RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
This always makes me laugh, whether it's Firefox users or Linux users. Because you *can* change the UA in my favourite software, it automatically follows that 30% of reported visitors *are* faking it. I sometimes wonder what these sites are that still need spoofing cos I haven't been visiting them. I don't think I've used browser spoofing for about five years. Perhaps this says something about the websites I go to. winmail.dat
RE: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cox 'course, bbc.co.uk has had some kind of redirect magic for a while: http://bbc.co.uk/zanelowe/ First time I've seen a big fat httpd.conf called magic :) though i suspect the problem (and usage of tinyurl) is that to get one of those nice urls hooked up, you gotta email someone a request, who needs to get approval from a manager Well lets just say there is a process and it has to be done sensibly else you'd get loads of random redirects. Although I still think bbc.co.uk/breakfast should go to a big portal page for all the BBC's breakfast shows :) winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On 06/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station. ... and if you get a 27 bus to Turnham Green, it stops at the real Turnham Green, not the tube station - a nightmare for integrated public transport planning :-) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Sure, and where there is ambiguity there should be a disambiguity page to sort that out. J On 06/11/2007, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Cartwright The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's not terribly well built. Why does it have to ask me what type of data I'm inputting? Doesn't it know that SW1W 9TQ is a postcode, White City is a station, and Buckingham Palace is a place of interest? Well White City is a station. It's also a locale and a building (and a demolished stadium ;). (BBC White City, aka the evil grey fortress of doom ;) Now they all happen to be in the same area so that's not a huge problem, although there's still a five minute walk between the tube platform and the building (as I know you know Jason ;). However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station. Then you've the case of the large number of Shepherds Bushs... Anyway that's just a silly point ;) IIRC on TfL's journey planner (the software of which is used in various parts of the country), stations are on the place of interest list.
RE: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jason Cartwright The TFL journey planner has such potential, but from what I can see it's not terribly well built. Why does it have to ask me what type of data I'm inputting? Doesn't it know that SW1W 9TQ is a postcode, White City is a station, and Buckingham Palace is a place of interest? Well White City is a station. It's also a locale and a building (and a demolished stadium ;). (BBC White City, aka the evil grey fortress of doom ;) Now they all happen to be in the same area so that's not a huge problem, although there's still a five minute walk between the tube platform and the building (as I know you know Jason ;). However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station. Then you've the case of the large number of Shepherds Bushs... Anyway that's just a silly point ;) IIRC on TfL's journey planner (the software of which is used in various parts of the country), stations are on the place of interest list. winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Matthew Somerville wrote: David Greaves wrote: You want an 8am train from Cardiff to Birmingham? http://www.traintimes.org.uk/8:00/cardiff/birmingham The requested URL /8:00/cardiff/birmingham was not found on this server. Hmm, works fine here. ;-) Ho Ho!! Been using the site for years BTW :) sigh people are so complicated... Well, all you had to do was ask. ;) OK : Could you please simplify people - all of them. Make them understand what I wanted them to understand when I first thought of the idea. Cheers. Just in case...I meant that if you (or I) think of an idea or a hierarchy in a nice logical way like so: The reason it's as it is by default, by the way, is because URLs are hierarchical, and it's pretty pointless to supply a time without a from or a to (whereas cutting any bit off a default URL returns what you'd expect). then some silly bugger like me will think about it in an entirely different way: (see above URL) The front page gives the manual, such as it is. I think it is an excellent solution - however it's a solution to a different problem. I think your URL is actually a user interface; ie designed to be a primary data entry mechanism for a search or similar (which is cool). Most URLs are not really designed for humans to use. They are essentially simply uncompressed tinyURLs. Many URLs are actually informative but a quick look at the 33 pages I have open: * line-noise 18 * grokable 15 I don't think I could, with any certainty, have typed the displayed URL into *any* of them to get what I was seeing. They're not data entry fields. Another site I've done, http://landmarktrust.dracos.co.uk/ uses a key=value URL structure, so that it doesn't matter in what order the variables are presented. Yep, IIRC I used that for BTexact's site a few years back. I notice the URLs in http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ are not so easy to comprehend (not a criticism - just an example of a more complex problem that doesn't succumb). TinyURL is clever - it's small and easy to *transcribe*. Well, unless you can get 1 and l, or O and 0 confused. :) Oh, I'm sure it can be improved. (Yes, it astonishes me that things like MS product keys (not seen one for a couple of years but...) still use 0s and Os - and the only difference in the printed version is the roundedness of the font) Anyhow... URLs are clearly primarily designed as a machine readable bookmark - either to a process point (sessions) or an information heirarchy/database location (wikis, shops, blogs, forums, datastores) They are, in the main, no longer expected to be typed. (What % of urls that you visit do you actually type - shortcuts *not* included!) For the rare occasion we need to type (transcribe) then I'd suggest that tinyURLs are a better UI than informative URLs. They have less chance of transcription error (both because they're shorter and because the user doesn't think they know how to spell). Interesting discussion :) David - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:45 +, Peter Bowyer wrote: However that's not always the case. Turnham Green is actually a hell of a lot closer to Chiswick Park tube station, than Turnham Green tube station. ... and if you get a 27 bus to Turnham Green, it stops at the real Turnham Green, not the tube station - a nightmare for integrated public transport planning :-) if you don't get 'em on public transport you'll never turn 'em green;) (I'll get me coat) - R - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
