Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
David Tomlinson wrote: The costs of publishing a specification (as a text document or pdf) on a web site are low, comparable with the costs associated with handling individual complaints, about discrimination and lack of access. Earlier there was mention made of a 'cost recovery'. The incremental costs of publishing am individual text document are of course close to zero. (arguably exactly zero, possibly, for the case of the BBC) However - would 'cost recovery' also include the recovery of the cost of development of the platform? - 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] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality
Glyn Wintle wrote: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consumer/2010/06/ofcom-opens-debate-on-net-neutrality/ What is net neutrality? Net neutrality is a concept based on the internet being a level playing field for internet traffic. There are several definitions, but all share a concern that traffic management by network operators and ISPs could lead to discrimination between different traffic carried over the internet. IMO - this is not a particularly useful description. Quotas and other technical measures - deep packet inspection - shaping - bandwidth limits are not put in place - generally - because the ISPs hate us. They are put in place to protect the network. Proritising classes of traffic can be less bad than the alternatives. A) Build out the network to take several times the peak yearly demand. B) Apply a really low quota, to reduce the peak demand, as everyone is scared of blowing it, and not being able to use the net that month. C) (what is usually spoken of as net neutrality) Whitelisting some sites to improve their performance. And other possible alternatives. Speaking in terms of plusnet - they have several classes of users - depending on how much they've paid. Pay a lot, and your connection is flat, and goes at line rate almost all the time (except when extreme once-a-year peaks of demand hit). Pay very little, and your VOIP goes smoothly, without delayed packets, and all interactive protocols are prioritised highly, but bulk file transfers are shaped down to a very small amount in peak hours. Bandwidth is rarely free. Net neutrality is normally not neutrality in terms of protocols, but neutrality in terms of content provider. It's the idea that - for example - the BBC iplayer site runs just as slowly or as fast on any connection, as '4oD', or Dave Doing the Dishes video player. - 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] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13, Ian Stirling backstage...@mauve.plus.com wrote: Proritising classes of traffic can be less bad than the alternatives. No, they're a bloody stupid way of doing it. And other possible alternatives. What, you mean like the sensible one? Your 'dumb pipe' connection is throttled back according to how much you're shifting in relation to everybody else (which has been a feature of networking kit for This does not take into account the inherently bursty nature of some applications. Regrettably, most people do not know how to setup QOS. Are you seriously arguing that everyone should have a deep understanding of QOS, or a high speed unlimited package if they want their VOIP not to stutter when someone else in the house downloads a 3 meg PDF? IMO - traffic prioritisation - when done in an open transparent manner (and yes, there are issues on traffic trying to pretend to be something it's not) is less bad than the alternatives. - 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] Green Ink.
Richard Lockwood wrote: I'm not a lawyer either, but I can at least translate what David's saying; ME ME ME ME ME!!! I WANT IT ALL! FOR NOTHING!!! ME ME! GIVE IT TO ME! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, EVER!!! ME ME ME!!! IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING FOR EVER AND EVER, AND I'LL CRY IF I CAN'T!! That's pretty much the gist of it. It's really not. There is a truly massive stretch of clear blue water between 'information should be free - it can't be ownes, therefore I don't need to pay'. And 'Content providers should not be able to dictate - sometimes in violation of local laws on fair use - the way in which that content is legitimately used by paying users'. - 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 and Nokia N900
Alex Cockell wrote: Hi folks, Any idea when or if the N900 could have a native iPlayer client? Just that Flash is VERY sluggish... IF you click 'pop out' - in the iplayer to take it to fullscreen, it's not bad - with the low bandwidth version. Slightly jerky, and a much lower fps than the device can do natively, but it's a whole lot better than normal. - 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] iPad and iPlayer
Paul Webster wrote: Ok - I admit it ... I have one. Any chance of adding iPad Safari user-agent to the list of things that look like an iPhone so that iPlayer works? Here are examples: iPad: Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.21.10 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.4 Mobile/7B367 Safari/531.21.10 iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16 I realise that it could be optimised for the display characteristics - but right now it is useless because BBC site asks for Flash. Personally, I would argue strongly against this on competition grounds. The BBC should not be in the business of promoting any one vendor who choses not to install flash on their platform for their own internal reasons. Iplayer 'works' on my platform. Well - to the extent of 3 frames a second with a following wind, and the video not keeping up with the audio. In a sane player - not flash - the content plays smoothly, and can output flawless video to a TV even. get_iplayer - and friends were very useful in the past. - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
Tim Dobson wrote: Thoughts on postcard? My postcard only has tickboxes for 'wish you were here', 'having a lovely time' and 'Had a lovely time at iDisney', all the rest of the card is too slippery to write on, what do I do? - 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] iPad
Rupert Watson wrote: A Haynes manual won't help you with a modern car. You need an engine monitoring system and connection to the manufacturer Megasquirt.info - for the hardcore - that won't accept that. - 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] Users just want video to work. You Mozilla people are such idealists?
