[backstage] "The LSE's freetard fiasco"
Quite an interesting piece at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21/lse_music_debate/ I mean, yes, it's from The Register, which probably means it's mostly bollocks, but I couldn't help read this piece and think back to a few years ago when I was presenting about podcasting (on behalf of a commercial broadcaster) and was roundly mobbed by the audience for daring to wish to make a commercial business from podcasting. via http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2008/03/24/4949
Re: [backstage] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 5:13 PM, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DVB-H is fine, as long as you don't mind waiting ten seconds to change > channels (!!!) > > I doubt that'd remain as-is forever... Remember the first Sky digiboxes, > Freeview and DAB receivers? How sluggish they were? As device power > increased, and cacheing was improved, that time decreased. I doubt it'd > stay > at 10 seconds for long. It's got nothing to do with the device power; and more to do with how the channels are broadcast. This ten-second(ish) gap is built-in to the specification; not a function of low-powered receivers. It makes channel-hopping a tedious and unpleasant experience, I'm told. (I've not used a DVB-H set, just to be clear; I own a T-DMB receiver, which I have used for both TV and radio reception). > > Given that DAB is not dying (don't confuse one radio group's > short-sighted > business problems with a death of the medium), it would make rather more > sense to continue investing in its infrastructure. > > Of course (cycnic mode firmly turned to on), that would be the BBC R&D's > official standpoint on this, given the (estimated) amount they're > investing > / planning to invest in Olinda ;) Buying a radio with a useless core > function would be very embarassing! I suspect you're a little confused about Olinda. It's not R&D's project (actually, it would be R&I now), but a project being funded and run by BBC Audio & Music Interactive, of which I'm Head of Future Media & Technology. So, I might know a thing or two about it. Olinda is not - and never will be - a consumer product. What we're doing is doing some research and design to explore user interface design and hybrid technology around a radio; indeed, the 'DAB' bit is fairly incidental - although the additional data broadcast over DAB is quite useful to the project, RDS could do a similar job potentially. And once we've finished, all this research will be released for anyone to do anything they like with it, simply under a CC-style attribution licence. Given we've a third party involved in the work, I obviously can't discuss how much we're spending on this: but it's a tiny project in the scheme of our budget. > That said, DAB services, given adequate > bandwidth, are quite sufficient - unfortunately, there's too much quantity > and not enough focus on quality (I still feel like the multiplexes are > being > treated like shelves in a budget supermarket). If by "DAB services" you mean "radio stations", then I'd simply point to the fact that DAB sets only began to sell when there was good additional content; and that 80% of all DAB sets sold have mono speakers. Two blog entries below (both dating from my pre-BBC existence) might be useful here: http://james.cridland.net/blog/2006/10/08/dab-audio-sound-quality/ http://james.cridland.net/blog/2007/04/17/more-dab-audio-quality-this-time-from-ofcom/ ...because I can't be too bothered to go over old ground! However, if all we think DAB is good for is "a speaker making some noise", then we might wish to pack up and go home now. The BBC national multiplex is 2 meg of data, received for free, going into 85% of all households in the land. Think of it that way, and then think what you could do with some of that data. Why can't the industry move towards OTA-upgradeable on-chip decoders? The > day that format is standardised and Pure / Roberts comes out with a good > standalone player, I'll buy into that immediately. The format -is- standardised: the UK uses DAB, some countries are starting to use DAB+ (which uses AAC+ encoding instead of MP2). Some new sets available now are upgradeable (via USB, not over the air); this is mainly because AAC+ adds another licensing fee, which is clearly a cost that a manufacturer needn't pay if the device is only being used in the UK. The "upgrade" process is, of course, turning on a dormant feature in the chipset; doing software decoding in the way you mean would add huge costs to a radio. Remember that we need to make DAB as affordable for manufacturers as FM is, in order to get it into loads of devices; and remember that few people actually go out and buy a radio. The last few things I bought that contained a radio were: a) a car; b) a mobile phone; c) a portable music player. If you're interested in this stuff, then November should bring a really interesting day from The Radio Academy, called 'Radio at the Edge'. I'll be mentioning it ad nauseam later in the year, but thought I'd not turn down this opportunity. -- http://james.cridland.net/ | http://www.mediauk.com/
