Re: [backstage] DVB-H finally gets formal adoption by the EC (oh and vista SP1!)
On 25/03/2008, Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have heard a rumour that Freesat is will be launching around 5th May, so it might be worth waiting a few weeks just incase anything changes. Given the current progress on equipment installation for Freesat, I think early May is perhaps looking a little optimistic at the moment. However there are quite a few people working flat out on it so assuming there are no serious problems it might just be ready for May! - 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] Greater access to news data
This might help... http://feeds.feedburner.com/bbcnewsfrontpagefullfeed Regards, Duncan On 17/02/2008, Richard Askew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello everyone, firs time poster here! I wondered if you could help me. I am currently in my final year of University and I am currently drawing up ideas for my dissertation. I am looking to do some work with the BBC news feeds. At the moment I can receive the feeds and get the headline and brief description of the story. Is there a way in which I could go on and retrieve the whole news story for that particular feed so it can be presented in an application? Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you. Richard Askew * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html * -- --- Mob: 07976 914666 Web: http://www.barnesdmd.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 iplayer on exotic devices
On 04/01/2008, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: On 04/01/2008, Barry Carlyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: silly point - Just in case anyone missed it, there's a bunch of developers trying to bring BBC iPlayer content to the Xbox1 and Wii. The main thread can be found here - http://www.xboxmediacenter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27063; is xbox1 a typo, myself a poor student, still only have an xbox1so iPlayer on the Normal Xbox would be interesting... Yes, the original Xbox, not the Xbox360. The original Xbox's preloaded software can be modified to run community developed programs like the Xbox Media Center It is this program specifically that Ian is referring to; not all Xboxs will be able to view iPlayer streams, only ones modified to run XBMC. I believe this can all be done with one CD image now. Stick the CD in the drive of a Xbox1 and its firmware will be modified and you can install xbox media centre. Like I said, the Xbox running xbmc is interesting because it supports a network, is open (as such) and has a scriptable environment (python). You can imagine sooner or later set-top makers releasing boxes which have the same functions for a price. Reminds me of what dave sent a while ago - http://gizmodo.com/339513/dash-express-runs-on-openmoko-foss-platform-nerds-heads-explode Its probably worth pointing out (for the wider crowd) that there is a team working on porting XBMC to Linux, at this point a pico itx system based on something like VIA's Artigo (http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/10/vias-artigo-pico-itx-ultra-compact-barebones/) could make a very compelling offering to stick on the back of a TV. I guess someone could commercialise the hardware product with the XBMC port stuck on top with some sort of licensing/employment deal with the XBMC guys? Ian's post provides a decent overview with most of the important links on it: http://www.cubicgarden.com/blojsom/blog/cubicgarden/technology/home+entertainment/2007/07/21/Xbox-Media-Centre-is-being-ported-to-Linux.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/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer search problem
Out of interest what is the thinking behind this URL structure? Could we not have bbc.co.uk/programmes/topgear etc? On 28/12/2007, Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: in the meantime you could try /programmes top gear is at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj59 - 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 Podcasts Including Music
if you own a device in which you can get a TV signal - then you have to pay whether you actually watch it or not Only if its tuned, you are allowed to own a TV or other receiving equipment without having a license but if it is tuned into any UK television channel (digital or analogue) you are going to have to fork out to indirectly pay for Siemens, Redbee et al. On 20/11/2007, Nick Reynolds-AMi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Carlyon Sent: 20 November 2007 13:02 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music So if I didn't watch the bbc I would not have to pay the license? (cept I do for the iPlayer?_ In that case how do I prove I am not watching the bbc? I could do with an extra £120 in my pocket… -- Barry Carlyon Webmaster LSRfm.com/LSweb.org.uk/leedsaction.co.uk/luubackstage.com mobile: 07729048443 skype: barrycarlyon From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-AMi Sent: 20 November 2007 12:31 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music no Barry its not as the fee is about the signal you receive, not the kit you receive it on if you are watching BBC ONE on a mobile phone you are have to pay a TV licence From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Carlyon Sent: 20 November 2007 12:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music Well the only reason I pay the license fee is so I can have a tv (and not get fined lots of money), the only bbc programme I watch is spooks, which I watch thru the iPlayer anyway…. So the license fee is irrelevant….. Barry Student -- Barry Carlyon Webmaster LSRfm.com/LSweb.org.uk/leedsaction.co.uk/luubackstage.com mobile: 07729048443 skype: barrycarlyon From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Reynolds-AMi Sent: 20 November 2007 12:04 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music And