Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007 15:36, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> ..
> > Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky?
>
> No, it's a random set of thoughts about something which is eminently
> doable if
> you completely control the hardware & software platform, which Sky do.


In fact that's only partly true.  Sky bought in the OpenTV platform, so are
restricted to what that will do.  Also, Sky have made commitments to the OFT
and Ofcom about access to the "platform" too, after they used it's
"restrictions" to get money out of other broadcasters.

One example, is that BBC's News Multiscreen and text service was available
months before Sky News' service, but the BBC's service was delayed "in
testing" until the Sky service had launched.


> The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like:
> > >   * If not recording,
> > >  * If not in EPG,
> > > * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk
> >
> > BSkyB say that you cannot.
>
> _Sky_ can change their own rules to make it so that _they_ can run an
> application on the system that does this.


But the rules are there to make the most money for Sky, not to facilitate
software development...


> > Who said anything about this being an interactive service?
> >
> > You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press.  Perhaps
> > "application" - meaning not just watching the TV  - would have been a
> > better word..
>
> Same difference on a machine I don't control. (A web service such as Gmail
> is
> both a service & an application)


I was referring to the OpenTV system, anything on the box that isn't just
"watching TV" is an application in that content.  Semantics, sorry.


> But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video
> > buffer are not available in OpenTV.  It's not MY rules...
>
> If you control the platform, because its a closed system, you can do
> pretty
> much what you like. Like, for example, change the software.
>
> Unless of course Sky did something really (not-bright) like make it
> impossible
> *FOR THEM* to update the actual software on the system. (rather than
> just any open tv apps on the system). (Why dumb? Every piece of software
> has bugs and bug fixes are the most obvious reason to need to update the
> software)



Yes, but as I said before, the OpenTV system does not provide programming
access to the video overlay, so it is not possible to grab a screen from a
channel.  Also, if the tuner changes channel, it will have to be retuned
back to give access back the programme carousel.

> > Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile.
> > I don't think Sky do "worthwhile", they only do "profitable".
>
> *shrug* When I said worthwhile I meant worthwhile to them. That means
> profitable, or as something which they think will be popular and help sell
> more subscriptions. (which boils down to the same thing)


They have sold quite a few without this, I note.


> If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on "Box Office" and
> > the movie channels would surely have been a priority?
>
> I dunno. Their business, not mine. They *do* do promo clips of movies
> though
> on the Anytime service on a Sky+ box.


True.


Anyway, you're convinced they can't do it. I maintain that _Sky_ could do
> this
> if they want to because at the end of the day software can be updated and
> changed (sans caveat above), and its not a particularly difficult thing to
> do.
>
> > You can only have 20 favourites though.
>
> 50.



Since when?

> Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being "shared"
> > devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal.  Auto favourites
> is
> > fine, but they only work on a personal basis.
>
> No, not with LFU, it'd still make a difference. (If you wanted to be fancy
> you
> could have it tempered by the LFU counts for each hour). Least frequently
> used policies in web caches work particularly well for example, even where
> the groups of people are very disparate groups.


I imagine that might be true, do you have some more research on this one?


> > By "forcing" you to skip
> > > past them
> > > its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :)
> ).
> > > (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use
> > > favourites)
> >
> > Yes, that is the idea, you should be able to get a job at Sky now :-)
>
> Heh.
>
> :-)


I don't know anyone who thinks it is sensible for the non-Sky HD boxes to
report the non-HD channels...


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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Michael Sparks]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 13:36, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle...
...
> After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it?
Sky+ box of course. 
>
> >   * Second tuner that's usually idle 

> Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in
> the box.   Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a
> Sky+ box - you get a "oh no you don't message".

So, in short, you're saying that they can't change the way they can use the 
box? I don't buy that for a second. :-)

The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like:
   * If not recording,
  * If not in EPG,
 * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk

>   * A disk store (got that)
>
> Which can't be used by interactive services...  sorry.

Who said anything about this being an interactive service?

>   * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got
> that)
>
>
> In fact, you cannot do this.  

*I* can't you're right, but it runs software. Software can be changed. If Sky 
wanted to do it, they could. (eg, it changed when they added the Anytime 
service)

>   * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that)
> The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to
> blitter, but you have to do it "by hand" too...

Not exactly difficult.

> > I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it.
> > The
> > advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick
> > up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to.
>
> If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around
> since 1998...

Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile.

> (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic
> of
>
> > images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in
> > time,
> > potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.)
>
> I'm not sure how useful...

See - that's what I meant above when I said they might not have thought it 
worth while :-)

> On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by
>
> > didn't
> > share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintaine
> > (but
> > didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel.
> > (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If
> > you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical
> > ordering),
> > it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping
> > it
> > relevant. (result from web caching & UI window buffer placement caching)
>
> If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't
> subscribe to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter...

Not quite the same, but the grid view of favourites is pretty close. ie press 
"tv guide", press blue button ? 

Favourites themselves would be irrelevent with a LFU-time option of listing 
channels, and it could also be ordered by the likelihood you are to want to 
watch the channel. You wouldn't see channels you're not sub'd to because you 
wouldn't watch them. 

However, Sky might not like that because it discourages you from knowing what 
you're missing - cf the interleaving of the Sky Movies HD1,Sky Movies SD1, 
Sky Movies HD2, Sky Movies SD2 channels. By "forcing" you to skip past them 
its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ). 
(favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use favourites)

Similarly if you could look at a grid of video and see that there was nothing 
worth watching on, it'd reduce channel hopping and accidental advertising 
somewhat. Again, not necessarily in a commercial operator's best interest.


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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Michael Sparks]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 15:36, Brian Butterworth wrote:
..
> Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky?

No, it's a random set of thoughts about something which is eminently doable if 
you completely control the hardware & software platform, which Sky do.

> The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like:
> >   * If not recording,
> >  * If not in EPG,
> > * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk
>
> BSkyB say that you cannot. 

_Sky_ can change their own rules to make it so that _they_ can run an
application on the system that does this.

> > Who said anything about this being an interactive service?
>
> You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press.  Perhaps
> "application" - meaning not just watching the TV  - would have been a
> better word..

Same difference on a machine I don't control. (A web service such as Gmail is 
both a service & an application)

> But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video
> buffer are not available in OpenTV.  It's not MY rules...

If you control the platform, because its a closed system, you can do pretty
much what you like. Like, for example, change the software.

Unless of course Sky did something really (not-bright) like make it impossible
*FOR THEM* to update the actual software on the system. (rather than
just any open tv apps on the system). (Why dumb? Every piece of software
has bugs and bug fixes are the most obvious reason to need to update the
software)

> > Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile.
> I don't think Sky do "worthwhile", they only do "profitable".

*shrug* When I said worthwhile I meant worthwhile to them. That means 
profitable, or as something which they think will be popular and help sell 
more subscriptions. (which boils down to the same thing)

> If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on "Box Office" and
> the movie channels would surely have been a priority?

I dunno. Their business, not mine. They *do* do promo clips of movies though 
on the Anytime service on a Sky+ box.

Anyway, you're convinced they can't do it. I maintain that _Sky_ could do this 
if they want to because at the end of the day software can be updated and 
changed (sans caveat above), and its not a particularly difficult thing to 
do.

> You can only have 20 favourites though.  

50.

> Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being "shared"
> devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal.  Auto favourites is
> fine, but they only work on a personal basis.

No, not with LFU, it'd still make a difference. (If you wanted to be fancy you 
could have it tempered by the LFU counts for each hour). Least frequently 
used policies in web caches work particularly well for example, even where 
the groups of people are very disparate groups.