Kieran Kunhya wrote: For 720p25 you might need more than 3.5Mbps for more demanding scenes. (Except increasing the bitrate or using a better encoder will make iPlayer look better than the broadcast...) You do get an awful lot better results when you are not compressing in real time, of course, because you can use all the MPEG4 forward references, the ones you don't get when you real time encode. Real-time encoding with Bi-predictive frames (B-frames) in H.264 doesn't work like that. There's a frame delay in order for B-frame encoding to take place. Most encoders worth their while also have a lookahead for deciding frame-types and bit rate allocation. (Sometimes this is called 2-pass realtime, which is a bit of a misnomer for marketing reasons. Some marketing people for manufacturers seem to spread this myth that more passes is always better). Using x264 with a recent CPU, if you ran it at realtime even at 720...@3mbit you'd most likely do better than the £50k+ broadcast encoder at 1080i merely because we're generations ahead of most (if not all) of the H.264 hardware and software out there. Naturally, with 2-pass you can allocate bits more efficiently but the benefits aren't as significant as they once were. wouldn't it be 'easy' to statmux across channels - by using psuedo multipass? You two encoders per channel - one whatever frame depth in front of the other, and use the ideally required bitrate on each channel to inform the 'real' codec of its bandwidth allocation? For sufficiently high values of easy of course. This should work well, especially with 1997 films starring Bruce Willis. - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 16:41, Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com wrote: I like the way Ofcom have totally missed the point about Linux/Open Source presuming it refers to STBs running Linux. The reality is, STB manufacturers don't really have the luxury of being able to: a) ignore the licensing terms of the open source DVB stacks; b) reverse-engineer the decoding tables; c) obtain the tables from the BBC but breach the non-disclosure terms; or d) release a box which doesn't support FVHD ...even if they wanted to. There is a third alternative. B) obtain the decoded tables from a third party in a country where this decryption is not illegal. I am unsure of the legality of this. It would of course imply that the device would need an internet connection - but... - 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] Freeview HD Content Management
Mo McRoberts wrote: Of course, from an anti-piracy perspective, as soon as ONE person leaks the tables, all bets are off. As much as the BBC will claim the tables are its “intellectual property”, from what I know of copyright law it would be difficult to claim that they were © BBC; no other part of the various IP laws both applies here Database Right. This is - in the simplest explanation - copyright for databases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right - 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] BBC iPlayer and the Nokia N900
Adam wrote: Hi, Nokia have released the Nokia N900 phone based on their Maemo operating system. As it doesn't support S60 WRT that the current Nokia phones iPlayer app is written in is there anyway i can access the iPlayer videos directly. I can access the current videos and play them, but they are unwatchable as the phone can't handle them. This might be due to the standard streams using the VP6 codec, although i haven't been able to confirm this. The specs are: * Firefox Mobile browser * Flash 9.4 * Maemo OS based on Debian with ARM processor * User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux armv7l; en-GB; rv:1.9.2a1pre) Gecko/20090928 Firefox/3.5 Maemo Browser 1.4.1.21 RX-51 N900 Is there a work around to get iPlayer working on this phone and videos watchable? I have been using the silly workaround of get_iplayer on my desktop, then transcoding the files. mplayer on the device will actually - just - cope with the flash - with appropriate switches - mplayer -vfm ffmpeg -lavdopts skiploopfilt =all Top_Gear_Series_14_-_Episode_1_b00p1lgb_default.flv The 'proper' flash player is laughably slower though. Flash slowness is pretty much my only annoyance with the device. Other than the cheap gits only including one stylus. You can of course run get_iplayer and transcode on the device itself, but that's not very fast :) - 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] What is TV?