Re: [backstage] "The LSE's freetard fiasco"
James Cridland wrote: Quite an interesting piece at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/21/lse_music_debate/ I mean, yes, it's from The Register, which probably means it's mostly bollocks, but I couldn't help read this piece and think back to a few years ago when I was presenting about podcasting (on behalf of a commercial broadcaster) and was roundly mobbed by the audience for daring to wish to make a commercial business from podcasting. via http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2008/03/24/4949 interesting, its a pity that Andrew Orlowski couldn't have written up a unbiased version of the events, and then blogged about it or something. I don't think the best way of saying you think and event is biased is to write an openly one sided article repeatedly abusing it. Shame. Still, sounded quite interesting Audience participation (when it's not wanted) always makes things more fun! -- www.blog.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Andy wrote: On 20/03/2008, hayfielddigitalparish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: it looks like a CBC are now going to put DRM-free BitTorrent distribution for a major prime-time show it turns out to be reality TV they are torrenting Now apart from the age old question about why anyone would want to watch reality TV, this is a great lump of content to trial new distribution methods with. however it is important to recognise that the demography of people who watch reality TV, are almost certainly *not* the same as those who grab tv content (from what ever source) on their computer. I would encourage all broadcasters to trial new distribution methods using quality content, that fits the demography. Example: Channel 4 released the frist two episodes of The IT Crowd, on it's website, without DRM. Instantly turning it into a classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IT_Crowd#Broadcasting Tim -- www.blog.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
Re: [backstage] "The LSE's freetard fiasco"
Tim Dobson wrote: its a pity that Andrew Orlowski couldn't have written up a unbiased version of the events, He can't, he needs the clicks. El Reg's advertising-and-merchandise business model model will fail unless he constantly gets attention by arguing against it. ;-) - Rob. - 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/
Re: [backstage] "The LSE's freetard fiasco"
Rob Myers wrote: He can't, he needs the clicks. El Reg's advertising-and-merchandise business model model will fail unless he constantly gets attention by arguing against it. ;-) Oh noes. I just wrecked their business model with adblock plus. Don't sue me! -- www.blog.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Monday 24 March 2008 17:51:38 Tim Dobson wrote: > Example: Channel 4 released the frist two episodes of The IT Crowd, on > it's website, without DRM. Instantly turning it into a classic: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_IT_Crowd#Broadcasting I thought it was utter tripe myself. Tried so hard it was unfunny. But then humour is incredibly subjective. Michael. (goes back to watching his DVDs of Heidi) :-) - 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/
RE: [backstage] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
I suspect you're a little confused about Olinda. It's not R&D's project (actually, it would be R&I now), but a project being funded and run by BBC Audio & Music Interactive, of which I'm Head of Future Media & Technology. So, I might know a thing or two about it. I thought you might ;) Olinda is not - and never will be - a consumer product. What we're doing is doing some research and design to explore user interface design and hybrid technology around a radio; indeed, the 'DAB' bit is fairly incidental - although the additional data broadcast over DAB is quite useful to the project, RDS could do a similar job potentially. And once we've finished, all this research will be released for anyone to do anything they like with it, simply under a CC-style attribution licence. Given we've a third party involved in the work, I obviously can't discuss how much we're spending on this: but it's a tiny project in the scheme of our budget. Gotcha. :) It's