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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sparks
Sent: 22 October 2007 14:01
snip
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,
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
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
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,
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 -
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
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
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.
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]
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
/ 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
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.
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
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
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]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a similar vein to Tom Coates
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.
52 matches
Mail list logo