> > By "forcing" you to skip
> > past them
> > its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ).
> > (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use
> > favourites)
>
> Yes, that is the idea, you should be able to get a job at Sky now :-)

Heh.

:-)


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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

Michael,

On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007 13:36, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle...
> ...
> > After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it?
> Sky+ box of course.
> >
> > >   * Second tuner that's usually idle
>
> > Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in
> > the box.   Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a
> > Sky+ box - you get a "oh no you don't message".
>
> So, in short, you're saying that they can't change the way they can use
> the
> box? I don't buy that for a second. :-)


Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky?


The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like:
>   * If not recording,
>  * If not in EPG,
> * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk


BSkyB say that you cannot.  If you wish to run an OpenTV application on the
box you have to follow the Sky rules, which are somewhat onerous and do not
allow access to the EPG or hard drive.


>   * A disk store (got that)
> >
> > Which can't be used by interactive services...  sorry.
>
> Who said anything about this being an interactive service?


You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press.  Perhaps
"application" - meaning not just watching the TV  - would have been a better
word..


>   * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got
> > that)
> >
> >
> > In fact, you cannot do this.
>
> *I* can't you're right, but it runs software. Software can be changed. If
> Sky
> wanted to do it, they could. (eg, it changed when they added the Anytime
> service)


But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video
buffer are not available in OpenTV.  It's not MY rules...


>   * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that)
> > The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to
> > blitter, but you have to do it "by hand" too...
>
> Not exactly difficult.


No, but as you can't capture the image in the first place, academic.


> > I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do
> it.
> > > The
> > > advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to
> pick
> > > up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to.
> >
> > If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around
> > since 1998...
>
> Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile.


I don't think Sky do "worthwhile", they only do "profitable".


> (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic
> > of
> >
> > > images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point
> in
> > > time,
> > > potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.)
> >
> > I'm not sure how useful...
>
> See - that's what I meant above when I said they might not have thought it
> worth while :-)


If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on "Box Office" and the
movie channels would surely have been a priority?


> On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by
> >
> > > didn't
> > > share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then
> maintaine
> > > (but
> > > didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel.
> > > (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free)
> If
> > > you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an
> historical
> > > ordering),
> > > it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free,
> keeping
> > > it
> > > relevant. (result from web caching & UI window buffer placement
> caching)
> >
> > If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't
> > subscribe to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter...
>
> Not quite the same, but the grid view of favourites is pretty close. ie
> press
> "tv guide", press blue button ?


You can only have 20 favourites though.  The default should be to list
channels you can access, with a button to press to see them all.

But the EPG is not driven by user requirements, but by Sky's sales
requirements.


Favourites themselves would be irrelevent with a LFU-time option of listing
> channels, and it could also be ordered by the likelihood you are to want
> to
> watch the channel. You wouldn't see channels you're not sub'd to because
> you
> wouldn't watch them.


Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being "shared"
devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal.  Auto favourites is
fine, but they only work on a personal basis.


However, Sky might not like that because it discourages you from knowing
> what
> you're missing - cf the interleaving of the Sky Movies HD1,Sky Movies SD1,
> Sky Movies HD2, Sky Movies SD2 channels. By "forcing" you to skip past
> them
> its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ).
> (favourites do enable that, but I'v

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 23/10/2007, Duncan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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...!


The big advantage to working for BT Broadcast was getting into every
broadcaster's MCRs, not just Aunties..


> 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 coup

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle...

On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tuesday 23 October 2007 07:12, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > Erm, yeah, I know. I did stuff like this in the past. What I meant was
> it
> > was not possible to implement it in the set-top box (Sky Digibox).
>
> Actually Sky *could* do that. The processing power may be massively
> underpowered (no idea of spec, but I'm assuming v low performance),
> but a Sky+ box could certainly be changed (by sky) to do this.


Sky+ boxes, of course, have two tuners, Sky boxes only the one.



After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it?
>   * Second tuner that's usually idle (got that, except when recording a
> channel you're not watching)


Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in the
box.   Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a Sky+ box
- you get a "oh no you don't message".


  * A disk store (got that)


Which can't be used by interactive services...  sorry.


  * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that)


In fact, you cannot do this.  The OpenTV software has no "grab" facility.
Remember the apps have two layers - one is a 256-colour-palette one used for
rendining the text onto which some static images delivered from the carousel
can be used.


  * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that)


The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to
blitter, but you have to do it "by hand" too...


  * A means of tiling images, and then having a selection UI.


OK, it can do this!


Pretty much every thing needed (by Sky) is there. That linux based sky
> receiver (Dreambox?) is probably moddable as a DIY, but I guess would
> have dubious legality.


Indeed, you could do it using Windows Media Center and a DVB-S card too...


For the limited subset of image processing required, storage and UI display,
> I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it.
> The
> advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up
> your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to.


If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around
since 1998...


(nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of
> images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in
> time,
> potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.)


I'm not sure how useful...


On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by
> didn't
> share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintained
> (but
> didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which
> gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do
> that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical
> ordering),
> it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping
> it
> relevant. (result from web caching & UI window buffer placement caching)


If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't subscribe
to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter...


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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Duncan Barnes]

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 

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Martin Deutsch]

On 10/23/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>  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.
>
>

There are, I'm told, 28 effective regional combinations. It's not
impossible, just very very improbable that you'd want to uplink 28 different
mosaics containing Sky channels 101-104.

 - martin

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

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).

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".

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'...

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.

http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=10

http://www.ukfree.tv/maps.php


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/
>



-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Michael Sparks]

On Tuesday 23 October 2007 07:12, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> Erm, yeah, I know.  I did stuff like this in the past.  What I meant was it
> was not possible to implement it in the set-top box (Sky Digibox).

Actually Sky *could* do that. The processing power may be massively 
underpowered (no idea of spec, but I'm assuming v low performance),
but a Sky+ box could certainly be changed (by sky) to do this.

After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it?
   * Second tuner that's usually idle (got that, except when recording a
 channel you're not watching)
   * A disk store (got that)
   * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that)
   * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that)
   * A means of tiling images, and then having a selection UI.

Pretty much every thing needed (by Sky) is there. That linux based sky
receiver (Dreambox?) is probably moddable as a DIY, but I guess would
have dubious legality.

For the limited subset of image processing required, storage and UI display, 
I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it. The 
advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up 
your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to. 

(nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of 
images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in time, 
potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.)

On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by didn't 
share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintained (but 
didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which 
gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do 
that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical ordering), 
it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping it 
relevant. (result from web caching & UI window buffer placement caching)


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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Duncan Barnes]

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

[Martin Deutsch]

On 10/23/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Some broadcasters pay Sky to playout their channels and they'll monitor
> those I'm sure.  Many broadcasters go through 3rd parties or do it
> themselves.  Who knows what the exact proportions are, but given how
> many channels there are, there's a lot of channels to monitor and Sky
> won't want to be doing regular monitoring of most of the channels, I'm
> sure.
>
> Ultimately playout monitoring has to be the resposibility of the
> broadcaster in question - which is why four floors below my desk,
> there's a batch of people working for Red Bee Media whose job it is to
> check what they pump out (which includes BBC, BBC Worldwide, UKTV and
> Virgin Media Television)


Likewise, the organisations who deal with the coding and multiplexing of
those channels (not always the same people as playout) will be monitoring
the streams they're sending up to the satellites and other distribution
platforms to make sure all that's happening OK. And they'll have lots of
mosaics in front of them too.[1]

Technically what's being suggested here is easy - and there are bits of kit
which will do it without a sweat[2]. Likewise, the interactive part of the
channel picking isn't hard - see the BBC News multiscreen for a simple
example, and you could associate plenty more audio streams with a service.