David Greaves wrote: then some silly bugger like me will think about it in an entirely different way: (see above URL) Okay, but more and more people can only learn about hierarchical-ness - e.g. the mouse gesture in Opera to go up a level and so on (just thought, I wonder if that works on Opera on a Wii...? :) ). But as you say, people don't generally type URLs, and having the hierarchy as a /result/ of tinyurl or whatever is still helpful. I'd be most annoyed if a tinyurl displayed the page under that URL I've just entered without changing to the actual location. I notice the URLs in http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ are not so easy to comprehend (not a criticism - just an example of a more complex problem that doesn't succumb). Only because we haven't been able to get around to it yet, it could be a lot better, certainly at a 1st/2nd depth level - I believe there's a ticket for it ;) For the rare occasion we need to type (transcribe) then I'd suggest that tinyURLs are a better UI than informative URLs. They have less chance of transcription error (both because they're shorter and because the user doesn't think they know how to spell). Yep. However, as you said, how many URLs do you type? Certainly, links are clickable in my email client, so there was no real need for tiny-urls in that email from the BBC that started this discussion. The two arguments here are that some clients (Hotmail in safe mode, AOL if you haven't sent the email properly) don't make links clickable, so the user has to copy/paste/type them - tiny-urls doesn't help here, so we can assume the links will be clickable; and that URLs that are too long break across lines, so we need to make them shorter - and I think you could probably make an informative *and* shorter URL, perhaps adjusting between the two depending on your personal preference. If the URLs were stupidly long, I believe that's more likely to be a problem with that URL structure first. Tiny-urls for transcribing - this presumably means over a phone or similar, in which case I'd say - I'll just send you an email :-) A downside of transcribing tiny-urls is if you do get them wrong, there's probably not much the tiny-url provider can do to help; having a bit of information (and a good web developer) means a 404 page can hopefully be of use. But sadly lots of people aren't good web developers (I'm sure there are lots of places where I too fail on that before anyone goes hunting for any!) But I do like the fact that http://www.dracos.co.uk/paly/live-trains-ma/ works fine :) ATB, Matthew | http://www.dracos.co.uk/ - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
I've read all this with interest and it brings up some interesting points. The original subjects is with regard to emails, where there is a limit of 78 characters for some (older) systems. The other use for short URLs is where they have to be physically typed in because they are on a hard copy. It would make sense to me for the BBC to have a system of short code URLs for the whole site. I suspect that I would personally make them: go.bbc.co.uk/shortcode If they are to be reproduced in newspapers and the like, then they codes really need to be case insensitive and treat zero/O and one/I as the same character. This would allow a total of 34 characters (alphanumerics plus numbers minus two) for each character in the short code. This would give 34^5=45,435,424 possibilities for a five character code or 34^6=1,544,804,416 possibilities for six. I imagine that a six-character code would last for a few years I would also, personally, generate the codes randomly. These codes could then be displayed somewhere near the top of each page. Another use, which I don't think anyone has mentioned, for short codes is on mobile phones and other devices with poor input devices. On 06/11/2007, Matthew Somerville [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Greaves wrote: then some silly bugger like me will think about it in an entirely different way: (see above URL) Okay, but more and more people can only learn about hierarchical-ness - e.g. the mouse gesture in Opera to go up a level and so on (just thought, I wonder if that works on Opera on a Wii...? :) ). But as you say, people don't generally type URLs, and having the hierarchy as a /result/ of tinyurl or whatever is still helpful. I'd be most annoyed if a tinyurl displayed the page under that URL I've just entered without changing to the actual location. I notice the URLs in http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ are not so easy to comprehend (not a criticism - just an example of a more complex problem that doesn't succumb). Only because we haven't been able to get around to it yet, it could be a lot better, certainly at a 1st/2nd depth level - I believe there's a ticket for it ;) For the rare occasion we need to type (transcribe) then I'd suggest that tinyURLs are a better UI than informative URLs. They have less chance of transcription error (both because they're shorter and because the user doesn't think they know how to spell). Yep. However, as you said, how many URLs do you type? Certainly, links are clickable in my email client, so there was no real need for tiny-urls in that email from the BBC that started this discussion. The two arguments here are that some clients (Hotmail in safe mode, AOL if you haven't sent the email properly) don't make links clickable, so the user has to copy/paste/type them - tiny-urls doesn't help here, so we can assume the links will be clickable; and that URLs that are too long break across lines, so we need to make them shorter - and I think you could probably make an informative *and* shorter URL, perhaps adjusting between the two depending on your personal preference. If the URLs were stupidly long, I believe that's more likely to be a problem with that URL structure first. Tiny-urls for transcribing - this presumably means over a phone or similar, in which case I'd say - I'll just send you an email :-) A downside of transcribing tiny-urls is if you do get them wrong, there's probably not much the tiny-url provider can do to help; having a bit of information (and a good web developer) means a 404 page can hopefully be of use. But sadly lots of people aren't good web developers (I'm sure there are lots of places where I too fail on that before anyone goes hunting for any!) But I do like the fact that http://www.dracos.co.uk/paly/live-trains-ma/ works fine :) ATB, Matthew | http://www.dracos.co.uk/ - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
[backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/06/highfield_tactics/ As the BBC's New Media technology chief, Ashley Highfield has some tough questions to answer. What is the 4,000 strong division really doing? How did the BBC manage to burn through £100m - what a Silicon Valley start-up can spend in ten years *[*]* - to develop a single piece of client software? As he went on a PR offensive last week, *El Reg* was excluded - because we ask the wrong sort of questions. But his intent was clear. Besieged by Linux users and anti-DRM campaigners, the BBC's tech chief has embarked on a campaign to call their bluff. In an interview with BBC Backstage, Highfield argued that the BBC never intended to exclude Linux users from iPlayer feature parity with Windows, and would get there in the end. The DRM and Linux crowd are being lined up as the whipping boys - a welcome distraction from what a thorough examination of the BBC New Media's department might unearth. Unfortunately, these rights-for-gadgets campaigners are only too happy to play the part of the boob. On Highfield's blog, one Penguinista has already gifted us what must be one of the quotes of the year, with this contribution: I would like to say, he writes, that accessiblity [sic] for Linux users is EXACTLY the same issue as accessibility for those with disabilities. Yes, both pay the compulsory tax that funds the BBC. But being a paraplegic is not a choice, in the way that choosing a hobbyist operating system is a choice, and the tasteless comparison doesn't reflect well on the digital rights campaigners. And, heck - why stop there? Why not require that the BBC to retransmit its programmes in the Klingon language? Google already offers a Klingon language version of its search engine http://www.google.com/intl/xx-klingon/. It surely costs very little to add subtitles, and we can take it from there. What a gift for the besieged Highfield. A smart man, one wonders whether he's channelling Fake Steve Jobshttp://fakesteve.blogspot.com/search/label/Freetardsaccidentally, or deliberately. A blast of righteous indignation from the *Daily Mail* about sandal-wearing hippies bleeding the taxpayer dry can't be too far away. One wonders what has kept them so long. [image: Policing the Linux protestor] So that's the first piece of evidence that suggests Highfield is calling the campaigners' bluff. In doing so, he's laid a huge hole for them to march into, all placards waving. The second is DRM. The DRM bluff The small but noisy anti-copyright lobby wants to be able to swap BBC content freely, wherever they are in the world. In challenging this notion, Highfield is throwing creators' rights and taxpayers' rights into the equation. The BBC is under no obligation to provide stuff for free for the world, and the potential opportunity cost of giving away material, rather than licensing it to other broadcasters who would cheerfully pay for it, will cost the corporation far more than the iPlayer fiasco. The cost of acquiring the rights outright and upfront from producers, which the campaigners demand, would be extremely expensive - and the beneficiaries would be non-taxpayers. Why should the BBC, Highfield is asking, spend so much more merely for the benefit of students in Ithica and Kalamazoo can swap files? And do taxpayers need to exchange files, or merely*view* the material on demand? Once again, it isn't hard to imagine another *Daily Mail* splash on the BBC pouring money down the drain - for the benefit of foreign freeloaders. It's a well-rehearsed script: just rub out the word benefit fraud and insert digital fraud. Highfield also has an ace up his sleeve. While the public rejects DRM on music within a few seconds of realising the implications, it isn't clear that there's such opposition to other kinds of content, alas. As a rule of thumb, people reject technology when it makes something harder - and DRM on music stops people doing what they've done with songs since the invention of the consumer tape recorder. But few people object when it's attached to something they didn't have before. On balance, the DRM is weighed against the perceived advantage - and from there, we're into specifics. iPlayer content viewable on a PC certainly falls into the category of something we didn't have before - although the advantage is slight. Many Britons can already view on-demand services through a set-top box, and it isn't clear why we need to view it on a PC at all. Especially since the infrastructure doesn't really support ithttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/bbc_iplayer_isp_analysis/: British ISPs are under no obligation to go broke to fulfill this requirement. In conclusion, then, Highfield is calling the campaigners bluff on two areas dear to their hearts: support for hobbyist platforms, and DRM. Yet those tough questions at the top of this article haven't been answered, with campaigners providing easy fodder for Highfield. I trust that Highfield has a swear
[backstage] CC-Salon London: November 2007
Hi all, please excuse the spam - however, I thought this might interest some people on here (particularly as there'll be some discussion onf the BBC's Creative Archive Licence project). Cheers! Tim -- CC-Salon London returns with our final event of 2007, for more discussion and debate on the subjects of art, technology, copyright and free culture. This time round we'll be joined by Jordan Hatcher, a lawyer and legal consultant specialising in intellectual property and technology law, who will present and discuss his work on a new report entitled Snapshot study on the use of open content licences in the UK cultural heritage sector. This study primarily examines the use of the Creative Archive (CA) and Creative Commons (CC) licences among UK museums, libraries, galleries, and archives.The key objective has been to get a snapshot of current licensing practices in this area in 2007, and Jordan will report on his findings. We've got loads more events planned for the new year, including talks, discussions and parties. Visit our website for more information: http://ccsalon-london.org.uk The Salon will be held from 7PM - 11PM at: The Crown and Anchor, 22, Neal St, Covert Garden London WC2H 9PS. The event is open to all with no registration, but if you like, you can register on our Facebook or Upcoming events: Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=18814899168 Upcoming: http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/312503/?ps=5 - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 13:34, Brian Butterworth wrote: I suspect that I would personally make them: go.bbc.co.uk/shortcode The shortcode could then also be embedded in any advertising as a 2D barcode meaning someone could just snap a photo of something and have the shortcode easily extractable. Which would be quite neat. You could of course do this today using tinyurl.com and then the 2D barcodes could link anywhere, not just the BBC. You can put any URL you like into tinyurl after all and use it as an open 2D barcode lookup system: * cf http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xzaay Which I admit is possibly a little random. Michael - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote: The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. Michael. - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Brian Butterworth said * Everyone currently has to pay the licenece fee, as long as they have equipment capable of receiving television broadcasts (from analogue terrestrial, Freeview, Sky/Freesat, cable