. 2Mbit and they should be able to get that rate from the BBC if they want. BT needs to change its customer charging infrastructure not bitch and whine

Standby power under 1W is already scheduled to be an EU requirement I believe. Some TVs are already down to 0.2W standby power, at this point the effect of standby power becomes very marginal.

~1/100 of on power.

Standby 22hrs/day at 0.2W, On: 2hrs/day at 200W.

My personal view is that if they sell you 1Mbit/s and 20GB/month that capacity should be neutral internet capacity.

If they additionally want to sell top up services or offer additional uncapped capacity on top of the purchased quantity that is fine.

However distorting priorities or charging third parties to affect performance within the capacity you have already bought is unacceptable.

I'm not sure if this means I am in favour of net neutrality or not.