I think what we've probably established so far is that the politics of
getting such a service up and running are what might prevent getting it off
the ground. But surely that's not insurmountable, and if someone like Sky
wanted to offer it as 'added value' for their subscribers, then they could
buy some mosaics, some off-air recievers, lease some more bandwidth, and do
it.
(It needn't even neccesarily take up a precious Sky EPG number, by making it
accessable from an option on the Sky guide)

 - martin

[1] I'm not sure why I'm talking in hypotheticals here - I sit in front of
such monitoring walls at work...
[2] http://www.zandar.com/products/dx.htm for example

RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Andrew Bowden]

> Are you implying that Sky don't actually control a lot of the 
> content which is broadcast and received via their closed-loop 
> system? If so, that would seem a bit amateurish on their 
> behalf. Surely they have the power to vet and withdraw 
> channels in realtime? 

For technical reasons they do - to appear in the Sky EPG you must agree
to certain technical standards IIRC, and to supply correct EPG data.
You also have to pay your money!

However Sky's EPG open to all and Sky is not allowed to pick and choose
who appears in it.  They can, of course, block all new entrants for
technical reasons - as they have done recently.

> 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.

Some broadcasters pay Sky to playout their channels and they'll monitor
those I'm sure.  Many broadcasters go through 3rd parties or do it
themselves.  Who knows what the exact proportions are, but given how
many channels there are, there's a lot of channels to monitor and Sky
won't want to be doing regular monitoring of most of the channels, I'm
sure.  

Ultimately playout monitoring has to be the resposibility of the
broadcaster in question - which is why four floors below my desk,
there's a batch of people working for Red Bee Media whose job it is to
check what they pump out (which includes BBC, BBC Worldwide, UKTV and
Virgin Media Television)

> And on the subject of good money, I'd see a mosaic as 
> definite value-added (possibly persuading me to stay with 
> them a little longer) and they could tout it as a brand new 
> feature "making Sky easier for everyone" or somesuch 
> similar... And anyway, what's a PC for the rendering and a 
> few megabits per second of upstream bandwidth between friends?

You'd need a lot of mosaics to cover the sheer number of channels
available through Sky's EPG.  Cos if you didn't cover them all, someone
would no doubt complain of bias to Ofcom!

-
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

[Christopher Woods]

If you were addressing my comments;
 
> Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. Sky
Subscriber Services Ltd do provide the encryption systems for the channels
that their card is used for, but they do not own the upload services.

I knew this, they lease space on them just like everybody else. I also know
that the EPG numbers don't correlate with transpoder or PIDs, but surely
that's the whole point... The mosaic, with its pages of different content -
maybe even spread across the transponders to use less bandwidth in one
place, though I'd prefer them in one place (unless boxes can switch
transponders quickly now to avoid that horrible lag - well, it could be
nestled anywhere in Sky's bouquet of channels. They already have enough
channels of that rolling demo, they could axe one of those and use the same
channel's bandwidth if they're *that* desperate capacity-wise (I sorely
doubt they are).

Are you implying that Sky don't actually control a lot of the content which
is broadcast and received via their closed-loop system? If so, that would
seem a bit amateurish on their behalf. Surely they have the power to vet and
withdraw channels in realtime? I've seen occasions where the box has been
unable to lock to a channel, showing the "This channel has a technical
fault" message, and I'm sure that can't just be fully automated.

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.

And on the subject of good money, I'd see a mosaic as definite value-added
(possibly persuading me to stay with them a little longer) and they could
tout it as a brand new feature "making Sky easier for everyone" or somesuch
similar... And anyway, what's a PC for the rendering and a few megabits per
second of upstream bandwidth between friends?

-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

On 22/10/2007, Duncan Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.


Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES.

Sky Subscriber Services Ltd do provide the encryption systems for the
channels that their card is used for, but they do not own the upload
services.

Also, logical channel numbers (101, 102, 103, etc) do not in anyway follow
the satellite transponders, viz:

http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html

Sky do not have anything to do with many of the transponders as they do not
provide the content, up link or have anything to do with non-Sky
transponders (like those used by the BBC, ITV and many others).

So, why should Sky pay good money to put up a ten channels of mosaics?

Sorry to be negative, but an understanding of the medium is helpful before
suggesting changing it.

-
> 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 22/10/2007, Michael Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday 22 October 2007 11:14, Steve Jolly wrote:
> > Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form
> > part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite
> > constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't
> > necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use
>
> You could probably do this though:
>
>   1 Have a list of channels, with tuner details
>   2 Pass the tuner details into something that can loop through the tuner
> details and tune in
>   3 Set that going and have it spit out frames
>   4 Have something connected to that that detects shot changes
>   5 Take the first a an image after a shot change, and turn that into a
> thumbnail for that channel.
>   6 Continue looping through the channels
>
> Using that it'd be relatively easy for someone to create a simple web
> page (eg 6*8) which points at this, meaning you can get an updating view
> of
> what's being broadcast right at that moment but without it being actually
> watchable (if you see what I mean).
>
> I suspect (but don't know) that that may actually be OK under _fair
> dealing_
> aspect of copyright because you wouldn't be storing or making available an
> archive of the pictures, just a snapshot of what is on right now. (I'm not
> a
> lawyer, if someone put this on the net I'd suggest triple checking that
> first :-)  I'm pretty certain for personal use this would be OK though -
> after all locally it'd be not *too* much different from picture in picture
> or
> something some DVB software already does (sans shot change/web
> page)).
>
> The above looks _relatively_ simple to do using Kamaelia.
>   1 Would be just read from a file and pumped into a
>  Kamaelia.Util.Chooser.Chooser
>   2 Would be Kamaelia.Chassis.Carousel.Carousel component creating
>  Kamaelia.Device.DVB.Tuner.Tuner components. How you get it to spit
> out
>  frames is up to you. (can think of a few ways, the easiest being
> shelling out to a unix frames). You'd need something to check that the
> frames coming out are valid, since I've noticed that some DVB cards
> get
> their knickers in a twist.
>   3 Is just an instantiation, of this.
>   4 Plug in the ShotChange detection component in:
>  Kamaelia.Video.DetectShotChanges.DetectShotChanges
>   5 Pass that through convert, again via UnixProcess
>
> For fun you could also spit out the EIT (what's on now) information,
> using:
>Kamaelia.Device.DVB.EIT.EITPacketParser
>
> And use that to associate with the picture. Add on a nice front end, and
> that
> could be quite a nice pretty front end. Could probably get 25 -30 screens
> visible quite nicely/quickly that way. (Though it'd probably look nicer
> with
> 15 - 20)
>
> Probably make quite a nice simple, quick project for someone to do. After
> all
> its just a matter of passing the data flow from one component to the next.
> Not particularly different from doing a mashup, just using TV/DVB content
> rather than web. (Though easy to skip betwen the 3 domains of TV, file
> system & web)
>
> http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Components would be a good starting point,
> as
> would the code for Macro - http://tinyurl.com/2j9kvw .
>
> I'm actually half tempted to do this, but couldn't do the encrypted
> channels
> on Sky - which is a pity since a lot of what I watch is on Sky 1/2,
> movies,
> SciFi, etc.


Erm, yeah, I know.  I did stuff like this in the past.  What I meant was it
was not possible to implement it in the set-top box (Sky Digibox).


Regards,
>
>
> Michael.
> --
> ( http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home )
>
> (Have filled in some context  since I'm aware others would miss the
> context :-)
> -
> 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Duncan Barnes]

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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Christopher Woods]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sparks
> Sent: 22 October 2007 14:01

 

> I'm actually half tempted to do this, but couldn't do the 
> encrypted channels on Sky - which is a pity since a lot of 
> what I watch is on Sky 1/2, movies, SciFi, etc.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> Michael.