Brian Butterworth wrote: Another way of looking at TV is that is the delivery of audio visual services using high capacity omnidirectional technology. I think you mean broadcast. Clearly, in 1980, you absolutely cannot do 'video on demand' for everyone. The playback technology diddn't exist, the networks diddn't exist, the end-user terminal would have cost more than the house. In 1990, little had changed. By 2000, you could just about do it, with huge amounts of investment - tens of billions? In 2010, it's an annoying amount of infrastructure, and there are many bottlenecks in some parts of the country. In 2020 - several megabit bandwidths will typically be available to most peoples phones, and certainly not a problem for several peoples streams to the home. In 2030 - 'Now - your grandparents used to all sit down at the same time...' Going from now to then is going to be the fun part - and the only certainty is that lots of people will lose their shirts along the way, and government will feel the need to 'do something'. In 2030, I don't see any drivers that will lead away from the majority of the market being pay-per-view in some form. This does not quite mean the death of channels. For example. 7AM on a monday - the new Dr Who - series 24 episode 13 becomes available for bidding. There are several sorts of rights that purchasers can buy. They can buy regionally exclusive rights - for example - a channel can buy the right to show Dr Who in the UK over the next 3 days for all their users for 5p/copy, with any other channels paying 20p/copy if they wish to show it during the 3 days, and individuals paying 30p. Individuals can also purchase the rights to watch - if you want to watch on monday, it's going to be more expensive than if you wait 8 weeks. It can be cheaper for you to purchase a channel package, which will have adverts targetted at you as digital product placement in the program - the dalek will have a BQ, Lidl or Ikea toilet plunger on it. You may even have premium and non-premium channels - where the non-premium channels pick up everything after a week. Then, you will I suspect have the government effectively bidding on certain classes of program, the 'crown jewels'. I'd also expect some programs to be 'shareware' - where viewing is free, and you can pay what you like at the end. If the program makes money, it keeps getting made. And many other forms of distribution. - 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] What is TV?
Mo McRoberts wrote: Discuss. TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. - 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] What is TV?
Ian Stirling wrote: Mo McRoberts wrote: Discuss. TV is live simultaneous transmission of pictures, where you can have a large number of people over a significant distance watching one event. Or to be more accurate, simultanenous reception of a television program service licenced under the appropriate act of parlianment. (at least for some legal definitions) - 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] Good news for mashups - Ordnance Survey maps to go free online
Brian Butterworth wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/17/ordnance-survey-maps-online The online maps would be free to all, including commercial users who, previously, had to acquire expensive and restrictive licences at £5,000 per usage, a fee many entrepreneurs felt was too high. About time too. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/17/ordnance-survey-maps-online Questions remain. For example - freely available data that can be used commercially can mean a lot of things - some of which are a lot more useful than others. Is this freely distributable vector data, with a license like cc-by-sa? Or is it a virtual map, like google, where you only get to see tiles, and cannot legally derive data from them, or copy them for use in other situations. The first allows more or less any use. The second might not allow for example: Taking the data, and rendering a cycling map deemphasiseing motorways, and emphasising cyclepaths. Crowdsourcing traffic data, and using it in a free routing application. Adding housenumbers to a copy of the map. ... The OS already claims that you cannot draw a line on an OS map, without that line being derived from the OS map, and requiring a license to show that line to others. - 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/