the BBC MUST be popular - otherwise no licence fee From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lockwood Sent: 20 November 2007 11:56 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] BBC Podcasts Including Music Forget popularity, think about principle. It is worth noting that often these things turn around on the head of a pin. If we were having this discssion in 1985, someone would have pointed out that no one ever got sacked for buying IBM. Everyone was happy with the popular 3270 terminals connected to proriatory mainframes. Then came the minicomputer running Unix with RAID disks and VT220 terminals. There are plenty of other examples of this. Dave is 100% correct to say that being popular today is a poor way of determining the future. No. Being popular is not *a poor way* of determining the future. Being popular is *not necessarily a good way* of determining the future. These are not the same thing. In Davetopia everything is black and white - popular = bad. In the real world, things are less clear cut. Popular has no place on the scale between good and bad. Rich. -- --- Mob: 07976 914666 Web: http://www.barnesdmd.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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. I wasn't suggesting that Sky own the Astra fleet at all, I am quite aware of this. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Andrew's got in before me and is right, no Sky arent responsible directly for every channel (although its still the biggest MCR I've been in to date so they are monitoring more than they playout). I suppose the responsibility is between the channel playout center and whoever is uplinking will also have monitoring of various sorts although it won't always be people looking at monitors, most of the time its automatic video and freeze frame detection kit. As Chris mentioned, its a value added sort of thing, its not a direct money maker but might encourage people to subscribe to channels they don't have. I do however take Andrews point that it is a lot of 'pages'. Which equals a lot of expensive equipment to make it happen for every channel. Even if you had 8 channels on each 'page', which is about as many as I reckon you'd get away with thats still quite a large number of pages. Added to that the complexities of bringing the channels together to make the mosaics, for instance we have BBC1, BBC 2, ITV1, C4, Five at the start of the EPG. Sky don't have access directly to ITV for one, as it doesnt go through them, it goes from ITV to Arqiva London-Winchester-Morn Hill so they'd have to bring the video feed in to make their mosaic for this first page either off air or via an expensive video circuit. And if you do that for every channel thats uplinked by someone else thats going to get expensive unless you reorganise the EPG to fit around the content provider. Sorry if that last bit doesnt entirely make sense to some, I've got an image of the diagrams for a lot of these services in my head but its difficult to translate onto paper. It would be a nice idea tho! - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/10/2007, Duncan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. I wasn't suggesting that Sky own the Astra fleet at all, I am quite aware of this. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Andrew's got in before me and is right, no Sky arent responsible directly for every channel (although its still the biggest MCR I've been in to date so they are monitoring more than they playout). I suppose the responsibility is between the channel playout center and whoever is uplinking will also have monitoring of various sorts although it won't always be people looking at monitors, most of the time its automatic video and freeze frame detection kit. When I was at BT Broadcast, we did indeed monitor all these kinds of things, both for Sky and other broadcasters. Whilst putting up some of the channels on screens was one option - it certainly wasn't mosaics - either the picture went onto a dedicated small monitor on a video wall or to an operator's dedicated monitor (using a video switch). Ahh, your ex BT, I was wondering...! We developed some sophisticated kit that can sit at various parts of the broadcast network and detect problems that the human eye wouldn't even be able to detect, especially from a multi screen. For example, any break in the audio (a few second of silence) or problems with the technical nature of the picture would result in an alarm. Depending on where the actual fault originated in the network, you would get a single alarm or the whole network lighting up red. Yes I've seen a few of the current incarnations around the place, 1U units with a load of twinkling LED's, ASI/SDI inputs and network outs. We've got various similar bits, mainly in house built as well. Sometimes this could have quite humour effects - we had a contract with C4 for delivery of their channel around the UK. The whole annual value of the contract was due to be repaid if thirty-seconds of downtime happened during the year. One day, C4 broadcast an obituary programme and left thirty seconds of silence at the end of the programme - unheard of. We had calibrated our instruments to regard more than five seconds of silence as a systematic failure, so six seconds into the silence the monitoring systems, then the Master Control Room and then every automatic escalation notification system went nuts. Thankfully as it didn't really happen, we didn't have to repay the £4m to C4. As Chris mentioned, its a value added sort of thing, its not a direct money maker but might encourage people to subscribe to channels they don't have. I do however take Andrews point that it is a lot of 'pages'. Which equals a lot of expensive equipment to make it happen for every channel. Even if you had 8 channels on each 'page', which is about as many as I reckon you'd get away with thats still quite a large number of pages. And you would get