a shame it isn't going to be a consumer product, I actually took quite a liking to the whole concept. It'd be a shame to basically develop an entire product and then not push it out to market! Like scaling a mountain and not planting a flag at the top. That said, DAB services, given adequate bandwidth, are quite sufficient - unfortunately, there's too much quantity and not enough focus on quality (I still feel like the multiplexes are being treated like shelves in a budget supermarket). However, if all we think DAB is good for is "a speaker making some noise", then we might wish to pack up and go home now. The BBC national multiplex is 2 meg of data, received for free, going into 85% of all households in the land. Think of it that way, and then think what you could do with some of that data. The public don't know what they want! ;) Problem is they'll settle for naff quality because they don't realise exactly what kind of quality can be achieved from the technology, they merely accept the broadcasted quality because they don't believe they can do anything about it, and there we have it. If you ask the early adopters what the quality was like at start as opposed to today, they all take our standpoint (it's rubbish now). Why can't the industry move towards OTA-upgradeable on-chip decoders? The day that format is standardised and Pure / Roberts comes out with a good standalone player, I'll buy into that immediately. The format -is- standardised: the UK uses DAB, some countries are starting to use DAB+ (which uses AAC+ encoding instead of MP2). Some new sets available now are upgradeable (via USB, not over the air); this is mainly because AAC+ adds another licensing fee, which is clearly a cost that a manufacturer needn't pay if the device is only being used in the UK. The "upgrade" process is, of course, turning on a dormant feature in the chipset; doing software decoding in the way you mean would add huge costs to a radio. Remember that we need to make DAB as affordable for manufacturers as FM is, in order to get it into loads of devices; and remember that few people actually go out and buy a radio. The last few things I bought that contained a radio were: a) a car; b) a mobile phone; c) a portable music player. Personally, I'm (surprisingly) against the whole concept of convergence when it concerns some areas of technology - it's not always the best solution. I'll happily use a PDA phone on a daily basis because it enriches the communication experience (even though it uses WinMo 6), 3G data is brilliant and rich media on my device is great - but I'm glad it doesn't have a radio in it and I wouldn't ever use it to listen to my music collection. My MP3 player's for that. I think the next purchase for my car is that separate DAB receiver for vehicles which sticks onto your windscreen and uses a shortrange FM repeater to broadcast to your in-car radio system - cheaper, removeable and a better investment (I think) than getting a fully fitted, integrated DAB receiver. That's why I appreciated the modularity of Olinda when it was explained (by yourself and your colleague) at SBES. Need AAC decoding? Buy the add-on module! It really struck a chord with me. But even better than that, go one step further and internalise the upgrade feature - if it adds more cost to the device, play on the economy of scale, produce one really nice, smart device, design it to be rugged and to last, then people will buy it and upgrade it when they want to without buying a new unit. It's time to bring back a little emotional attachment to things we buy :) For the 'cost' argument, surely it's only expensive now because nobody's scaled up the integration of on-chip software decoding?... If Rockbox can add realtime FLAC and AAC (M4A) support to my ageing iRiver H140, it shouldn't be that much of a problem for a company to develop one combination of chips and build on that solid, futureproofed base. Should it? ... Or am I thinking too optimistically here? Thinking alou
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
Michael wrote: I thought it was utter tripe myself. Tried so hard it was unfunny. But then humour is incredibly subjective. What mainstream tv with a tech edge, do you find funny? /me goes back to watching google tech talks -- www.blog.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 22:11 +, Tim Dobson wrote: > Michael wrote: > > I thought it was utter tripe myself. Tried so hard it was unfunny. But then > > humour is incredibly subjective. > > What mainstream tv with a tech edge, do you find funny? I think HHGTTG was the last, wasn't it? - Richard - 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/
[backstage] Xinhua Doctored BBC Screenshot?
