RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
As it happens I would suggest Forest Key - who does work at Microsoft (on Silverlight). Before that he worked at Macromedia (who became Adobe) where he was Product Manager for Flash, so he is adequately qualified ;-) Apart from all that he is the smartest most focussed individual I have ever met in the Media and Technology space. He would whip FMT into shape - if anyone could. Reading Ariel yesterday it looks like the BBC have got some serious house cleaning to do on the bureaucracy front. I would think that is one of the largest tasks facing them as an organisation. Rupert Watson +44 7787 554801 www.root6.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr I Forrester Sent: 15 April 2008 04:13 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) Come on guys, enough microsoft/adobe jokes. If you could seriously put someone into the position of director of future media and technology who would it be and what qualities would you be looking for? I guess I shouldn't really say who I'd like to see, otherwise it will appear in the guardian or something. :) Rob Myers wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: Cool. Can I apply for his post please? That depends. What work experience do you have at Microsoft? - Rob. - 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/ __ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email __ ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
On 15 Apr 2008, at 05:41, Brian Butterworth wrote: Oh right, you mean like this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia1 The former Microsoft executive Erik Huggers Give the guy a break - so, he worked for Microsoft in the past. Let's assume for a moment that his joining the BBC was based on his merits - and not some lizard-controlled Illuminati plot to make Windows take over the world - and he might, just might, have learnt a thing or two about delivering projects despite messy internal politics after spending nine years at Microsoft. Given the history of the projects so far, I'd suggest those are skills that the BBC could use now and again. If he still owns stock or has some other conflict of interest, that would be one thing. But to relentlessly slag him off because of who he worked for in the past is simplistic at best, and plays right into the hands of those who dismiss the whole topic of interoperability as muesli-crunching irrelevance at worst.Personally, I think some of the decisions that have been taken in the past have sucked. But I don't see how this kind of ad hominem abuse is going to help persuade people that there is a better way of doing things. /rant
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Tim, my reading of the email was that the, linked to, article contained quotes that look like they might have been lifted straight from an email on this very list... Rupert Watson +44 7787 554801 www.root6.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Duckett Sent: 15 April 2008 08:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) But I don't see how this kind of ad hominem abuse is going to help persuade people that there is a better way of doing things. /rant ROOT 6 LIMITED Registered in the UK at 4 WARDOUR MEWS, LONDON W1F 8AJ Company No. 03433253 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Tim Duckett wrote: On 15 Apr 2008, at 05:41, Brian Butterworth wrote: Oh right, you mean like this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia1 The former Microsoft executive Erik Huggers Give the guy a break - so, he worked for Microsoft in the past. Let's assume for a moment that his joining the BBC was based on his merits - and not some lizard-controlled Illuminati plot to make Windows take over the world - and he might, just might, have learnt a thing or two about delivering projects despite messy internal politics after spending nine years at Microsoft. Given the history of the projects so far, I'd suggest those are skills that the BBC could use now and again. If he still owns stock or has some other conflict of interest, that would be one thing. But to relentlessly slag him off because of who he worked for in the past is simplistic at best, and plays right into the hands of those who dismiss the whole topic of interoperability as muesli-crunching irrelevance at worst.Personally, I think some of the decisions that have been taken in the past have sucked. But I don't see how this kind of ad hominem abuse is going to help persuade people that there is a better way of doing things. /rant Yay! :) Can we go back to talking about computers again now please? Else everybody be vewwy vewwy quiet lest we awaken the DRM permathread... cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Erik has addressed the Microsoft question at the end of this blog post - final paragraph - he wrote for the Internet Blog in January: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/a_glimpse_of_the_year_to_ come.html From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Duckett Sent: 15 April 2008 08:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) On 15 Apr 2008, at 05:41, Brian Butterworth wrote: Oh right, you mean like this... http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/apr/14/bbc.digitalmedia1 The former Microsoft executive Erik Huggers Give the guy a break - so, he worked for Microsoft in the past. Let's assume for a moment that his joining the BBC was based on his merits - and not some lizard-controlled Illuminati plot to make Windows take over the world - and he might, just might, have learnt a thing or two about delivering projects despite messy internal politics after spending nine years at Microsoft. Given the history of the projects so far, I'd suggest those are skills that the BBC could use now and again. If he still owns stock or has some other conflict of interest, that would be one thing. But to relentlessly slag him off because of who he worked for in the past is simplistic at best, and plays right into the hands of those who dismiss the whole topic of interoperability as muesli-crunching irrelevance at worst.Personally, I think some of the decisions that have been taken in the past have sucked. But I don't see how this kind of ad hominem abuse is going to help persuade people that there is a better way of doing things. /rant