into all the usual arguments about 'prominence'... Yes, I guess you'd have to have it the same as the EPG. Added to that the complexities of bringing the channels together to make the mosaics, for instance we have BBC1, BBC 2, ITV1, C4, Five at the start of the EPG. Sky don't have access directly to ITV for one, as it doesnt go through them, it goes from ITV to Arqiva London-Winchester-Morn Hill so they'd have to bring the video feed in to make their mosaic for this first page either off air or via an expensive video circuit. And if you do that for every channel thats uplinked by someone else thats going to get expensive unless you reorganise the EPG to fit around the content provider. And here's the problem in a nutshell. Also, BBC1 has 17 UK regions on satellite. BBC2 has four, ITV1 has 24, C4 has six (used for advertising only), so it would be impossible to do a matrix for these channels. Yes the regions would make it even more difficult to justify the expense! Its possible at a user end to implement but only for the technically minded, a chap I know had a linux box with a couple of DVB-T cards which was multicasting the transport streams around the house network, you could then in theory make up a mosaic on whichever PC you were using, but thats not practical or a more widely applicable solution. It would be possible for individual broadcasters to do something like this in the form of an interactive application but not really feasible for Sky to do it directly. If you were sending a video stream containing say 12 channels as a single split screen you then use the set-top
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Going back to mosaics, I'm fairly sure Sky could do it because don't they have monitor (or at least have the ability to monitor) every channel being broadcast at any time from their NOC? The way it's done on CanalSat is the mosaic's presented as a full-frame live video stream, and all the ...but can't! Of course, as we all know, broadcast rights is a minefield, I can only approach this from the logical common-sense point of view, but it still seems like a good idea. Ahh its done at the head end, I was wondering how else you'd do video previews across several mux's! Now I think about it, I do remember someone doing something along these lines at my college a few years ago on a local DVB-C system. I don't know why Sky would be so against it, after all there are some services on Sky which use a similar principle for full screen video. NHS direct for instance is based on a number of quad-split video feeds which are then enlarged by the set-top box at the user end. Perhaps its changed now but it was still being done like that in January. - 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] New TV Listing Design
On 09/10/2007, Martin Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AIUI, a large part of Sky's capacity problem is to do with their receivers still being built to more or less the same spec as when they launched in 1998. There are many things in them which could be done better, but Sky are obviously keen to keep the user experience identical to all their users, so haven't brought in features which might only work on newer boxes. There is provision in the system to allow software updates to particular models so it should in theory be possible to release an EPG update to the newer boxes only. I can however imagine that this would become a real headache to keep track of as there are quite a few different box variations now. Certainly for freeview there are more devices appearing which can be software updateable via ethernet, I know that Humax for one have a new PVR one coming out next year which includes this so perhaps that opens up the possibility of box manufacturers providing 'alternative' EPG's. On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, boo hoo for BSkyB. It is they that made the commitment - if they need to swap out old Digiboxes to keep to their commitment, fine. Otherwise Ofcom should take away their licence to broadcast. 8.5 million subscribers at last look! That'll be a lot of replacement boxes, it would be nice but its not economical. On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many of them are not real channels, and there must be much data compression that can be gained from most of them being +1s. +1's don't save an awful lot, as they're an hour apart it doesn't help that much, I suppose it helps the statistical multiplexing (http://tinyurl.com/39ur9j) a little, which is used on a lot of channels to save bandwidth. Don't forget that BBC and ITV also have regional sub-channels as well which are wasting quite a lot of bandwidth when their not doing region specific content (although they are heavily compressed). Unfortunately nobody as yet has come up with a way of doing a seamless (ie no macro blocking/breaks in transmission) switch between a main feed (e.g ITV1) and a regional feed (e.g. ITV Meridian) and back on the set-top box end and so it has to be done before the content is compressed and sent out separately. - 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] New TV Listing Design
