RE: [backstage-developer] news story content
Hi Alf There are plans for an API...what it will have in it is still being defined. We don't have full text feeds available at the moment. Cheers, John O'Donovan Chief Technical Architect BBC Future Media Technology (Journalism) BC3 C1, Broadcast Centre, 201 Wood Lane, London http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/ -Original Message- From: owner-backstage-develo...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backstage-develo...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Alf Eaton Sent: 18 June 2009 16:15 To: backstage-developer@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage-developer] news story content I was looking for science stories from BBC News, and found the feed for the category: http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk/rss/newsonline_world_edition/science/nature/rss .xml but only short summaries of the content. Are there any plans for an API to access the full contents of news stories (for analysis, not for redistribution)? Thanks, alf - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk developer discussion group. To unsubscribe, please send an email to majord...@lists.bbc.co.uk with unsubscribe backstage-developer [your email] as the message. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk developer discussion group. To unsubscribe, please send an email to majord...@lists.bbc.co.uk with unsubscribe backstage-developer [your email] as the message.
Re: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 01:47 +0100, Tom Fitzhenry wrote: Hey guys, Are there any plans on supporting HTML 5's video tag for iPlayer? I realise there are rights issues with some programmes and that rights holders might have problems with non-DRM solutions, but presumably there are some programmes which the BBC have full rights to. This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK. Currently all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD streams) is delivered without any DRM. RTMP is not DRM or content protection. Supporting the video tag raises the question of which codec to use, which is difficult to answer because there is no codec that every vaguely popular browser (IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome) supports or plans to support in the near future. IE has been silent so far (though there are DirectShow filters for Ogg Theora/Vorbis.[0]). Firefox 3.5 will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (and cannot support H.264/AAC because of patent issues).[1] Safari will support H.264/AAC (Ogg Theora/Vorbis plugins for Quicktime exist[2]).[3] Opera will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (I don't know if they plan to purchase licenses for its users.)[4] Chrome will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis and H.264/AAC.[5] I think users of alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome), rather than non-alternative browsers would most appreciate video to Flash. Also, H.264/AAC cannot be supported in browsers without huge financial backing (because of patent issues), where as Ogg Theora/Vorbis is believed to be patent-free. As such, to benefit most people, I think using Ogg Theora/Vorbis would be the best choice. +1 for this. Come on beeb - at least come up with a demo page so we can give it a test! Also, why didn't Dirac make it into these browsers? It would seem like a great missed opportunity... Regards, Tom Fitzhenry Regards Phil - 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] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
Ogg Theora is an excellent choice because it is not patent-encumbered and has good metadata support (even if search engines and local indexers like Spotlight neglect that metadata for now). However, the Ogg container could just as well contain Dirac and in my view the BBC is missing a major opportunity for goodwill by not promoting Dirac. The shortcut to this is to talk with Adobe; they quietly added Speex support to Flash 10 after all, and with Dirac support in Flash, uptake would develop very quickly. H.264/AAC uptake has been hampered by Microsoft's refusal to support it these past six years; they seem to have deathly feared the competition with Windows Media. They support it in the XBox though, and in Windows 7 which may be out this year after all. Opera doesn't need licences for Ogg Theora, Håkon Wium Lie their CTO told me a year and a half ago they vastly prefer unencumbered web standards. He repeated this when I saw him last week at a briefing on the Microsoft browser tying case. Opera is probably another opportunity to promote Dirac in mobile. There is an Ogg Theora codec pack for Windows Media Player, but I believe it cannot be pushed out silently and requires administrative rights. Sean On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 2:47 AM, Tom Fitzhenryt...@tom-fitzhenry.me.uk wrote: Hey guys, Are there any plans on supporting HTML 5's video tag for iPlayer? I realise there are rights issues with some programmes and that rights holders might have problems with non-DRM solutions, but presumably there are some programmes which the BBC have full rights to. Supporting the video tag raises the question of which codec to use, which is difficult to answer because there is no codec that every vaguely popular browser (IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome) supports or plans to support in the near future. IE has been silent so far (though there are DirectShow filters for Ogg Theora/Vorbis.[0]). Firefox 3.5 will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (and cannot support H.264/AAC because of patent issues).[1] Safari will support H.264/AAC (Ogg Theora/Vorbis plugins for Quicktime exist[2]).[3] Opera will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (I don't know if they plan to purchase licenses for its users.)[4] Chrome will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis and H.264/AAC.[5] I think users of alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome), rather than non-alternative browsers would most appreciate video to Flash. Also, H.264/AAC cannot be supported in browsers without huge financial backing (because of patent issues), where as Ogg Theora/Vorbis is believed to be patent-free. As such, to benefit most people, I think using Ogg Theora/Vorbis would be the best choice. Regards, Tom Fitzhenry PS. I don't know if this is the right place to post this. I couldn't find a better place though. 0. http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox 2. http://xiph.org/quicktime/ 3. http://webkit.org/blog/140/html5-media-support/ 4. http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/11/25/ 5. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10250958-2.html - 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] The Final Digital Britain report