or IPTV). Mr Highfield, as the BBC's representative, is breaking the trust of the Licence Fee payers HE has determined to ignore. The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. So you can use the iPlayer without paying the license fee. Kevin. - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On 11/6/07, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 November 2007 13:34, Brian Butterworth wrote: I suspect that I would personally make them: go.bbc.co.uk/shortcode The shortcode could then also be embedded in any advertising as a 2D barcode meaning someone could just snap a photo of something and have the shortcode easily extractable. Which would be quite neat. You could of course do this today using tinyurl.com and then the 2D barcodes could link anywhere, not just the BBC. I did once spy a large 2D barcode somewhere in the Broadcast Centre - but it was before the days I had Kaywa Reader on my phone to do anything useful with it. I think two issues are being confused a little on this thread, though: - User-friendly URLs these generally exist already on websites with their heads screwed on - either by building a well-designed URL structure (well documented elsewhere), or judicious use of .htaccess redirects (eg. bbc.co.uk/sportscotland) where you want an easy deep link, perhaps to a nasty looking CMS address. - Short URLs to easy linking to stupidly long URLs avoids line breaking in emails (such as the BBC example at the top of the thread), or publishing really really big links as references in newspapers (as the Guardian frequently do.) I don't really think that big organisations like the above ought to have to rely on the likes of tinyurl for this - I'd have a little bit more confidence blindly clicking on, or typing in, such a link if I knew the redirect was being hosted by the people referring me to it. Doing it on their own domain would looks more professional too. - martin - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Brian Butterworth wrote: I've read all this with interest and it brings up some interesting points. The original subjects is with regard to emails, where there is a limit of 78 characters for some (older) systems. True - also if they are visible (and long) they can interfere with readability. I get [use Perl] stories and they look like this: One of the implications of the work on [0]Test::Harness 3.0 is that [1]Test::Harness::Straps will no longer exist as part of Test::Harness. For new applications you are encouraged to use TAP::Harness / TAP::Parser. The awkwardness of Straps was one of the reasons to embark on a rewrite of Test::Harness and the new code should make it far easier to write ad-hoc testing applications. Links: 0. http://search.cpan.org/~andya/Test-Harness-2.99_04/ 1. http://search.cpan.org/~petdance/Test-Harness-2.64/lib/Test/Harness/Straps.pm 2. http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09192.html Which probably has limited 'mass market' appeal but is suitable for text only emails. The other use for short URLs is where they have to be physically typed in because they are on a hard copy. Exactly - newspapers, TV shows, paper mail. Another use, which I don't think anyone has mentioned, for short codes is on mobile phones and other devices with poor input devices. Good one. David - 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 tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 06 November 2007 15:42, Kevin Hinde wrote: The license fee gives you a license to own equipment capable of receiving broadcast television. If all you have in your house is a computer (no TV card) and an internet connection, then you don't have to pay a license fee. It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. My point was not what is currently the case. I am just pointing out that if the BBC content were distributed on the Internet in the same way as it is done via terrestrial analogue broadcasts (from 1074 transmitters), Freeview (from 81 transmitters, well done Whitehaven), satellite (http://www.lyngsat-maps.com/maps/astra2d.html) and cable (Virgin Media) ie as a non-DRM broadcast then as a political decision, it would be quite logical to argue that possession of an broadband Internet connection could be linked to having to pay a TV licence. Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. Michael. - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
The whole Linux thing is a total red herring. It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what computers and operating systems that people who HAVE to pay the TV Licence will use. The BBC Charter runs for ten years. Can you really say you know what OS and platforms people will be using in a decade? That's a retorical no by the way. The sad, sad part of the whole debate is not the cross-platform issue, but the throwing away of the BBC's unique funding method. If you HAD not wasted time and effort on snake oil DRM solutions, and sorted out with the rights holders to get as much content onine as possible, then there would be a clear polticial argument to shift the BBC Licence Fee from a charge on homes with TV sets to homes with Broadband. (This is possible, the Archers is a podcast, EastEnders could be a VODcast) You could even save the costs of collections by getting the ISPs to collect the fee for you. But the path you have chosen is simply going to wreck the BBC on the shores of advertising and subscription. You have made a critical mistake, Mr Highfield, much like Mark Thompson made at Channel 4. DRM = RIP BBC On 06/11/2007, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
Is there a good reason that my posting on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html page has not appeared. On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole Linux thing is a total red herring. It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what computers and operating systems that people who HAVE to pay the TV Licence will use. The BBC Charter runs for ten years. Can you really say you know what OS and platforms people will be using in a decade? That's a retorical no by the way. The sad, sad part of the whole debate is not the cross-platform issue, but the throwing away of the BBC's unique funding method. If you HAD not wasted time and effort on snake oil DRM solutions, and sorted out with the rights holders to get as much content onine as possible, then there would be a clear polticial argument to shift the BBC Licence Fee from a charge on homes with TV sets to homes with Broadband. (This is possible, the Archers is a podcast, EastEnders could be a VODcast) You could even save the costs of collections by getting the ISPs to collect the fee for you. But the path you have chosen is simply going to wreck the BBC on the shores of advertising and subscription. You have made a critical mistake, Mr Highfield, much like Mark Thompson made at Channel 4. DRM = RIP BBC On 06/11/2007, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
[backstage] For all the Freetards, Fanboys and Windoze lusers.
