Brian Butterworth wrote:
I'm not trying to BLAME anyone here, I'm trying to find out where the EPG information gets nobbled and make an attempt to get some to "acknowledge mistakes" and provide "accuracy" in the data.
Accuracy is impractical. Locking the start time of programmes to a second-precise pre-published schedule would cause chaos. I mean, think how often Radio 4 presenters crash the pips. If you had a channel with no live content, no continuity, no opt-outs and no last-minute programming changes then you might have a chance, but you can't design the EPG system for an entire platform around those limitations.
So instead, you engineer a compromise. The schedule becomes a guideline - people can use it for planning their viewing, and PVRs can use it to try and stop you from booking more simultaneous recordings than you have tuners, and as a way to plan when to switch themselves on and tune in. Then you have a precisely-timed trigger signal (EIT P/F on Freeview) that the PVR can use to tell when the programme starts and ends. That way the broadcaster retains the flexibility to change the schedule as often as they need to, while the consumer still gets accurate recordings.
You appear to be asking for last-minute schedule changes to be published separately. Well, you could do that, but the system I just described is better*, so that's what's been implemented.
*it allows PVRs to behave correctly even when programmes overrun indefinitely and without prior warning, for example.
If I can get a signed letter from someone at the BBC saying that it's Microsoft's fault, then I can go an staple it to the "Memorandum of Understanding" and get MS to sort it out.
Do you really need a letter saying that WMC has not been certified as compliant with the Freeview Playback standard? Doesn't the absence of a Freeview Playback badge on WMC-based devices mean that Microsoft already know?
I think that the core issue here is your assertion that published schedules should be as precise as possible, and updated as often as necessary. I don't think that most people expect that to be the case, and I don't personally see a compelling argument for making it so. If accurate Freeview recording from WMC is important to you, I would suggest that you direct your efforts towards getting Microsoft to implement it using the existing standards, and ideally get WMC certified by the DTG while they're at it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/pdffiles/ibc99pl.pdf might be of interest to people following this discussion.
S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