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Tim, what disturbs people about a former MS executive in that position is that Microsoft's interests are not at all aligned with the interests of a public broadcaster. Microsoft wants video format lockin, which is why to this day Windows Media Player has no support for MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC (Xbox excluded), the Xiph Ogg codecs, or even Dirac for that matter whose bitstream has been frozen for SMPTE VC-2. Microsoft chooses not to license Windows Media 9 format for implementation in GNU/Linux. Their DRM architecture is Microsoft-only, just like the Apple FairPlay AVC/AAC extension is Apple-only. If Mr. Huggers had worked for, say, a bank, nobody would care. But he had an active role at Microsoft promoting a closed, proprietary format at the expense of open formats. Anyone using a non-Microsoft system knows that only open standards guarantee interoperability and given Microsoft's shoddy record on open standards, concerns are justified. Probably the best thing he could do to allay those concerns would be to support open standards. It's a mystery to me why the BBC doesn't make available a Dirac codec installer for WMP. I have no doubt the browsers and mobile manufacturers would line up for Dirac given its patent-unencumbered status. Did you see Sun announcing the reinvention of the wheel last week, a patent-unencumbered video codec? Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
But hold on - you're confusing two issues here. Erik Huggers no longer work for Microsoft - he works for the BBC. So either we say that working for Microsoft at some point in his past has made him fundamentally untrustworthy for all time, and therefore unqualified to make these kind of decisions for another organisation in the future; OR we take the view that he will work on behalf of the organisation that he's being paid by, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Promoting closed formats in the face of all the arguments was doing the right thing as far as Microsoft was concerned - so if he's got a track record of doing the right thing by his employer, it's reasonable to assume that he's going to try to do the right thing for the BBC - whatever that happens to be. I don't buy the line that having worked for Microsoft in the past is some kind of incurable virus that renders you forever immune to the open standards arguments. Assuming he has no conflicts of interests, then surely he's entitled to the benefit of the doubt - and I've read nothing to suggest that he has conflicted interests in the way that, say, certain individuals at the National Archives have. Ad hominem attacks on Erik Huggers are a distraction from the underlying issues of technology and interoperability - and I'm sure the pro-Microsoft camp are only too happy for the community to waste bandwidth on one particular individual. On 15 Apr 2008, at 10:00, Sean DALY wrote: Tim, what disturbs people about a former MS executive in that position is that Microsoft's interests are not at all aligned with the interests of a public broadcaster. Microsoft wants video format lockin, which is why to this day Windows Media Player has no support for MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and AAC (Xbox excluded), the Xiph Ogg codecs, or even Dirac for that matter whose bitstream has been frozen for SMPTE VC-2. Microsoft chooses not to license Windows Media 9 format for implementation in GNU/Linux. Their DRM architecture is Microsoft-only, just like the Apple FairPlay AVC/AAC extension is Apple-only. If Mr. Huggers had worked for, say, a bank, nobody would care. But he had an active role at Microsoft promoting a closed, proprietary format at the expense of open formats. Anyone using a non-Microsoft system knows that only open standards guarantee interoperability and given Microsoft's shoddy record on open standards, concerns are justified. Probably the best thing he could do to allay those concerns would be to support open standards. It's a mystery to me why the BBC doesn't make available a Dirac codec installer for WMP. I have no doubt the browsers and mobile manufacturers would line up for Dirac given its patent-unencumbered status. Did you see Sun announcing the reinvention of the wheel last week, a patent-unencumbered video codec? Sean. - 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] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Just a few thoughts (some of which may be emanating from my posterior, but no matter): From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 5:38 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution but my experience of them is that transparent proxies reduce overall performance because they need to get in the way of each and every HTTP transaction. Yes, I suppose in theory, but use of appropriate routing and firewalling