As someone who has a pronounced dislike of propaganda and misinformation, I have been following the recent events surrounding Tibet, quite carefully. By reading the news stories from both the Chinese and the Western point of view, one can see the large difference in opinions. I was interested today, to read on Xinhua, the Chinese State news agency, that the BBC had been accused of displaying an image of a ambulance with a caption stating that "There is a heavy military presence in Lhasa".[1] Interested that it was citing a BBC article, I did a quick search to find the original article and accompanying photo [2]. The caption of the photo on the BBC page instead says "There have been many reports of injuries and deaths in Lhasa". Intrigued by the differences that the articles show, I looked at the last updated text in both the Xinhua screenshot and the BBC article. They show exactly the same time and date. From this I would infer that the Xinhua screenshot has been doctored, however, in order to give them the benefit of the doubt: Does anyone BBC-side (or otherwise) have any idea about whether one can change one of these image captions in the live content without updating the "last updated" tag. If you think there are other explanations or can expand on anything I have said, feel free to. I would not be *surprised* to see doctored screenshot, however I would be interested about it's context and effect. I would also be interested if the BBC had silently changed the caption to this image in question. [1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/23/content_7841316.htm [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7300312.stm Tim -- www.blog.tdobson.net If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us still has one object. If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now has two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw - 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/
Re: [backstage] Xinhua Doctored BBC Screenshot?
A quick check of the Google cache would have told you it has changed and the screen shot is valid. Google claim they crawled the site at 17 Mar 2008 13:09:39 GMT. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache%3Ahttp% 3A//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7300312.stm Adam On Mon, 2008-03-24 at 23:39 +, Tim Dobson wrote: > As someone who has a pronounced dislike of propaganda and > misinformation, I have been following the recent events surrounding > Tibet, quite carefully. > > By reading the news stories from both the Chinese and the Western point > of view, one can see the large difference in opinions. > > I was interested today, to read on Xinhua, the Chinese State news > agency, that the BBC had been accused of displaying an image of a > ambulance with a caption stating that "There is a heavy military > presence in Lhasa".[1] > > Interested that it was citing a BBC article, I did a quick search to > find the original article and accompanying photo [2]. The caption of the > photo on the BBC page instead says "There have been many reports of > injuries and deaths in Lhasa". > > Intrigued by the differences that the articles show, I looked at the > last updated text in both the Xinhua screenshot and the BBC article. > They show exactly the same time and date. > > From this I would infer that the Xinhua screenshot has been doctored, > however, in order to give them the benefit of the doubt: > > Does anyone BBC-side (or otherwise) have any idea about whether one can > change one of these image captions in the live content without updating > the "last updated" tag. > > If you think there are other explanations or can expand on anything I > have said, feel free to. > > I would not be *surprised* to see doctored screenshot, however I would > be interested about it's context and effect. > I would also be interested if the BBC had silently changed the caption > to this image in question. > > [1] http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/23/content_7841316.htm > [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7300312.stm > > > Tim > > - 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/
Re: [backstage] Xinhua Doctored BBC Screenshot?
Tim Dobson wrote: I was interested today, to read on Xinhua, the Chinese State news agency, that the BBC had been accused of displaying an image of a ambulance with a caption stating that "There is a heavy military presence in Lhasa".[1] The BBC did indeed show that; here's Google's cache of the page: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:qH6sdYFO4PoJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7300312.stm (with an earlier timestamp of 12:48 GMT). The alternate text on the image is still "Chinese military check an ambulance", presumably from the people who took the photo, and whether that's what's happening or what Xinhua say is happening, who knows. I can't explain the same timestamp issue, but I do believe (I can't find the reference now, but I remember reading it) that BBC News can update the content without changing the "last updated" tag if it's marked as a minor change in their CMS or similar. ATB, Matthew - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On 24 Mar 2008, at 23:07, Richard Smedley wrote: I think HHGTTG was the last, wasn't it? Nope that was Radio :-) Well I didn't find the TV as amusing, but then maybe I am being a tad old & crusty ;-) f - 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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer DRM is over?
On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 00:03 +, Fearghas McKay wrote: > On 24 Mar 2008, at 23:07, Richard Smedley wrote: > > I think HHGTTG was the last, wasn't it? > Nope that was Radio :-) :-) > Well I didn't find the TV as amusing, but then maybe I am being a tad > old & crusty ;-) Well, if we're speaking of the Home Service too, then The Goon Show was really cutting-edge tech :) [1] And not forgotten either - one of my daughters still listens to several episodes a week (on her MP3-playing telephone, of course, not my valve wireless ;) - Richard [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goons#Music_and_sound_effects - 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/