Blimey, you took my idea to the next level! I'd love to do that... Except I
haven't got half the brains to do so :D Wish I did though, my knowledge lies
elsewhere presently. :(

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
rendering's done at their end (so in effect you just get a regular TV
channel) except when you load the channel up, it loads the interactive
element - a small red square which frames the channel currently selected
(starting at the top left) - and plays the audio for the related channel
(often in lower quality, so it sounds like substreams). If you preview a
channel you're not subscribed to for more than around 30 seconds, the audio
cuts out and (if memory serves) a small banner appears prompting you to
subscribe to view the channel (not interrupting the interactive experience
though, I think it comes up overlaid inside the currently-selected-video
box).

As all the P-in-P rendering is done at their end, you just page through the
video screens - 4x4 boxes per page, so I guess you're choosing more video
substreams every time you page back and forth. It's a really neat way of
doing things, and I was very impressed with it.

Astra have their own Astra-branded mosaics of their own channels (both radio
and video on several mosaics) so I'm not sure whether it's an Astra or a
CanalSat thing, but either way it's pretty cool. And if CanalSat can do it,
surely it can't be *that* tough to negotiate similar rights for a similar UK
device? If anything I'd regard the ability to see an (albeit tiny) video
window of a channel you don't subscribe to as a potential incentive to
upgrade your package, especially if there's something on you'd like to watch
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.



-
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

[Michael Sparks]

On Monday 22 October 2007 11:14, Steve Jolly wrote:
> Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form
> part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite
> constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't
> necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use

You could probably do this though:

   1 Have a list of channels, with tuner details
   2 Pass the tuner details into something that can loop through the tuner
 details and tune in
   3 Set that going and have it spit out frames
   4 Have something connected to that that detects shot changes
   5 Take the first a an image after a shot change, and turn that into a
 thumbnail for that channel.
   6 Continue looping through the channels

Using that it'd be relatively easy for someone to create a simple web
page (eg 6*8) which points at this, meaning you can get an updating view of 
what's being broadcast right at that moment but without it being actually 
watchable (if you see what I mean).

I suspect (but don't know) that that may actually be OK under _fair dealing_
aspect of copyright because you wouldn't be storing or making available an
archive of the pictures, just a snapshot of what is on right now. (I'm not a 
lawyer, if someone put this on the net I'd suggest triple checking that 
first :-)  I'm pretty certain for personal use this would be OK though - 
after all locally it'd be not *too* much different from picture in picture or 
something some DVB software already does (sans shot change/web
page)).

The above looks _relatively_ simple to do using Kamaelia. 
   1 Would be just read from a file and pumped into a
  Kamaelia.Util.Chooser.Chooser
   2 Would be Kamaelia.Chassis.Carousel.Carousel component creating
  Kamaelia.Device.DVB.Tuner.Tuner components. How you get it to spit out
  frames is up to you. (can think of a few ways, the easiest being
 shelling out to a unix frames). You'd need something to check that the
 frames coming out are valid, since I've noticed that some DVB cards get
 their knickers in a twist.
   3 Is just an instantiation, of this.
   4 Plug in the ShotChange detection component in:
  Kamaelia.Video.DetectShotChanges.DetectShotChanges
   5 Pass that through convert, again via UnixProcess

For fun you could also spit out the EIT (what's on now) information, using:
Kamaelia.Device.DVB.EIT.EITPacketParser

And use that to associate with the picture. Add on a nice front end, and that
could be quite a nice pretty front end. Could probably get 25 -30 screens
visible quite nicely/quickly that way. (Though it'd probably look nicer with
15 - 20)

Probably make quite a nice simple, quick project for someone to do. After all 
its just a matter of passing the data flow from one component to the next. 
Not particularly different from doing a mashup, just using TV/DVB content 
rather than web. (Though easy to skip betwen the 3 domains of TV, file
system & web)

http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Components would be a good starting point, as 
would the code for Macro - http://tinyurl.com/2j9kvw .

I'm actually half tempted to do this, but couldn't do the encrypted channels
on Sky - which is a pity since a lot of what I watch is on Sky 1/2, movies,
SciFi, etc.

Regards,


Michael.
--
 ( http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home )

(Have filled in some context  since I'm aware others would miss the
 context :-)
-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

On 22/10/2007, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Woods wrote:
> > Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no
> > channels at each hundred's -00  (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some
> > interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like
> > CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed
> > Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but
> > I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking
> > through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise
> > anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow
> > button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on
> > the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too).
>
> There's some tricky architectural and copyright issues associated with
> that idea - it's a bit trickier than having the buttons available on the
> remotes.  Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form
> part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite
> constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't
> necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use.  There might
> well be issues related to rights-clearing the service for rebroadcasting
> each channel in miniature, too, especially if it gave people access to
> picture from channels they weren't subscribed to.  And then there's the
> requirement for satellite space to carry the service, which wouldn't
> necessarily be suitable for conventional advertising.


And as all channels are on loads of different transponders, it would be
impossible to do the service using the box, it would take several seconds
even just to do freeze frames, if were even possible to grab these and store
them in the box...


> Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will
> > EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill
> > me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I
> > had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house
> > when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box
> > makes it too expensive). Grr.
>
> No idea on this one, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the same
> situation as you.  You might want to consider a subscription-free
> Freesat PVR, when they launch.
>
> S
>
> -
> 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
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Steve Jolly]

Christopher Woods wrote:
Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no 
channels at each hundred's -00  (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some 
interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like 
CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed 
Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but 
I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking 
through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise 
anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow 
button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on 
the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too).


There's some tricky architectural and copyright issues associated with 
that idea - it's a bit trickier than having the buttons available on the 
remotes.  Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form 
part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite 
constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't 
necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use.  There might 
well be issues related to rights-clearing the service for rebroadcasting 
each channel in miniature, too, especially if it gave people access to 
picture from channels they weren't subscribed to.  And then there's the 
requirement for satellite space to carry the service, which wouldn't 
necessarily be suitable for conventional advertising.


Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will 
EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill 
me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I 
had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house 
when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box 
makes it too expensive). Grr.


No idea on this one, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the same 
situation as you.  You might want to consider a subscription-free 
Freesat PVR, when they launch.


S

-
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

[Christopher Woods]

Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no channels at
each hundred's -00  (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some interactive service
which shows realtime mosaics, just like like CanalSatellite and Astra do in
Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed Sky about that in the past and like
hell did they take any notice :D but I think that'd be a genuinely useful
feature, far simple than flicking through an EPG - just skimread the screen
to see if you recognise anything on, or if you see something you might find
interesting? arrow button across to it and there we go. The buttons are
already there on the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes,
too).
 
Another annoyance for me with Sky is that when you're on the Now & Next
banner, you can go up and down to view different channels, but you can only
see what's on next when you're actually *on* the channel. CanalSatellite,
right from the outset, let you see now and next epg info for the channel
you're on AND any channel you flick to on the Now & Next banner (so you
didn't have to change channel to see what would be shown next on another, if
you catch my drift). I emailed Sky about that too, no response.
 
 
Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will EVER
offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill me to
finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I had to
put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house when I was
younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box makes it too
expensive). Grr.


  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth
Sent: 19 October 2007 13:18
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee




On 19/10/2007, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

Andrew Bowden wrote:
> There's no technical reason - it's just the business model.  Sky+ has 
> been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn.  The
> idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no
> doubt panics people.
>
> And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, 
> although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings.
> With a Sky+ they are already there.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely
subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not 
Freesat-from-Sky) launches.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html

 
Indeed it will.  Will Ofcom have to control the channel numbers - they took
away telephone number allocation away from BT.  
 