My 2 cents: http://digitalrightsmanifesto.wordpress.com/2007/11/02/bbc-iplayer-drm-cross-platform-support-and-peer-to-peer- –-part-ii/ BBC iPlayer, DRM, cross platform support and Peer-to-Peer – Part II. The BBC is getting an ass-kicking in the technological playground that is the Internet at the moment. This is mainly because it's playing by the rules whilst others are playing fast and loose (Last.fm, YouTube to name just two) with the legal niceties. My own personal opinion is that the BBC made a decision to go with peer-to-peer technology as a means to distribute their content online and as a result of this they ended up having to implement a proprietary DRM solution (and thus took away the ability to be cross-platform) to try and satisfy some of the competing stakeholders, which naturally ended up disenfranchising other stakeholders. Somebody had to make the unenviable call as to who would lose out (possibly just in the short-term with a view to meeting their requirements in the long term) - but there was always going to be a loser. Now, if it were up to me I would have gone with centralised distribution of high quality audio/video via multicast, low bitrate DRM-free downloads (i.e. the poor man's BBC) and a streaming Flash 30 day catch-up service. Why? – because soon the problem won't be getting to see content online but being able to find the quality from the tidal wave of content that is coming. With plummeting storage costs and soaring broadband speeds the amount of content that can be stored and moved around the Internet will only increase exponentially. This would have caused a problem with rights holders but I would have worked with them to bring them into the Promised Land – as they will thank the BBC in the long run when they realise that getting your stuff found online is going to be their biggest headache – when Google/News Corp/Microsoft/Yahoo become the gatekeepers. The BBC have little text links beside their news stories (some might dare to call them ads) to take you to the appropriate website of an individual or organisation named in the article. Having a 30 day catch-up service that had a URL to take you to the rights holders' commercial offering or a low bitrate download which had embedded html links or a watermark which linked you to the rights holders high bitrate offering would be a massive service to the rights holders and simply an expansion on an existing practice. Now they may have not gone for this but I would have tried something else and then something else and then something else – because I fundamentally believe it would have actually been in the best interests of the rights holders (even though they may not have recognised it immediately) in the long run. Rights should be protected. Starting with the consumer's. If the BBC had started from this premise then it would have won more advocates – as it is it has continued down the dead-end of using DRM to protect the content – which is doomed to failure, as the very notion of DRM protecting any content evaporated with FairUse4WM being updated before the iPlayer soft launch and allowing all the files to be cracked – resulting in press releases stating that all DRM is going to get cracked – thus making the whole process invalid and pointless. The thing to remember though is that the guys designing the iPlayer system would have implemented DRM for the rights holders, whose wishes are in direct conflict with the licence fee payer's rights whose wishes are in economic conflict with the wishes of the industry players, etc – so it was always going to be in conflict with one interested parties wishes. Rights should be protected. Starting with those of the licence fee payer, those of the content creator, those of the copyright holder, etc. They may need to stop calling it Digital Rights Management though – as I'm sure most people now interpret this as some kind of Microsoft knows best and We will only let you watch/listen/print/etc what we want you to watch/listen/print/etc. So instead it may be worth rebranding it as Digital Rights Protection and start from the point of wishing to protect peoples rights – those of the licence fee payer, those of the content creator, those of the copyright holder, etc. and not worry about how you protect the content for the moment – to be fair it hasn't been a huge success up to now (unless you're selling a DRM solution, but even then those days are numbers as evidenced by SONY rootkits and Amazon/Virgin Digital/Google Video all pulling their DRM offerings) and when in a hole the best thing to do, to begin with, is stop digging! Anybody who thinks they've got the answer – they don't! They just have a way of satisfying their needs/requirements/desires – but this means that someone else will suffer - as at the end of the day the BBC is comprised of a group of competing wishes and desires and operating in a competitive marketplace where it has the added impediment of government oversight et al.
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
I suspect it's called an enormous pre-moderation queue On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a good reason that my posting on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html page has not appeared. On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole Linux thing is a total red herring. It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what computers and operating systems that people who HAVE to pay the TV Licence will use. The BBC Charter runs for ten years. Can you really say you know what OS and platforms people will be using in a decade? That's a retorical no by the way. The sad, sad part of the whole debate is not the cross-platform issue, but the throwing away of the BBC's unique funding method. If you HAD not wasted time and effort on snake oil DRM solutions, and sorted out with the rights holders to get as much content onine as possible, then there would be a clear polticial argument to shift the BBC Licence Fee from a charge on homes with TV sets to homes with Broadband. (This is possible, the Archers is a podcast, EastEnders could be a VODcast) You could even save the costs of collections by getting the ISPs to collect the fee for you. But the path you have chosen is simply going to wreck the BBC on the shores of advertising and subscription. You have made a critical mistake, Mr Highfield, much like Mark Thompson made at Channel 4. DRM = RIP BBC On 06/11/2007, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv - 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 tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
Indeed - comment now posted Was in a meeting with the OSC -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Loosemore Sent: 06 November 2007 17:16 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter I suspect it's called an enormous pre-moderation queue On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a good reason that my posting on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html page has not appeared. On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole Linux thing is a total red herring. It is not for you, Mr Highfield, to determine what computers and operating systems that people who HAVE to pay the TV Licence will use. The BBC Charter runs for ten years. Can you really say you know what OS and platforms people will be using in a decade? That's a retorical no by the way. The sad, sad part of the whole debate is not the cross-platform issue, but the throwing away of the BBC's unique funding method. If you HAD not wasted time and effort on snake oil DRM solutions, and sorted out with the rights holders to get as much content onine as possible, then there would be a clear polticial argument to shift the BBC Licence Fee from a charge on homes with TV sets to homes with Broadband. (This is possible, the Archers is a podcast, EastEnders could be a VODcast) You could even save the costs of collections by getting the ISPs to collect the fee for you. But the path you have chosen is simply going to wreck the BBC on the shores of advertising and subscription. You have made a critical mistake, Mr Highfield, much like Mark Thompson made at Channel 4. DRM = RIP BBC On 06/11/2007, Kevin Hinde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BT Tech Chief: You freetards *do* matter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv - 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/ - 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] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