Hi It's all a bit of a disappointment... I'm still trying to work out how many times over this so call surplus from the TV Licence is going to be spent, but whilst I go and spread some sheets, I can't help noticing some of the good goofs in the Digital UK Report. My favourite are: *128 ... Free-to-air digital terrestrial broadcasting ... and, we expect, leading-edge high-definition capability from early 2010* What is leading-edge about a service that is TODAY the ONLY form of terrestrial broadcasting used by 303 million people (in 113 million households) in the US? *131 High definition transmissions offer much clearer TV pictures* No manure. *132. Another missing infrastructure link for digital terrestrial TV is a return path for interactive services - a capability already provided on satellite, DSL and cable networks.* That's because it's a broadcast, not a peer-to-peer network. And this return path would be - oh yes, the internet. *101 ... higher mobile termination rates applied to T-Mobile and Orange have provided some compensation for the higher costs associated with poorer propagation properties.* Or, in English, T-Mobile/Virgin and Orange (1800Mhz) phones don't work as well as Vodafone and O2 (900 MHz) ones, but cost more to call. 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/ what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK. Currently all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD streams) is delivered without any DRM. RTMP is not DRM or content protection. RTMP may not be DRM, but I it's close enough to serve that purpose, and it does so rather well! Embedded ogg would lower that barrier quite significantly, something I imagine the rights-holders would not be best pleased with. -dave
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news programme for ITV. If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news channels. For a start it would make sense to supplement BBC London with BBC Birmingham and BBC Manchester. This would mean BBC West Midlands and BBC North West becomes a county service. The BBC Scotland service could be split into an urban central belt service for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a highland and islands service (cf. Grampian region) The BBC North West service could split into three, one for Tyne, one for Tees and one for Cumbria. BBC North could be BBC West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford etc), BBC South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and BBC North Yorkshire (another county service). The BBC South region could split as Meridian did, with one for the Hampshire end and another for Sussex. And so on. There are 60.9 million people in the UK, so 30 regional news channels serving a population of about 2 million each would be local news. It would CLEARLY be better for there to be ONE news programme with LOCAL news for everyone, than a choice of TWO news programmes that are REGIONAL. Any analysis would show that people would benefit more for news of a more local nature, than a choice of two lots of news that will be about somewhere that is not local. The idea of preserving regional news on ITV is nostalgia and not an analysis of what would benefit the public. You could clearly get 30 x BBC Local News 24-hour channels from £150m a year, couldn't you? 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
RE: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's possible, but only if that included satellite and internet distribution. Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 18 June 2009 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news programme for ITV. If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news channels. For a start it would make sense to supplement BBC London with BBC Birmingham and BBC Manchester. This would mean BBC West Midlands and BBC North West becomes a county service. The BBC Scotland service could be split into an urban central belt service for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a highland and islands service (cf. Grampian region) The BBC North West service could split into three, one for Tyne, one for Tees and one for Cumbria. BBC North could be BBC West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford etc), BBC South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and BBC North Yorkshire (another county service). The BBC South region could split as Meridian did, with one for the Hampshire end and another for Sussex. And so on. There are 60.9 million people in the UK, so 30 regional news channels serving a population of about 2 million each would be local news. It would CLEARLY be better for there to be ONE news programme with LOCAL news for everyone, than a choice of TWO news programmes that are REGIONAL. Any analysis would show that people would benefit more for news of a more local nature, than a choice of two lots of news that will be about somewhere that is not local. The idea of preserving regional news on ITV is nostalgia and not an analysis of what would benefit the public. You could clearly get 30 x BBC Local News 24-hour channels from £150m a year, couldn't you? 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:29 +0100, David Johnston wrote: 2009/6/18 Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK. Currently all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD streams) is delivered without any DRM. RTMP is not DRM or content protection. RTMP may not be DRM, but I it's close enough to serve that purpose, and it does so rather well! IMHO, RTMP is not DRM at all. With RTMP there is no rights management, encryption, crypto signing, registration of players, conditional access, etc. OK, it is 'Digital' but that is about as close as it gets! The only purpose it seems to serve is its proprietary nature making it harder to interoperate with unless you are adobe who have not yet published the specs. However, adobe have aanounced in January that they will be releasing the RTMP specs this year some time. Maybe they are just running scared after all this HTML5/canvas threat to their dominance of the video streaming market. Maybe they see it as a threat also to their wanting to also dominate the digital TV market with flash et. al. ? Embedded ogg would lower that barrier quite significantly, something I imagine the rights-holders would not be best pleased with. The same rights holders probably didn't like VCRs either - or digital terrestrial tv broadcasting. :Phil -dave - 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] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis backst...@linuxcentre.net The same rights holders probably didn't like VCRs either - or digital terrestrial tv broadcasting. They didn't. They also didn't like cable TV, MP3 and just about any other cash cow you can mention. You have to force them to get rich each time. It's really quite embarrassing. - Rob.