It would make so much sense for the same numbers to be used for the same
channels on different platforms.  It's like a weird mental sudoku to
remember channel numbers and TV captions and listing magazines are
confusing! 
 
Also, it would remove a pointless secondary market in the numbers.


S


-
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  <http://www.ukfree.tv> 

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 19/10/2007, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew Bowden wrote:
> > There's no technical reason - it's just the business model.  Sky+ has
> > been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn.  The
> > idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no
> > doubt panics people.
> >
> > And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well,
> > although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings.
> > With a Sky+ they are already there.
>
> It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely
> subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not
> Freesat-from-Sky) launches.
>
> * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html


Indeed it will.  Will Ofcom have to control the channel numbers - they took
away telephone number allocation away from BT.

It would make so much sense for the same numbers to be used for the same
channels on different platforms.  It's like a weird mental sudoku to
remember channel numbers and TV captions and listing magazines are
confusing!

Also, it would remove a pointless secondary market in the numbers.

S
>
>
> -
> 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 19/10/2007, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you want
> to get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of
> knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite
> entitled to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE
> to pay £10 a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether
> you're on one of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer,
> and you then get tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge.
> Apparently it's a legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read:
> absorbed, I suppose) the £10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly
> don't charge anybody for it, why can't they offer it free (and charge more
> for the box)?
>

http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051248 I wrote...

BSkyB subscribers will no longer have to pay to retain the personal video
recorder facilities from 1 July 2007.

If you have stopped subscribing and wish your Sky+ box to be restored to
full function you simply have to subscribe to the lowest level Sky package.

Alternatively, ex-subscribers will now be allowed to use the device with the
Freesat channels, but this will retain the £10 charge.

In effect you can now pay £15 per month for "2 mixes" and have Sky+ (was
£25) or pay £10 per month for just the Freesat channels.




> Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on here
> who have some decent Sky knowledge :)
>



-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Steve Jolly]

Andrew Bowden wrote:
There's no technical reason - it's just the business model.  Sky+ has 
been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn.  The 
idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no 
doubt panics people.
 
And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, 
although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings.  
With a Sky+ they are already there.


It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely 
subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not 
Freesat-from-Sky) launches.


* http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html

S


-
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

[Andrew Bowden]

There's no technical reason - it's just the business model.  Sky+ has been used 
to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn.  The idea that your 
PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people.
 
And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in 
that case they did actually have to provide the listings.  With a Sky+ they are 
already there.




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Christopher Woods
Sent: 19 October 2007 09:41
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
    Subject: RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee


Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you 
want to get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of 
knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite entitled 
to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE to pay £10 
a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether you're on one 
of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer, and you then get 
tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge. Apparently it's a 
legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read: absorbed, I suppose) the 
£10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly don't charge anybody for it, why 
can't they offer it free (and charge more for the box)?
 
Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on 
here who have some decent Sky knowledge :)

RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Christopher Woods]

Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you want to
get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of
knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite
entitled to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE
to pay £10 a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether
you're on one of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer,
and you then get tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge.
Apparently it's a legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read:
absorbed, I suppose) the £10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly
don't charge anybody for it, why can't they offer it free (and charge more
for the box)?
 
Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on here who
have some decent Sky knowledge :)

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 18/10/2007, James Cridland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/11/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >  But Sky are in a powerful position because they run the conditional
> > access system AND the EPG on satellite, which puts them in a very powerful
> > position...
> >
>
> Sky's EPG is run by a separate company, albeit wholly Sky-owned.
>
> It is prohibited by law from charging different sums to different people
> for the same thing, and also prohibited by law from favouring one
> broadcaster over another within the EPG. Sky-owned channels have no "higher
> precedence" than non-Sky channels; and the rules for EPG placement are laid
> down by Ofcom.
>
> Sky don't allocate EPG numbers until right before a channel launch (much
> to my irritation in a previous life), but that's related to the onerous
> rules they run under.
>
> Similarly, Freesat, Freeview, and the Virgin Media EPG are all governed by
> similar rules.
>
> It's easy to point to Sky as being the big boogieman; but no, Sky aren't
> as powerful as you might think.
>


No?

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcastnowArticle.aspx?intStoryID=171575

 //j
>
>
>
>


-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[James Cridland]

On 10/11/07, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> But Sky are in a powerful position because they run the conditional access
> system AND the EPG on satellite, which puts them in a very powerful
> position...
>

Sky's EPG is run by a separate company, albeit wholly Sky-owned.

It is prohibited by law from charging different sums to different people for
the same thing, and also prohibited by law from favouring one broadcaster
over another within the EPG. Sky-owned channels have no "higher precedence"
than non-Sky channels; and the rules for EPG placement are laid down by
Ofcom.

Sky don't allocate EPG numbers until right before a channel launch (much to
my irritation in a previous life), but that's related to the onerous rules
they run under.

Similarly, Freesat, Freeview, and the Virgin Media EPG are all governed by
similar rules.

It's easy to point to Sky as being the big boogieman; but no, Sky aren't as
powerful as you might think.

//j

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

Like democracy, the licence fee is the "least worst" way of having a BBC.
Other opinions are available.

On 12/10/2007, Richard Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There probably is.  And no.  "I would sell my house and all my possessions
> to help the BBC".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich.
>
>
>  On 10/12/07, dantes inferno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee?
> >
> > Anyone want tostart one?
> >
> > On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> > > >Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between
> > > >the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be
> > > >changing (*cough* Google).
> > > >
> > > >J
> > >
> > > And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is
> > > the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC
> > > Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the
> > > veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on
> > > the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in
> > > the world.
> > >
> > > The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for
> > > me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment.
> > >
> > > Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and
> > > should not "compete" in the market place.
> > >
> > > Gordo
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Think Feynman"/
> > > http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> > > [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/
> > >
> > -
> > 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/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073
>
> Registered address:
> 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX




-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Richard Lockwood]

There probably is.  And no.  "I would sell my house and all my possessions
to help the BBC".

Cheers,

Rich.


On 10/12/07, dantes inferno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee?
>
> Anyone want tostart one?
>
> On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> > >Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between
> > >the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be
> > >changing (*cough* Google).
> > >
> > >J
> >
> > And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is
> > the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC
> > Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the
> > veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on
> > the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in
> > the world.
> >
> > The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for
> > me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment.
> >
> > Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and
> > should not "compete" in the market place.
> >
> > Gordo
> >
> > --
> > "Think Feynman"/
> > http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> > [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/
> >
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073

Registered address:
4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[dantes inferno]

Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee?

Anyone want tostart one?

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> >Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between
> >the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be
> >changing (*cough* Google).
> >
> >J
>
> And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is
> the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC
> Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the
> veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on
> the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in
> the world.
>
> The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for
> me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment.
>
> Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and
> should not "compete" in the market place.
>
> Gordo
>
> --
> "Think Feynman"/
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> [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/
>
-
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

[Gordon Joly]

At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between 
the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be 
changing (*cough* Google).


J


And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is 
the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC 
Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the 
veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on 
the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in 
the world.


The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for 
me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment.


Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and 
should not "compete" in the market place.


Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

On 11/10/2007, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the
> audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing
> (*cough* Google).



In a way it's always been true.  The sellers of radios and televisions down
the years and the manufacturers have always been a gatekeeper in that
sense.

But there is a difference with Google (you don't NEED Google to use BBC
online content, it just helps).

But Sky are in a powerful position because they run the conditional access
system AND the EPG on satellite, which puts them in a very powerful
position...