On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/10/2007, Duncan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 09/10/2007, Martin Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AIUI, a large part of Sky's capacity problem is to do with their receivers still being built to more or less the same spec as when they launched in 1998. There are many things in them which could be done better, but Sky are obviously keen to keep the user experience identical to all their users, so haven't brought in features which might only work on newer boxes. There is provision in the system to allow software updates to particular models so it should in theory be possible to release an EPG update to the newer boxes only. I can however imagine that this would become a real headache to keep track of as there are quite a few different box variations now. Certainly for freeview there are more devices appearing which can be software updateable via ethernet, I know that Humax for one have a new PVR one coming out next year which includes this so perhaps that opens up the possibility of box manufacturers providing 'alternative' EPG's. On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, boo hoo for BSkyB. It is they that made the commitment - if they need to swap out old Digiboxes to keep to their commitment, fine. Otherwise Ofcom should take away their licence to broadcast. 8.5 million subscribers at last look! That'll be a lot of replacement boxes, it would be nice but its not economical. Yeah, but only 8 million of them are in the UK, and very, very few have first generation boxes. Yes I should have mentioned that, I do wonder what the percentage of first generation boxes floating around is. I don't have access to box stats info from home, I'll look it up later but I'll take your word for it in the mean time. If BSkyB wishes to trade it has to play by the rules. It made the EPG commitments back in 1998 - they are just as valid today. If the company cannot keep to regulatory agreements the licence to operate should be removed. It's the same for all broadcasters. On 10/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So many of them are not real channels, and there must be much data compression that can be gained from most of them being +1s. +1's don't save an awful lot, as they're an hour apart it doesn't help that much, I suppose it helps the statistical multiplexing (http://tinyurl.com/39ur9j) a little, which is used on a lot of channels to save bandwidth. Erm, I suspect you have got a few concepts conflated there. There is no statistical multiplexing involved with the EPG! err yes I've gone a bit off topic and headed onto the video stream side, sorry about that, had assumed you were talking about it as well when you mentioned the data compression bit, would have thought the savings would be slight... Don't forget that BBC and ITV also have regional sub-channels as well which are wasting quite a lot of bandwidth when their not doing region specific content (although they are heavily compressed). You mean like this this? http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=10 or this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_UK_regional_TV_on_satellite quite so When you use the word compressed do you mean lossless data compression of the EPG data, or lossy MPEG-2 compression of the videostreams? yes, video streams, as above, my apologies I've gone off topic. Unfortunately nobody as yet has come up with a way of doing a seamless (ie no macro blocking/breaks in transmission) switch between a main feed (e.g ITV1) and a regional feed (e.g. ITV Meridian) and back on the set-top box end and so it has to be done before the content is compressed and sent out separately. Oh, yes they have... They did it years ago. It's easy with digital TV! You don't even need the black frame to stop the roll you needed with analogue - as per ITV. Auntie had the synchonised network back in the 1980s. hmmm, perhaps thats before my time a little but the current system doesn't work like that. I'll assume they had problems getting it to work in practice (if you have any links I'd love to see them as I'm curious myself as to how they would get this to work on a digital system). - 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] New TV Listing Design
On 10/10/2007, Martin Deutsch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switching between SDI signals is easy; what Duncan's suggesting is a bit trickier. At present: the BBC and ITV, and Channel 4 have satellite multiplexes which carry several channels which are the same for most of the day; they can differ when it comes to news, regional programmes and advertising. Ideally, each mux could carry a high bitrate version of (eg) ITV1 during network programming, but during regional opts (local news, ad breaks, etc), would carry each of the local streams, though probably at a lower bitrate, and the viewer wouldn't notice a thing. I *think* that DVB can do this, but changing the SI tables (which tell the receiver where to find the video and audio associated with a network) on the fly isn't an exact enough science to be able to do it with the frame accuracy desired by the broadcasters I suspect someone - BBC RD? - has already done research into this. - martin Yes that is what I was getting onto, wasn't sure about going into broadcast acronyms too much was half my issue before. If it were possible then it would free up an awful lot of bandwidth for a higher quality ITV1 (for example) during non-regional times, I'd love it to be possible, on Sky there are three multiplexes dedicated to ITV feeds so there is quite a lot to be potentially saved. The switching your talking about is half the issue, its also the fact that you can only really cut from one stream to another roughly once every 12 frames due to the nature of MPEG, hence why set-top boxes stop for a sec when you change channel. This gives you a very tight window if you want to do a seamless switch and would also be dependent on the set-top boxes ability to traverse the SI table in that time. Perhaps it is possible, I haven't seen anything from BBC RD about it (but then again the BBC management is reportedly flushing that away like everything else of worth from the old corporation) and it would be interesting to try it, assuming I can't find any reason not to, I will try to scavenge enough equipment/rack space to run a little test at some stage. - 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] News full feeds
I've nothing against AvantGo as such, its a nice program and all but I've never got along with it very well. No strong reason apart from not liking the way the GUI works, personal preference I guess! Just one of those things! - 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/