Re: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
2009/6/18 Steve Carpenter steven.carpen...@warwick.ac.uk: They released the specs earlier this week. :) http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ Is this going to make the Adobe hounds less DMCA trigger happy against tools such as rtmpdump ? Cheers, Al. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
2009/6/18 Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's possible, but only if that included satellite and internet distribution. Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network. Thankfully this isn't about the current transmitter network. You could certainly carry several low-bandwidth news programmes to have more than one local news service on the multiplexes for each transmitter to provide a more localized service. For example if you broken the Yorkshire and Humber region into: * West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford, Hudderfield, Halifax) * South Yorkshire (Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster) * York and North Yorkshire * Hull, North and Northeast Linconshire, East Riding You would have to carry the first two services from Emley Moor and Sheffield (and relays) because the geography doesn't fit with the transmitter areas. If you follow the logic though, I get these services: Tyne and Wear - Durham and Northumberland - Manchester - Merseyside and Blackpool - Cumbria and Northwest Counties - West Midlands Metropolitan - West Midlands Counties (two services, north and south) - Leicester/Nottingham/Derby - East Midlands Counties (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) - Southampton and Hampshire - M4 Corridor (Oxford, Reading, Slow, Woking) - Kent East Sussex and Brighton - Surrey and West Sussex - Bristol, Bath and Western - Devon and Cornwall - Dorset and Wiltshire - Norfolk and Suffolk - Essex and Herts - Cambridge and Bedford - Edinburgh and Glasgow, Highlands and Islands, Rest of Scotland, South Wales Coast (Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda) - North and Rural Wales - Northern Ireland - London South - London North - London East - London West I think from my general working out that you would need to carry between one and four local services for each transmitter, usually two. It is doable, and would I think be a better service for all concerned. -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 18 June 2009 10:49 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news programme for ITV. If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news channels. For a start it would make sense to supplement BBC London with BBC Birmingham and BBC Manchester. This would mean BBC West Midlands and BBC North West becomes a county service. The BBC Scotland service could be split into an urban central belt service for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a highland and islands service (cf. Grampian region) The BBC North West service could split into three, one for Tyne, one for Tees and one for Cumbria. BBC North could be BBC West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford etc), BBC South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and BBC North Yorkshire (another county service). The BBC South region could split as Meridian did, with one for the Hampshire end and another for Sussex. And so on. There are 60.9 million people in the UK, so 30 regional news channels serving a population of about 2 million each would be local news. It would CLEARLY be better for there to be ONE news programme with LOCAL news for everyone, than a choice of TWO news programmes that are REGIONAL. Any analysis would show that people would benefit more for news of a more local nature, than a choice of two lots of news that will be about somewhere that is not local. The idea of preserving regional news on ITV is nostalgia and not an analysis of what would benefit the public. You could clearly get 30 x BBC Local News 24-hour channels from £150m a year, couldn't you? 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
That was the idea. It would certainly be good to have services for all the major connerbations, but as TV transmitters often cover many, I can't see there being a Derby/Nottingham split, but there would be a Nottingham/rural East Midlands split. 2009/6/18 i...@mullridge.com Does this get around somebody in Blackburn not being interested in Liverpool news, someone in Derby not being intersted in Nottingham etc. On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:00:29 +0100 Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's possible, but only if that included satellite and internet distribution. Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner- backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 18 June 2009 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news programme for ITV. If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news channels. For a start it would make sense to supplement BBC London with BBC Birmingham and BBC Manchester. This would mean BBC West Midlands and BBC North West becomes a county service. The BBC Scotland service could be split into an urban central belt service for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a highland and islands service (cf. Grampian region) The BBC North West service could split into three, one for Tyne, one for Tees and one for Cumbria. BBC North could be BBC West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford etc), BBC South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and BBC North Yorkshire (another county service). The BBC South region could split as Meridian did, with one for the Hampshire end and another for Sussex. And so on. There are 60.9 million people in the UK, so 30 regional news channels serving a population of about 2 million each would be local news. It would CLEARLY be better for there to be ONE news programme with LOCAL news for everyone, than a choice of TWO news programmes that are REGIONAL. Any analysis would show that people would benefit more for news of a more local nature, than a choice of two lots of news that will be about somewhere that is not local. The idea of preserving regional news on ITV is nostalgia and not an analysis of what would benefit the public. You could clearly get 30 x BBC Local News 24-hour channels from £150m a year, couldn't you? 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 - 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 follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
Thanks - I hadn't noticed they'd released it. If you read the licensing agreement first ( http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/pdf/rtmp_specification_license_1.0.pdf ) then you'll probably not want to go and download the specs. There are plenty of reasons why you'd not want to download and use this adobe spec as it allegedly makes you party to their *very* restrictive license/terms of use of their patented and proprietary protocol. I thought it sounded too good to be true - i.e. unencumbered openness! I suggest reading the other reverse engineered RTMP specs out there in the net if you are interested in implementing any rtmp client or server. Will they be less trigger happy - I guess not - now they'll just claim that you broke their licensing agreement by implementing their specs even if you never read them! ~Phil On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 12:05 +0100, Alan Pope wrote: 2009/6/18 Steve Carpenter steven.carpen...@warwick.ac.uk: They released the specs earlier this week. :) http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/ Is this going to make the Adobe hounds less DMCA trigger happy against tools such as rtmpdump ? Cheers, Al. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
Brian Butterworth wrote: *132. Another missing infrastructure link for digital terrestrial TV is a return path for interactive services - a capability already provided on satellite, DSL and cable networks.* That's because it's a broadcast, not a peer-to-peer network. And this return path would be - oh yes, the internet. Not necessarily, DVB-RCS and DVB-RCT are two return channel standards issued by DVB recently offering Return Channels via Satellite and Terrestrial transmissions *101 ... higher mobile termination rates applied to T-Mobile and Orange have provided some compensation for the higher costs associated with poorer propagation properties.* Or, in English, T-Mobile/Virgin and Orange (1800Mhz) phones don't work as well as Vodafone and O2 (900 MHz) ones, but cost more to call. I think they mean that to get similar coverage, more base stations are needed, which incurs a greater cost. -- *Simon Thompson MEng MIET* Research and Development Engineer PRINCE2^TM Registered Practitioner *BBC Research and Development* mailto:simon.thomp...@rd.bbc.co.uk
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
Is there a demand for this service though? IIRC the BBC was providing local news channels through the website but they've since been removed, I presume because of lack of people watching it. On 18 Jun 2009, at 12:28, Brian Butterworth wrote: 2009/6/18 Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's possible, but only if that included satellite and internet distribution. Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network. Thankfully this isn't about the current transmitter network. You could certainly carry several low-bandwidth news programmes to have more than one local news service on the multiplexes for each transmitter to provide a more localized service. For example if you broken the Yorkshire and Humber region into: * West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford, Hudderfield, Halifax) * South Yorkshire (Sheffield, Barnsley, Doncaster) * York and North Yorkshire * Hull, North and Northeast Linconshire, East Riding You would have to carry the first two services from Emley Moor and Sheffield (and relays) because the geography doesn't fit with the transmitter areas. If you follow the logic though, I get these services: Tyne and Wear - Durham and Northumberland - Manchester - Merseyside and Blackpool - Cumbria and Northwest Counties - West Midlands Metropolitan - West Midlands Counties (two services, north and south) - Leicester/Nottingham/Derby - East Midlands Counties (Notts/ Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) - Southampton and Hampshire - M4 Corridor (Oxford, Reading, Slow, Woking) - Kent East Sussex and Brighton - Surrey and West Sussex - Bristol, Bath and Western - Devon and Cornwall - Dorset and Wiltshire - Norfolk and Suffolk - Essex and Herts - Cambridge and Bedford - Edinburgh and Glasgow, Highlands and Islands, Rest of Scotland, South Wales Coast (Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda) - North and Rural Wales - Northern Ireland - London South - London North - London East - London West I think from my general working out that you would need to carry between one and four local services for each transmitter, usually two. It is doable, and would I think be a better service for all concerned. From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk ] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 18 June 2009 10:49 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news programme for ITV. If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news channels. For a start it would make sense to supplement BBC London with BBC Birmingham and BBC Manchester. This would mean BBC West Midlands and BBC North West becomes a county service. The BBC Scotland service could be split into an urban central belt service for Edinburgh and Glasgow and a highland and islands service (cf. Grampian region) The BBC North West service could split into three, one for Tyne, one for Tees and one for Cumbria. BBC North could be BBC West Yorkshire (Leeds, Bradford etc), BBC South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and BBC North Yorkshire (another county service). The BBC South region could split as Meridian did, with one for the Hampshire end and another for Sussex. And so on. There are 60.9 million people in the UK, so 30 regional news channels serving a population of about 2 million each would be local news. It would CLEARLY be better for there to be ONE news programme with LOCAL news for everyone, than a choice of TWO news programmes that are REGIONAL. Any analysis would show that people would benefit more for news of a more local nature, than a choice of two lots of news that will be about somewhere that is not local. The idea of preserving regional news on ITV is nostalgia and not an analysis of what would benefit the public. You could clearly get 30 x BBC Local News 24-hour channels from £150m a year, couldn't you? 2009/6/16 Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk The Final Digital Britain Report http://www.culture.gov.uk/what_we_do/broadcasting/6216.aspx So what do people think? Time to leave the country or dig a hole and stick our heads into it? Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - 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/ -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web:
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
2009/6/18 Simon Thompson simon.thomp...@rd.bbc.co.uk Brian Butterworth wrote: *132. Another missing infrastructure link for digital terrestrial TV is a return path for interactive services - a capability already provided on satellite, DSL and cable networks.* That's because it's a broadcast, not a peer-to-peer network. And this return path would be - oh yes, the internet. Not necessarily, DVB-RCS and DVB-RCT are two return channel standards issued by DVB recently offering Return Channels via Satellite and Terrestrial transmissions True, but the Digital Britiain report means a) Sky box contain a modem and b) is Project Canvas. *101 ... higher mobile termination rates applied to T-Mobile and Orange have provided some compensation for the higher costs associated with poorer propagation properties.* Or, in English, T-Mobile/Virgin and Orange (1800Mhz) phones don't work as well as Vodafone and O2 (900 MHz) ones, but cost more to call. I think they mean that to get similar coverage, more base stations are needed, which incurs a greater cost. It is the first time any goverment document actually notices that not all mobile phone networks are the same! -- -- *Simon Thompson MEng MIET* Research and Development Engineer PRINCE2TM Registered Practitioner *BBC Research and Development* simon.thomp...@rd.bbc.co.uk -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: East Midlands Counties (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) Norfolk and Suffolk Cambridge and Bedford Whilst a more local news service is the solution I think that some of your breakdowns will need more thought. I live in Peterborough and the sensible area for news would probably go down to Huntingdon, March and Chatteris in the south, up to past Spalding in the North, out to past Wisbech in the east, and west as far as Oakham and past Oundle. Ideally a local news service should cover that area - I shouldn't have to switch between the three local stations you've suggested (and I've quoted) to get the right coverage of things going on in my area. So what is needed is indeed a number or news stations, but also have the areas overlap and a culture and process of local stations sharing news gathering, and even VT packages, with neighbouring news stations. There should be no need for Norfolk/Suffolk to go out and film an interview at the western edge of their area, and then the next day for a Cambridgeshire station to go and repeat the interview because it is at the eastern edge of their area. -- Andy Leighton = an...@azaal.plus.com The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5