J
>
> On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> > >  >And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal
> > with
> > >the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> > >IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
> > >
> > >How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market
> > >for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?
> > >
> > >J
> >
> >
> > Both are just as bad?
> >
> > Gordo
> > --
> > "Think Feynman"/
> > http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Jason Cartwright
> Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +44(0)2070313161
>



-- 
Please email me back if you need any more help.

Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jason Cartwright]

Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the
audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing
(*cough* Google).

J

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:
> >  >And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> >the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> >IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
> >
> >How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market
> >for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?
> >
> >J
>
>
> Both are just as bad?
>
> Gordo
> --
> "Think Feynman"/
> http://pobox.com/~gordo/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]///
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Gordon Joly]

At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote:

 >And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).

How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market 
for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?


J



Both are just as bad?

Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Gareth Davis]

On 11/10/2007, Tom Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
> >
> > And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal
with
> > the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release
of
> > IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
> >
> > And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News
> > Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could
> > not be justified, could it?
>
> no, iirc that investment came from World Serivice (funded by Grant In
> Aid from the Foriegn Office), since international news was under the
> perview of World Service rather than BBC Worldwide.
>
> The Foreign Office refused to continue this arrangement cos it
> prefered World Service to focus on BBC Arabic TV / Farsi  -  hence the
> adverts on BBC.com debate.

And THNY closed as a server farm last month. It is now only a point of 
presence for peering with the BBC. All content is either served from
London
or from CDN partners.

 
-- 
Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist
World Service Future Media Operations - Part of BBC Global News Division
* 707NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH

-
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

[Brian Butterworth]

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary
> >that makes profits, in much the same way.
> >
> >BBC - not for profit corporation.
> >
> >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.
> >
> >Gordo
>
>
>
> At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:
>
> >[...]
> Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has
> been important for us and them.
> [...]
>
>
> And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
>
> And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News
> Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could
> not be justified, could it?


It could be easily justified as there are many licence fee payers who visit
the US in the course of a year.


Gordo
>
>
> -
> 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Tom Loosemore]

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary
> >that makes profits, in much the same way.
> >
> >BBC - not for profit corporation.
> >
> >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.
> >
> >Gordo
>
>
>
> At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:
>
> >[...]
> Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has
> been important for us and them.
>   [...]
>
>
> And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
>
> And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News
> Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could
> not be justified, could it?

no, iirc that investment came from World Serivice (funded by Grant In
Aid from the Foriegn Office), since international news was under the
perview of World Service rather than BBC Worldwide.

The Foreign Office refused to continue this arrangement cos it
prefered World Service to focus on BBC Arabic TV / Farsi  -  hence the
adverts on BBC.com debate.
-
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

[Jason Cartwright]

>And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).

How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for
free-at-point-of-consumption public service content?

J

On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary
> >that makes profits, in much the same way.
> >
> >BBC - not for profit corporation.
> >
> >BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.
> >
> >Gordo
>
>
>
> At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:
>
> >[...]
> Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has
> been important for us and them.
>   [...]
>
>
> And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with
> the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of
> IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).
>
> And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News
> Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could
> not be justified, could it?
>
> Gordo
>
>
> -
> 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/
>



-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Gordon Joly]

Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary 
that makes profits, in much the same way.


BBC - not for profit corporation.

BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.

Gordo




At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:


[...]
Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has 
been important for us and them.

 [...]


And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with 
the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC "channel" in the release of 
IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide).


And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News 
Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could 
not be justified, could it?


Gordo


-
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

[Gordon Joly]

At 12:01 +0100 10/10/07, Kevin Hinde wrote:

 >But the BBC is a corporation, and not a company? It has no need to

make profits, for example.

 >

Gordo


BBC Worldwide Ltd is a part of the BBC which needs to make profits. The
profits go back into the BBC corporation to help pay for all the things
the corporation wants to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressrele
ases/2007/06_june/annual_review_2006_07.shtml

Kevin.



Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary 
that makes profits, in much the same way.


BBC - not for profit corporation.

BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit.

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Kevin Hinde]

>But the BBC is a corporation, and not a company? It has no need to 
>make profits, for example.
>
>Gordo

BBC Worldwide Ltd is a part of the BBC which needs to make profits. The
profits go back into the BBC corporation to help pay for all the things
the corporation wants to do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressrele
ases/2007/06_june/annual_review_2006_07.shtml

Kevin.

>
>-- 
>"Think Feynman"/
>http://pobox.com/~gordo/
>[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/
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal 
views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on 
it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.


-
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

[Gordon Joly]

At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote:


[...]
Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has 
been important for us and them.

 [...]





But the BBC is a corporation, and not a company? It has no need to 
make profits, for example.


Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Mr I Forrester]

So yes once again there are some good points in the thread.

We have been knocking on peoples doors about more feeds and api's and I 
do believe once we have the API gateway system in place, you guys will 
finally see more of them. Also look out for more diverse API's because 
the API gateway should protect almost any kind of API we want to make 
public. Oh and don't get me started on the API will be the Accessibility 
of Web 2.0 thread. :)


Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has 
been important for us and them. Not only because of the big events like 
Hackday (who else would put on such an event?) but because we can 
collaborate in a way that no one else would ever dare.  For example 
we're still in talks with some large companies and a couple of 
government agencies about making there API's available under our 
licence. Who else would they trust with there data?


The sponsorship of events is always going to be tricky, but we tend to 
sponsor small grassroots events. D.construct is bigger that ever before 
and we were one of the original sponsors back 3 years ago when it was 
just a small one day conference. This year we again sponsored 
D.construct and paid for the Food and Venue of the after party at Audio 
(Yahoo paid for the drinks [1]). I even got up on stage and said this to 
the huge crowd of developers. And _everyone_ agrees that the after party 
at Audio this year was the best ever.


On the sponsorship front, we are also going to start supporting even 
smaller grassroot events by giving each event organiser a chance to put 
forward themselves for sponsorship. This means your local Ruby, Python, 
SVG, XSL group could afford that venue room which has been out of the 
question.


Least we forget the University work we have been doing to increase the 
profile of development in the UK economy. We're not going to change the 
face of education but with partners from the Angel funding and Venture 
sectors, we will see more respect for developers in the future.


And this is just the start... We do believe in this sector and the BBC 
is in it for the long term. We haven't always been as transparent as we 
could have been, for example the Backstage Wild West servers we 
announced at Hackday have been up and running for months now. But that's 
changing... We aim to be a lot more transparent and as the number of 
participators (developers, designers, bloggers, hackers, etc, etc) 
grows, we will stay relevant and facilitate there deeper relationship 
with the BBC.


Take care,

Ian Forrester

[1] Great picture Murray from Yahoo with the drinks bill, notice the 
Backstage Lanyard btw - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cubicgarden/1356473775/



Matthew Cashmore wrote:

There are some really fair points here... Firstly I think the BBC is a lot
more relevant to developers than most other broadcasters - I think backstage
is testament to that - but I also don't think that we've necessarily made
ourselves as relevant as we could.

I think we've all been disappointed by the lack of new APIs and feeds that
we've released over the last 12 months - no excuses - this is because we've
been focusing on being part of the community, being at the conferences and
talking to people about what they want.. .this has perhaps left us with a
little less internal work than we may have otherwise done... But...

What it has achieved is a much bigger buy-in to what we want to do - we've
essentially been running around inside the beeb shouting - developers are
cool! Work with them.

Now we have to concentrate on making that stuff actually available to you -
part of that is the new website, part of that is the new totally developer
focused list, and part of that is us spending more of our time making these
things actually available and working. Giving you the tools to really get
inside the beeb and it's systems.