Beyond the debate about security in following email links, redirects and then the discussion of poorly designed urls the weirdest thing about the use of tinyurl in the BBC Archive email is that the urls they were substituting weren't that long in the first place: http://tinyurl.com/2fkqes goes to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/forgotton_password.shtml and... http://tinyurl.com/29t4o5 goes to: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/ ...then to compound the confusion the email signs off with the real url: Regards, The BBC archive trial team bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/ sometimes things just don't make sense ~:-\ J. On 5/11/07 17:52, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using TinyUrl is a symptom of poorly designed urls... On 05/11/2007, Sean Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam wrote: Tinyurl is a great service and i can understand why it is used, but i feel that using this type of service in a wider audience is a bad idea. We're having this exact same argument at the moment here, and I would agree that ideally this service should be located under the main publisher's domain. The Guardian uses tinyurl extensively, as do many other publications. We have decided to build our own system instead, as at least this way we are able to track who's clicking the links and where they're coming from as well. Seán - 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/ - 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/ - 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 tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
On 06/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was in a meeting with the OSC Was that just for show or does the BBC intend to actually pay attention? I think they disagreed with pretty much everything Mr Highfiled has said (see: http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/content/view/78/55/ ). Are the minutes of these meetings available? Is an FOI request needed? Maybe you could start by releasing the spec's for the protocols you posses, and developer documents? Releasing your comms protocols (details of how meta data is held, what requests go between client and BBC server) etc. As a show of good faith perhaps. It shouldn't harm security in the least bit either. provided you didn't do something daft like accidentally add the SSH root password in a source code comment ;) All we ask is that you use open standards. If you want to constantly whine that your rights holders forced you to use closed protocols then: 1. Show us the agreement with them 2. It does not explain why you haven't released the non-DRM part of the system specs. Also could you look at some of the files on your servers, it appears you have a DRM standard already. Why does the BBC pay people to do what the BBC claim is impossible? Also how much does the BBC pay to be a member of: TV-Anytime W3C ETSI (just wondering what the BBC is paying to develop standards it is ignoring). Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - 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] What would you do? (Was: BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter)
vijay chopra wrote: Of course, this raises the question, is he misleading deliberately, or just misinformed? Considering his recent faux pas it's not much of a stretch to believe he's not only misinformed, terminally so (I ascribe nothing to malice that can be explained by eveyday incompetence). To paraphrase a famous saying, Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. (With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke.) But, seriously, I do have a great deal of sympathy for Ashley's current predicament. If you had: * Negotiated distribution rights with large numbers of programme-makers, * Developed and deployed a large-scale, proprietary peer-to-peer distribution system for providing access to said programmes, * Developed the client-side programs and web- and server-side tooling to support such access, ... and then later realised that: * That the arguments for DRM that you'd previously accepted do not make sound technological sense, * The regulatory agency that you report to is indicating that the current platform support is insufficient, * That the proprietary technology choices that you'd made for the distribution and DRM components of your infrastructure are not portable to all of the necessary and ideal target platforms (Mac, Linux, smartphones, iPods, etc.), * You're being forced to publically defend the decisions that you'd previously made using the rationale you used at the time, and finding that the arguments you're making are unconvincing (at least to this audience), ... what would you do? So far as I see it, Ashley has only a couple of options: 1. Try to continue down the present course - procuring or developing DRM and/or distribution technology as necessary in order to satisfy both the BBC regulators' and the rights-holders' requirements. (See also: the recent Adobe Air streaming announcement.) Or: 2. Develop and advocate a major shift in strategy, that involves: - Dropping the design requirement for DRM on all distributed content, - Retooling the existing production infrastructure as necessary to support open distribution and content standards, - Either convincing the BBC legal team that they have the rights to distribute the programme-makers content sans-DRM under their existing broadcast / streaming agreements, -or- - Re-opening negotiations with the programme makers to secure internet distribution rights sans-DRM, -or- - Restricting the programmes that may be downloaded by the iPlayer service to in-house content that they clearly can offer for access by UK residents. Though option 2 seems, to me at least, to clearly be in the license-payer's (and our) interest - and a technically superior option - it's certainly a much higher-risk strategy from Ashley's perspective, and, politically, would most likely be a very hard sell to BBC management. At what point does option 1 become untenable? Cheers, David -- David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computing, Imperial College, London signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
The BBC is on satellite using the EU directive Television without Frontiers, EU (89/552/EEC CHAPTER II, Article 2) directive that states: 2. Member States shall ensure freedom of reception and shall not restrict retransmission on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields coordinated by this Directive http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31989L0552:EN:HTML Greg Dyke states (p187, Inside Story): When the BBC first put its television services onto BSkyB's digital platform it took the rather odd decision to pay BSkyB £5 million for the privilege of doing so. It was a decision taken back in 1998 and it was odd because BSkyB were desperate to get the BBC on board and would happily have paid them to get them. The BBC were total mugs. In late 2003 ... two further things happened. First a new satellite had been launched with a smaller footprint that only covered the UK and part of Northern Europe. Second, I discovered from my colleagues in the German equivalent of the BBC that they happily put their signals out unencrypted - this was allowed under European rules on overspill. On 06/11/2007, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post: We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin Media, Sky, Tiscali TV/HomeChoice, mobile platforms, etc.) The BBC doesn't distribute programs via Sky, it distributes them via the Astra Satalite using the DRM free DVB-S standard; I don't have to get a sky subscription to view the BBCs digital satalite content, just a satalite dish and a decoder box. Similarly with Virgin Media IIRC the BBC signal can be picked up using any old DVB-C decoder. It's not encrypted in either case. I can't comment on the other platforms he lists, but if he's wrong about the first two why should I believe him about the others? Of course, this raises the question, is he misleading deliberately, or just misinformed? Considering his recent faux pas it's not much of a stretch to believe he's not only misinformed, terminally so (I ascribe nothing to malice that can be explained by eveyday incompetence). Vijay. On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a good reason that my posting on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html page has not appeared. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post: We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin Media, Sky, Tiscali TV/HomeChoice, mobile platforms, etc.) The BBC doesn't distribute programs via Sky, it distributes them via the Astra Satalite using the DRM free DVB-S standard; I don't have to get a sky subscription to view the BBCs digital satalite content, just a satalite dish and a decoder box. Similarly with Virgin Media IIRC the BBC signal can be picked up using any old DVB-C decoder. It's not encrypted in either case. I can't comment on the other platforms he lists, but if he's wrong about the first two why should I believe him about the others? Virgin Media and Sky are proprietary networks because a user requires a Sky or Virgin proprietary receiver to take full benefit of all of all of their services, not just video/audio. For example, EPG, channel list, interactive services, pay-per-view content etc.. The DVB parts of the network are open but a significant amount of the rest of the platform is closed. For the average user, this extra network data is important as, for example, they don¹t want to be typing in a transponder frequency just to change channel. In the case of the Sky network, Sky network-specific data is carried in the BBC transport stream that is up-linked via Astra alongside the open video and audio streams. The BBC distributes EPG data and interactive services to both Sky and Virgin according to the network¹s proprietary formats. To contrast this with an entirely open and non-proprietary network, look at the differences between Sky and Freeview (DVB-T). I believe Ashley Highfield is correct here because he uses the word ³network². Richard -- Dr Richard Cartwright media systems architect portability4media.com
Re: [backstage] Use of Tinyurl in Emails
On 6 Nov 2007, at 00:07, Andrew Bowden wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of James Cox 'course, bbc.co.uk has had some kind of redirect magic for a while: http://bbc.co.uk/zanelowe/ First time I've seen a big fat httpd.conf called magic :) and there I was thinking you had some nice routing controller thin- app which had some clever logging, tracking and management of such urls :) though i suspect the problem (and usage of tinyurl) is that to get one of those nice urls hooked up, you gotta email someone a request, who needs to get approval from a manager Well lets just say there is a process and it has to be done sensibly else you'd get loads of random redirects. Although I still think bbc.co.uk/breakfast should go to a big portal page for all the BBC's breakfast shows :) -- James Cox, Internet Consultant t: 07968 349990 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://imaj.es/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. Actually if you re-read I was hypothesising, not claiming on the basis that the data was incomplete and therefore the claims were possibly unsubstantiated.. In fact I put up various DISCLAIMERS saying i knew various things probably weren't the case but that I still wanted to see the data to be sure. In the best of spirits, perhaps you would like to reread my email. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. Please tell me when I have passed any of these figures off as fact! I think you will find they are Theory all the way. You must be confusing me me with Ashley Highfield, he seems to do that sort of thing! You're not a homeopath are you? Sire, to say the least I am getting a little fed up of your attitude in regard to these comments. You are taking it a little bit far. Without having to point out that, medical(?) opinions have nothing to do with views on software. In fact, I find it quite depressing that someone such as yourself, engage in this sort of activity because I had previously thought it was not the way in which business is conducted on this mailing list, as I had anticipated a much more mature attitude from it's users. I don't think at any point I have been unreasonable or offensive in the least, but let me stand corrected if you can show how: - I have been offensive and deserved that comment. - I have written hypothetical figures off as fact. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk 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
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
I stand corrected. Vijay. On 06/11/2007, Richard Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED]https://mail.google.com/mail?view=cmtf=0[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post: We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin Media, Sky, Tiscali TV/HomeChoice, mobile platforms, etc.) The BBC doesn't distribute programs via Sky, it distributes them via the Astra Satalite using the DRM free DVB-S standard; I don't have to get a sky subscription to view the BBCs digital satalite content, just a satalite dish and a decoder box. Similarly with Virgin Media IIRC the BBC signal can be picked up using any old DVB-C decoder. It's not encrypted in either case. I can't comment on the other platforms he lists, but if he's wrong about the first two why should I believe him about the others? Virgin Media and Sky are proprietary networks because a user requires a Sky or Virgin proprietary receiver to take full benefit of all of all of their services, not just video/audio. For example, EPG, channel list, interactive services, pay-per-view content etc.. The DVB parts of the network are open but a significant amount of the rest of the platform is closed. For the average user, this extra network data is important as, for example, they don't want to be typing in a transponder frequency just to change channel. In the case of the Sky network, Sky network-specific data is carried in the BBC transport stream that is up-linked via Astra alongside the open video and audio streams. The BBC distributes EPG data and interactive services to both Sky and Virgin according to the network's proprietary formats. To contrast this with an entirely open and non-proprietary network, look at the differences between Sky and Freeview (DVB-T). I believe Ashley Highfield is correct here because he uses the word network. Richard -- *Dr Richard Cartwright *media systems architect *portability4media.com *
Re: [backstage] What would you do? (Was: BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter)
Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM. Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings, classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust's fears over the negative market impact of non-DRM downloads. Though option 2 seems, to me at least, to clearly be in the license-payer's (and our) interest - and a technically superior option - it's certainly a much higher-risk strategy from Ashley's perspective, and, politically, would most likely be a very hard sell to BBC management. At what point does option 1 become untenable? Cheers, David -- David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computing, Imperial College, London - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Title: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. Similar hare brained schemes have been suggested for music, they were deeply unpopular with the ISP community, as would this. As an aside why should I pay to receive TV over my business connections to sites that don't even have monitors installed ? 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the whole blooming point. I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software developers ought not to have power over software users, which is the whole point of GNU/Linux - truly matters. It is a real shame that the BBC Trust and Management don't understand this principle. -- Regards, Dave Opinion expressed above is wholly my own and doesn't represent any employers. - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service. Has there been a later act/amendment? Michael. - 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
At 01:36 + 7/11/07, Michael Sparks wrote: Has there been a later act/amendment? If the apparatus is not installed or used to receive television programme service then no licence is required. Unplugging the aerial and detuning the set are sufficient to render the apparatus un-installed and unable to receive the television programme service. Unplugging it and putting it in the attic would also be sufficient. 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] Ashley Highfield speaks again