Ok before delving into the subject, Tom can you put it on ideas.welcomebackstage.com. Its very much the right place to post this type of thing. I think its significantly different to this, http://ideas.welcomebackstage.com/ideatorrent/idea/6/ It also helps to have something more structured when presentation ideas to others. So support for HTML5's video tag generally sounds good to me. Yes it will upset those with IE browsers but I'm sure someone will come up with some JavaScript/DOM hack which will replace the Video tag with object in the near future. Ogg Theora support in the BBC? Well (cough!) http://welcomebackstage.com/2009/06/rdtv-episode-2/ Will we see it elsewhere like iplayer? I don't know but I would say unlikely for now. In the same way we didn't support Ogg streaming outside of research/dev project. I expect Mpeg4 h.264 will be dominate for a while to come. I personally think if the Xiph foundation can sort out the metadata problem, they will have something very interesting indeed. Cheers, Ian Forrester This e-mail is: []secret; []private; [x]public Senior Producer, BBC Backstage, BBC RD Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 | mob: +44 (0)7711913293 -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Tom Fitzhenry Sent: 18 June 2009 01:48 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Ogg Theora/Vorbis and HTML5 Hey guys, Are there any plans on supporting HTML 5's video tag for iPlayer? I realise there are rights issues with some programmes and that rights holders might have problems with non-DRM solutions, but presumably there are some programmes which the BBC have full rights to. Supporting the video tag raises the question of which codec to use, which is difficult to answer because there is no codec that every vaguely popular browser (IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome) supports or plans to support in the near future. IE has been silent so far (though there are DirectShow filters for Ogg Theora/Vorbis.[0]). Firefox 3.5 will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (and cannot support H.264/AAC because of patent issues).[1] Safari will support H.264/AAC (Ogg Theora/Vorbis plugins for Quicktime exist[2]).[3] Opera will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis (I don't know if they plan to purchase licenses for its users.)[4] Chrome will support Ogg Theora/Vorbis and H.264/AAC.[5] I think users of alternative browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome), rather than non-alternative browsers would most appreciate video to Flash. Also, H.264/AAC cannot be supported in browsers without huge financial backing (because of patent issues), where as Ogg Theora/Vorbis is believed to be patent-free. As such, to benefit most people, I think using Ogg Theora/Vorbis would be the best choice. Regards, Tom Fitzhenry PS. I don't know if this is the right place to post this. I couldn't find a better place though. 0. http://www.xiph.org/dshow/ 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Using_audio_and_video_in_Firefox 2. http://xiph.org/quicktime/ 3. http://webkit.org/blog/140/html5-media-support/ 4. http://labs.opera.com/news/2008/11/25/ 5. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10250958-2.html - 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] The Final Digital Britain report
2009/6/18 Andy Leighton an...@azaal.plus.com On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: East Midlands Counties (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) Norfolk and Suffolk Cambridge and Bedford Whilst a more local news service is the solution I think that some of your breakdowns will need more thought. I live in Peterborough and the sensible area for news would probably go down to Huntingdon, March and Chatteris in the south, up to past Spalding in the North, out to past Wisbech in the east, and west as far as Oakham and past Oundle. Ideally a local news service should cover that area - I shouldn't have to switch between the three local stations you've suggested (and I've quoted) to get the right coverage of things going on in my area. You can't help that transmitters would cover more than one local area, it's just the way it is. Given that Freeview boxes/sets don't know where they are, only which region they are in, the only way to implement local channels would be to have lots of them and choose. In an ideal world you would have some interactive thingy on BBC One when the regional news cuts in so you can select, that would be possible with MHEG, but not automatically. I also agree that 60 local versions that would be even more local (a million people in each) would be better from the local standpoint, but I am just trying to deal with the £150m question, a 60-local-BBC-news service is going to cost a lost more than £150m on top of the current budget. So what is needed is indeed a number or news stations, but also have the areas overlap and a culture and process of local stations sharing news gathering, and even VT packages, with neighbouring news stations. There should be no need for Norfolk/Suffolk to go out and film an interview at the western edge of their area, and then the next day for a Cambridgeshire station to go and repeat the interview because it is at the eastern edge of their area. Yes, this is the case at the moment, was to be the case with the BBC local TV service and would be here in my 30 times two-million proposal. The way I have been looking at it is to use the 501-534 LCN