To that end we've been working really hard on getting an API gateway online
- that's nearly complete - we've been working really hard on making sure
that when an API goes live it's properly documented etc... All of these
things take time, and I'll be the first to admit that releasing new feeds
and APIs has therefore taken a knock.

I asked the developer list last week what feeds and APIs they want to see -
that is now my number one priority - actually making that stuff available.

Ian is furiously typing away right now about the importance of working with
the rest of the industry and encouraging developer growth within the UK...
Coming soon to an email client near you.

m



On 9/10/07 11:47, "Phil Gyford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

  

On 10/9/07, Gavin Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



No one I spoke to said that Channel 4 wasn't relevant to them as
developers.  However, Channel 4 hadn't shelled out to sponsor a web
development conference.
  

Fair enough - I wasn't aware of the sponsorship thing.




I'm inclined to think they should stop producing cruft like Strictly
Come Danc

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Matthew Cashmore]

There are some really fair points here... Firstly I think the BBC is a lot
more relevant to developers than most other broadcasters - I think backstage
is testament to that - but I also don't think that we've necessarily made
ourselves as relevant as we could.

I think we've all been disappointed by the lack of new APIs and feeds that
we've released over the last 12 months - no excuses - this is because we've
been focusing on being part of the community, being at the conferences and
talking to people about what they want.. .this has perhaps left us with a
little less internal work than we may have otherwise done... But...

What it has achieved is a much bigger buy-in to what we want to do - we've
essentially been running around inside the beeb shouting - developers are
cool! Work with them.

Now we have to concentrate on making that stuff actually available to you -
part of that is the new website, part of that is the new totally developer
focused list, and part of that is us spending more of our time making these
things actually available and working. Giving you the tools to really get
inside the beeb and it's systems.

To that end we've been working really hard on getting an API gateway online
- that's nearly complete - we've been working really hard on making sure
that when an API goes live it's properly documented etc... All of these
things take time, and I'll be the first to admit that releasing new feeds
and APIs has therefore taken a knock.

I asked the developer list last week what feeds and APIs they want to see -
that is now my number one priority - actually making that stuff available.

Ian is furiously typing away right now about the importance of working with
the rest of the industry and encouraging developer growth within the UK...
Coming soon to an email client near you.

m



On 9/10/07 11:47, "Phil Gyford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 10/9/07, Gavin Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>> No one I spoke to said that Channel 4 wasn't relevant to them as
>> developers.  However, Channel 4 hadn't shelled out to sponsor a web
>> development conference.
> 
> Fair enough - I wasn't aware of the sponsorship thing.
> 
> 
>> I'm inclined to think they should stop producing cruft like Strictly
>> Come Dancing and focus *more* on becoming an internet startup but,
>> again, I'm biased.
> 
> I'm not sure the show's ten million viewers would agree with your
> description of it :)


-
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

[Richard Hyett]

For a long time now the BBC has been moving from content creator, to being a
commissioner of content.  This coincides with the lowering of costs in
producing that content, with the growing army of people now able to
collaborate independently of the BBC in producing content.

I have no idea what the contract between say Hat Trick Productions and the
BBC says about content ownership, but it seems obvious to an outsider that
as time goes on the BBC will have fewer and fewer rights when it comes to
the content it broadcasts.

It may be an anathema to BBC employees that they are to be managers rather
than creators, but surely that is the future.

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Phil Gyford]

On 10/9/07, Gavin Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> No one I spoke to said that Channel 4 wasn't relevant to them as
> developers.  However, Channel 4 hadn't shelled out to sponsor a web
> development conference.

Fair enough - I wasn't aware of the sponsorship thing.


> I'm inclined to think they should stop producing cruft like Strictly
> Come Dancing and focus *more* on becoming an internet startup but,
> again, I'm biased.

I'm not sure the show's ten million viewers would agree with your
description of it :)

-- 
http://www.gyford.com/
-
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

[Gavin Montague]

Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also
complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't
relevant to them as developers?


No one I spoke to said that Channel 4 wasn't relevant to them as  
developers.  However, Channel 4 hadn't shelled out to sponsor a web  
development conference.



Or is there a reason why
the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than
all other UK media organisations do?


LIke it or not, the web is/will be a major media channel and that  
means the BBC will need to compete on the web.  One of the current  
models of business online is to give away your data and, given the  
BBC's public funding, I think it's the one that makes most sense: I'm  
biased though ;-)  Also, like I said above, the BBC are trying to  
court developers.




Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good
content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting
to be an internet startup.


I'm inclined to think they should stop producing cruft like Strictly  
Come Dancing and focus *more* on becoming an internet startup but,  
again, I'm biased.


G

-
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

[Darren Stephens]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Phil Gyford
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
> 
> On 10/8/07, Gavin Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct.
> > The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC
> > wasn't relevant to them as developers.  As consumers, yes, but as
> > developers, no.
> 
> Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also
> complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't
> relevant to them as developers?
> 
> Yes, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but I'm also genuinely (if
> possibly naively) wondering about these questions. Is it just part of
> the way everyone in the UK feels the BBC should be more relevant to
> their individual needs because they pay for it directly (rather than
> indirectly) and developers are no different? Or is there a reason why
> the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than
> all other UK media organisations do?
> 
> Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good
> content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting
> to be an internet startup.

I think that's part of the answer: the content. As the national
broadcaster of record, the BBC has the largest pool of content available
in this country (and probably many others). In some sense this content
'belongs' to us, even if only as a component of shared culture or
cultures. Part of the BBC's responsibility is to make that content
available to those it belongs to. If that includes tools for developers
to access and aggregate that content to be able to re-present it, then
that is what they should provide.

The BBC is, for better or worse, in this country subject to different
rules and constraints to other broadcasters (though Channel 4 shares -
or at least should share - some of the same ethos) because of its place
in national culture and its public funding.
*
To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to 
http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html
*

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Phil Gyford]

On 10/8/07, Gavin Montague <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct.
> The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC
> wasn't relevant to them as developers.  As consumers, yes, but as
> developers, no.

Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also
complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't
relevant to them as developers?

Yes, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but I'm also genuinely (if
possibly naively) wondering about these questions. Is it just part of
the way everyone in the UK feels the BBC should be more relevant to
their individual needs because they pay for it directly (rather than
indirectly) and developers are no different? Or is there a reason why
the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than
all other UK media organisations do?

Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good
content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting
to be an internet startup.


-- 
http://www.gyford.com/
-
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

[Gavin Montague]

Ok. I'll have a go...

- the leading pre-school website, certainly in the UK if not the  
world.
- millions of hours of radio listening on demand every month and  
more than any other website in the world.

- probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK
- the UK's leading mobile service.
- nearly 13 years of BBC News online, drm free podcasts (first in  
UK), 90% of teenagers using a BBC online revision service every  
year  staffer>

That's me told ;-)

Fair play, Jem,  I should have thought of the podcasts seeing as how  
half of them are in my iTunes.


However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct.   
The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC  
wasn't relevant to them as developers.  As consumers, yes, but as  
developers, no.  I agree that my first statement was a bit  
inflammatory, inaccurate and not really what I meant to write.  I  
should have said "online service" in the sense that, say, googlemaps,  
the Flickr API or Twitter are services.


Going back to your list above - and I'm honestly not trying to troll   
- what is there that I can do with those resources as a developer?   
What access is there to that archive or online revision service other  
than via the latest-news feeds or screen-scraping?


Gavin

ps - I'm really, honestly not trolling, I swear! ;-)





we're not bad at that thing called interactive telly either. (does  
that count ?)


(Tom - stop being cheeky. You've only been gone a few weeks.)

Jem








-
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

[Chris Sizemore]

indeed, 'pioneering' is in the eye of the beholder... (i'm thinking: "radio 4, 
pioneering?!?!?!?!")