Tim, The rules for this discussion forum is deploy filters. If you are offended, please stop reading. There is no need to consider flaming. On 06/11/2007, Tim Dobson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh please. Don't try and dismiss the point by picking up on one obviously illustrative statistic. Of course you never mentioned 30%. But you're claiming that the actual figures for Linux use are much higher than the evidence shows. Actually if you re-read I was hypothesising, not claiming on the basis that the data was incomplete and therefore the claims were possibly unsubstantiated.. In fact I put up various DISCLAIMERS saying i knew various things probably weren't the case but that I still wanted to see the data to be sure. In the best of spirits, perhaps you would like to reread my email. You're choosing the kind of figures you want, concocting a theory to fit those figures, and then passing it off as fact. Please tell me when I have passed any of these figures off as fact! I think you will find they are Theory all the way. You must be confusing me me with Ashley Highfield, he seems to do that sort of thing! You're not a homeopath are you? Sire, to say the least I am getting a little fed up of your attitude in regard to these comments. You are taking it a little bit far. Without having to point out that, medical(?) opinions have nothing to do with views on software. In fact, I find it quite depressing that someone such as yourself, engage in this sort of activity because I had previously thought it was not the way in which business is conducted on this mailing list, as I had anticipated a much more mature attitude from it's users. I don't think at any point I have been unreasonable or offensive in the least, but let me stand corrected if you can show how: - I have been offensive and deserved that comment. - I have written hypothetical figures off as fact. -Tim -- www.dobo.urandom.co.uk 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 -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 16:12 + 6/11/07, Brian Butterworth wrote: If the TV Licence was changed to a BBC Licence, it could be collected by the Internet ISPs on top of their monthly charges, which would reduce the collection costs. No it would just move the costs to another party. I guess you can provide some evidence for this? Similar hare brained schemes have been suggested for music, they were deeply unpopular with the ISP community, as would this. I care not. The idea of doing it for music is dumb. The idea of moving the TV licence to broadband connections is not. It has been popular since the 1980s for people to act as selfish as possible and moan about taxes, but my suggestion is simply transferring one tax - a hypotocated one - from one device to another! As an aside why should I pay to receive TV over my business connections to sites that don't even have monitors installed ? Businesses have to have a TV licence if they have TVs. I can't see why businesses should not continue to contribute to Auntie. I presume from your comments you are a close the BBC person? 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter
On 06/11/2007, Richard Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/11/07 18:29, vijay chopra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice Ashley's misleading people again. From his blog-post: We do maximise the reach of our services by distributing our content via closed or prioprietary networks (Virgin Media, Sky, Tiscali TV/HomeChoice, mobile platforms, etc.) The BBC doesn't distribute programs via Sky, it distributes them via the Astra Satalite using the DRM free DVB-S standard; I don't have to get a sky subscription to view the BBCs digital satalite content, just a satalite dish and a decoder box. Similarly with Virgin Media IIRC the BBC signal can be picked up using any old DVB-C decoder. It's not encrypted in either case. I can't comment on the other platforms he lists, but if he's wrong about the first two why should I believe him about the others? Virgin Media and Sky are proprietary networks because a user requires a Sky or Virgin proprietary receiver to take full benefit of all of all of their services, not just video/audio. For example, EPG, channel list, interactive services, pay-per-view content etc.. The DVB parts of the network are open but a significant amount of the rest of the platform is closed. For the average user, this extra network data is important as, for example, they don't want to be typing in a transponder frequency just to change channel. In the case of the Sky network, Sky network-specific data is carried in the BBC transport stream that is up-linked via Astra alongside the open video and audio streams. You are not entirely correct. Virgin is a 100% CLOSED network, but it is not proprietary, it uses DVB-S. However, the whole network is owned by Virgin, including the cables in the ground, the headends in the streets and the backend distribution network. Sky is a reseller's network. The satellites and their transponders are owned by SES Astra. The uplink sites belong to BT. The terrestrial networks are BT and NTLs. The encryption system is by News Corp's Datacomm. The software on the set-top box is owned by OpenTV. Sky run an EPG, but this is regulated by Ofcom and Sky MUST carry other broadcasters listings on it in a non-prejudicial way. Some broadcasters uplink their own content (the majority in fact), some use Sky's encryption systems, some don't. The BBC distributes EPG data and interactive services to both Sky and Virgin according to the network's proprietary formats. To contrast this with an entirely open and non-proprietary network, look at the differences between Sky and Freeview (DVB-T). Virgin's propitiatory format is HTTP! Sky's is OpenTV's data, but it is carried in the usual MPEG/DVB-S transport stream. There is very, very little difference between Sky and Freeview aside from using slightly different EPG format and having OpenTV rather than MHEG5 for the delivery of interactive stuff. I believe Ashley Highfield is correct here because he uses the word network. Richard -- *Dr Richard Cartwright *media systems architect *portability4media.com * -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 06/11/2007, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To my mind, the whole Linux-users debate is a clever way of missing the whole blooming point. I broadly agree, although I think the point is that popularity is unimportant while principle - ie, the principle that software developers ought not to have power over software users, which is the whole point of GNU/Linux - truly matters. It is a real shame that the BBC Trust and Management don't understand this principle. I can't see much evidence of principles in any of their arguments. Same applies to Ofcom as well. -- Regards, Dave Opinion expressed above is wholly my own and doesn't represent any employers. - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] What would you do? (Was: BBC tech chief: You Freetards don't matter)
On 06/11/2007, Tom Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Forget management, I fear you'll find that the BBC Trust's permission to offer 7 days catchup TV was predicated on using DRM. Various parts of its non-DRM on demand radio proposals (book readings, classical music) failed the Public Value Test due to the BBC Trust's fears over the negative market impact of non-DRM downloads. Yes, more people would have learnt about classical music and read more books. Though option 2 seems, to me at least, to clearly be in the license-payer's (and our) interest - and a technically superior option - it's certainly a much higher-risk strategy from Ashley's perspective, and, politically, would most likely be a very hard sell to BBC management. At what point does option 1 become untenable? Cheers, David -- David McBride [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Computing, Imperial College, London - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield speaks again
On 07/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 06/11/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... It's not quite as simple as that. It's not to do with receiving broadcast television anymore, its spec'd as being a television service. A computer with an internet connection picking up the multicast streams from the BBC would require a TV license. A television services is extremely well defined though. OK, that should be television programme service. I'm not a lawyer. On Tuesday 06 November 2007 16:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Can I also correct the above mistake. A TV Licence is NOT a licence to OWN a television, but to OPERATE it. From - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm#9 : 9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. Did you not see the word installed in that paragraph? (2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service. Has there been a later act/amendment? Yes, there are a number of SIs that modify this Act. Michael. - 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