range, thus: 501 Bristol, Bath and Western Today 502 Cambridge and Bedford Today 503 Cumbria and Northwest Counties Today 504 Devon and Cornwall Today 505 Dorset and Wiltshire Today 506 Durham and Northumberland Today 507 East Midlands Counties Today(Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) 508 Edinburgh and Glasgow Today (Perth, Dundee) 509 Essex and Herts Today 510 Highlands and Islands Today 511 Kent East Sussex and Brighton Today 512 Leicester/Nottingham/Derby Today 513 London East (reserved) 514 London North (reserved) 515 London South (reserved) 516 London West (reserved) 517 M4 Corridor Today (Oxford, Reading, Slow, Woking) 518 Manchester Today 519 Merseyside and Blackpool Today 520 Norfolk and Suffolk Today 521 North and Rural Wales Today 522 Northern Ireland Today 523 Rest of Scotland Today 524 South Wales Coast (Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda) Today 525 Southampton and Hampshire Today 526 Surrey and West Sussex Today 527 Tyne and Wear Today 528 West Midlands Counties S Today 529 West Midlands Counties N Today 530 West Midlands Metropolitan Today 531 West Yorkshire Today(Leeds, Bradford etc) 532 South Yorkshire Today 533 York and North Yorkshire Today 534 Hull, East Riding and North Lincs Today -- Andy Leighton = an...@azaal.plus.com The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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 follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] The Final Digital Britain report
I meant to say, these services should be carried on Multiplex 2 (and PSB2) because they come out of the ITV 34 Ltd free Freeview allocation! 2009/6/18 Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv 2009/6/18 Andy Leighton an...@azaal.plus.com On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote: East Midlands Counties (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) Norfolk and Suffolk Cambridge and Bedford Whilst a more local news service is the solution I think that some of your breakdowns will need more thought. I live in Peterborough and the sensible area for news would probably go down to Huntingdon, March and Chatteris in the south, up to past Spalding in the North, out to past Wisbech in the east, and west as far as Oakham and past Oundle. Ideally a local news service should cover that area - I shouldn't have to switch between the three local stations you've suggested (and I've quoted) to get the right coverage of things going on in my area. You can't help that transmitters would cover more than one local area, it's just the way it is. Given that Freeview boxes/sets don't know where they are, only which region they are in, the only way to implement local channels would be to have lots of them and choose. In an ideal world you would have some interactive thingy on BBC One when the regional news cuts in so you can select, that would be possible with MHEG, but not automatically. I also agree that 60 local versions that would be even more local (a million people in each) would be better from the local standpoint, but I am just trying to deal with the £150m question, a 60-local-BBC-news service is going to cost a lost more than £150m on top of the current budget. So what is needed is indeed a number or news stations, but also have the areas overlap and a culture and process of local stations sharing news gathering, and even VT packages, with neighbouring news stations. There should be no need for Norfolk/Suffolk to go out and film an interview at the western edge of their area, and then the next day for a Cambridgeshire station to go and repeat the interview because it is at the eastern edge of their area. Yes, this is the case at the moment, was to be the case with the BBC local TV service and would be here in my 30 times two-million proposal. The way I have been looking at it is to use the 501-534 LCN range, thus: 501 Bristol, Bath and Western Today 502 Cambridge and Bedford Today 503 Cumbria and Northwest Counties Today 504 Devon and Cornwall Today 505 Dorset and Wiltshire Today 506 Durham and Northumberland Today 507 East Midlands Counties Today(Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland) 508 Edinburgh and Glasgow Today (Perth, Dundee) 509 Essex and Herts Today 510 Highlands and Islands Today 511 Kent East Sussex and Brighton Today 512 Leicester/Nottingham/Derby Today 513 London East (reserved) 514 London North (reserved) 515 London South (reserved) 516 London West (reserved) 517 M4 Corridor Today (Oxford, Reading, Slow, Woking) 518 Manchester Today 519 Merseyside and Blackpool Today 520 Norfolk and Suffolk Today 521 North and Rural Wales Today 522 Northern Ireland Today 523 Rest of Scotland Today 524 South Wales Coast (Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Rhondda) Today 525 Southampton and Hampshire Today 526 Surrey and West Sussex Today 527 Tyne and Wear Today 528 West Midlands Counties S Today 529 West Midlands Counties N Today 530 West Midlands Metropolitan Today 531 West Yorkshire Today(Leeds, Bradford etc) 532 South Yorkshire Today 533 York and North Yorkshire Today 534 Hull, East Riding and North Lincs Today -- Andy Leighton = an...@azaal.plus.com The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - 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 follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