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of vijay chopra
Sent: Mon 10/8/2007 9:14 PM
To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
 
On 08/10/2007, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was with you up until this point:

- probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK
>

But that's probably just because I can't stand Radio 1...

Personally I think a much more valuable contribution to society, and
somewhere where the Beeb is defiantly leading the way amongst traditional
broadcasters is the BBC
archive<http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/login2.shtml>OK, it's still
a trial but one of the best things that the BBC is offering
at the moment. Along with Radio 4 and BBC online as a whole it's well worth
the licence fee. The TV sure isn't, but that's not a problem exclusive to
the Beeb.

Vijay.

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[vijay chopra]

On 08/10/2007, Jeremy Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was with you up until this point:

- probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK
>

But that's probably just because I can't stand Radio 1...

Personally I think a much more valuable contribution to society, and
somewhere where the Beeb is defiantly leading the way amongst traditional
broadcasters is the BBC
archiveOK, it's still
a trial but one of the best things that the BBC is offering
at the moment. Along with Radio 4 and BBC online as a whole it's well worth
the licence fee. The TV sure isn't, but that's not a problem exclusive to
the Beeb.

Vijay.

RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jeremy Stone]

 
> I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single
> online project where I could say "there, the BBC are leading the way.".
>

Actually the BBC once did a promo "advert" with John Cleese mimicing the Life 
of Brian's what have the romans ever given us. (its got space invaders in the 
background). It was a while ago mind. the licence fee was £58.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UWdqzfzDO20

Ok. I'll have a go...

- the leading pre-school website, certainly in the UK if not the world.
- millions of hours of radio listening on demand every month and more than any 
other website in the world.
- probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK
- the UK's leading mobile service.
- nearly 13 years of BBC News online, drm free podcasts (first in UK), 90% of 
teenagers using a BBC online revision service every year  

we're not bad at that thing called interactive telly either. (does that count ?)

(Tom - stop being cheeky. You've only been gone a few weeks.)

Jem

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Tom Loosemore]

> I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single
> online project where I could say "there, the BBC are leading the way.".
>
> At the risk of showing my ignorance; perhaps a web section of the BBC
> should be split off with a different mandate.

tum tee tum

http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/anewapproach/default.htm
-
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

[Gavin Montague]

In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who  
loves the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me  
up most of the night.


I can't help but feel I saw the evidence of this at dconstruct07.  Of  
all the sponsors I talked to, I think the BBC were the only one  
without anything to push.  I spoke to Adobe people about AIR; Magdex  
people who were sniffing for new talent; Yahoo people who were  
demoing the Flickr API...


The BBC were giving away t-shirts and, um, that was about it.  Oh,  
and key lanyards too*.


I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single  
online project where I could say "there, the BBC are leading the way.".


At the risk of showing my ignorance; perhaps a web section of the BBC  
should be split off with a different mandate.


G

* Auntie also paid for the bar afterwards, I think. ;-)

Gavin Montague
Web Development & Design

http://www.leftbrained.co.uk
07940705445
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Leftbrained is a limited company registered in Edinburgh.
Registered number: SC324218.

Registered office: 3.1 17 Nairn St, Glasgow, G3 8SE.





On 3 Oct 2007, at 02:56, Mr I Forrester wrote:




http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/ 
bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening

-
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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Mr I Forrester]

Wasn't exactly what I was asking but there you go. I actually asked if 
Matt had noticed a natural cycle of communities starting, dying, 
reviving, peaking, dying...  It was also in challenge to Matt saying 
he'd never seen a community die earlier in the talk. I'm not a keen 
metafilter person so prefered to hear what Derek Powazek had to say 
later to the same question. Because in his book "design for communities" 
he talks about this cycle in the last chapter as natural - 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jhvfh6thHS8C#reviews_anchor


I'm surprised Bobbie hasn't said anything about my blog post yet, I know 
he's aware of it ;)


Cheers

Ian

Brian Butterworth wrote:
"Ian Forrester from BBC Backstage asks how dying communities can 
revive themselves. (Wonder why?) "
 
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/03/future_of_web_apps_metafiltercom.html
 
 
 
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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Brian Butterworth]

"Ian Forrester from BBC Backstage asks how dying communities can revive
themselves. (Wonder why?) "

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/03/future_of_web_apps_metafiltercom.html



Brian Butterworth
www.ukfree.tv

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Mr I Forrester]

Well it was worth linking to, I felt

Jason Cartwright wrote:
Thanks for posting this here Ian, I was too chicken. My blog is going 
nuts with hits from the BBC proxies :-)


J

On 10/3/07, *Mr I Forrester* < [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> wrote:


In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who
loves
the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up
most of
the night.


http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening


-
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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Richard Lockwood]

> >
> > To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was
> > called the wireless back then.
>
>
> Now that is an interesting analogy.   I wonder what software developed in a
> method such as John Peel used would be like? *Wanders off into silly ideas
> of thousands of programmers sending in their snippets of code and the great
> man playing with lots of them in a room to see which he liked and how they
> might fit together into a crazy mix of styles and languages*
>

And running on the wrong speed processors...

Cheers,

Rich.
-
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

[O]

>
> To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was
> called the wireless back then.



Now that is an interesting analogy.   I wonder what software developed in a
method such as John Peel used would be like? *Wanders off into silly ideas
of thousands of programmers sending in their snippets of code and the great
man playing with lots of them in a room to see which he liked and how they
might fit together into a crazy mix of styles and languages*

Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

[Jason Cartwright]

Thanks for posting this here Ian, I was too chicken. My blog is going nuts
with hits from the BBC proxies :-)

J

On 10/3/07, Mr I Forrester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves
> the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of
> the night.
>
>
> http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening
> -
> 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

[Simon Cobb]

Thanks for finding this Ian. Got me thinking too.

Jase said:

"Auntie likes to have few, big, expensive, milestone projects to burn
the cash in a predictable manner, whereas the more flexible internet
industry takes a gamble on many small, inexpensive, iterative projects.
"Please fail very quickly - so that you can try again" - 

And Tom Coates (is this* the article you reference Ian? If not, could
you dig it out please?):

"what makes me so surprised when people outside the organisation talk
about how scared they are of the huge moves that the BBC can make on the
internet, because the truth is that for the most part - with a bunch of
limited exceptions - these changes just don't seem to be really
happening. The industry should be more furious about the lack of
progress at the organisation than the speed of it"

True dat. 

To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was
called the wireless back then. 

His shows were some of the most innovative radio around. 

His process was iterative, he basically stayed in the studio all week
noodling around to see what he thought worked and then delivered his
show at the end of that week and let the audience see if that worked.

One week development cycles out of which grew many larger and longer
running fixtures of his show.

Kenny had a vision - he was left alone to see it through. But due to the
weekly cycles nothing grew so big or so involved that it couldn't have
the plug pulled on it if he or his stakeholders so decided**. As a
result, I suspect, little damage was done when it went wrong.

And that, to my 1970s self, made the BBC great - it was THE place of
innovation in content and technique. 

*
http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/07/whos_afraid_of_ashley_highfie
ld/
** my source is the excellent but somewhat rose-tinted and sentimental
audio documentary 'Kenny Everett at the Beeb' voiced by Barry Cryer:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenny-Everett-Beeb-Presented-Collection/dp/05635
57117/ref=sr_1_22/203-0986040-9263968?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191394985&sr=
8-22 so I'm aware that this is open to question/ debate.
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr I Forrester
Sent: 03 October 2007 02:57
To: BBC Backstage
Subject: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee

In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves
the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of
the night.

http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_is
nt_happening
-
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/