means not in practice. Though adding this before the application layers will introduce a separate latency of its own. It would be difficult to filter such traffic on port admittedly, but not on other things, like source and dest addresses (see below). I wouldn't have thought that the small increase in latency would be noticeable for a several hundred megabyte file. I would have thought otherwise, since the latency is, almost by definition, indeterminate and could, in fact, be appreciable, especially if under high load 3. Store and forward: Locate MIRROR SERVERS inside the ISP network. This seems a much better idea. But the BBC's network does a LOT of this mirroring and load balancing stuff already, certainly if you look at some parts of their operation (like News) and especially with HTTP. It wouldn't work otherwise. And when it doesn't quite work like that, performance does suffer. It sounds a lot like some kind of Cache. And another question is *who* is going to pay for the servers that speak RTMP? This sounds like some kind of revenue driving scheme for the BBC's commercial friends. the ISP provide the BBC with rack space 'inside' their networks for mirror servers. A generic cache would be much more scalable, if the servers only mirror BBC data then this does nothing to solve problems with other sites. How does one mirror this data? Will it be available via rsync? Will it be mirrorable by *anyone* or does the BBC intend to pick and chose commercial ISPs to provide better access to. Again very shaky ground. And even though technologies like rsync are largely differential, the traffic generated from such syncing is not trivial, especially if the content is in binary formats and not textual. Because constructed deltas that are used for syncing may not be that small. And, more prosaically, once the data is inside the ISP's networks, who is responsible for it? - change the main BBC iPlayer to redirect requests for the content to the Mirror Server located in the ISPs network. Really unscalable, how is the BBC going to know which ISPs have mirrors and which do not? This would require each ISP to notify the BBC. Just seems wrong. Having every Content Provider have to speak to every ISP seems to go against the core of the Internet. If the BBC is decides to provide such a service, what is wrong with it whitelisting those who sign up to use it? Not necessarily something I agree with but not unfeasible from a technical point of view. Potentially very fiddly however and, as rightly pointed out, not hugely scalable for the long term. If a pipe on the Internet is not running at 100% it is being underused! On the other hand, a pipe running at 100% could clearly be considered borderline congested. Andy [1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980041_en_2#pt1-ch2-pb2-l1 g18 - 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 http://www.ukfree.tv * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
It's possible there are Microsoft employees who could switch hats and support open standards - John Sullivan of Microsoft Research who headed the AVC standardisation effort wouldn't have any credibility problems. As it happens, Mr. Hugger's former job included blocking open standards; it's merely reasonable to question his commitment on that subject. I wouldn't expect him to have any experience in building standards-based architectures, either. Nothing personal in that, it's just the way Microsoft functions. Their overriding goal is to maximise revenue using lockin; they do this by interlocking proprietary components (tying in the parlance of the EU DG-Competition). They sometimes embrace standards, but only when weak in a market; that's why WMP supports AVC/AAC on Xbox but not under Windows. Can Mr. Huggers make the switch from working for shareholders to working for licence fee payers? It's certainly possible and I do give him the benefit of the doubt. But actions speak louder than, etc. The best outcome is for Huggers to fulfill his January promise and promote open standards. Dirac is a perfect candidate in this regard particularly now that the bitstream has been frozen. I am aware of only one argument against its use: it is not included in Windows. Were Huggers to arrange that, concerns about his commitment would disappear overnight. The real challenge for him is to deep-six DRM, which is the source of the BBC's PC video client interoperability problems; technical protection measures don't work. That requires a leadership role to work with rights holders. It probably involves fundamental changes in the talent remuneration structure. I don't underestimate the difficulty. But as a public broadcaster the BBC is perhaps uniquely positioned to meet that challenge. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
On 15 Apr 2008, at 12:50, Brian Butterworth wrote: I'm really suprised that no-one actually read what I wrote. We do - it is just that your solution does not solve the cost issues of the second last last mile. The cost of data transport is not from the BBC to the ISP NOC/Data Centre as that is probably on local fibre inside a data centre in Docklands where they are both peering. The cost is the haul to the ISP customer from there - your proposal does not address that. Furthermore the fatter pipes in the future do not solve the charging issue for UK transit. This is an economic issue not a technical capacity issue. f - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Brian Butterworth wrote: * ISPs provide rack space for BBC servers inside their network * Who pays for servers? * Who maintains servers? ISP? Siemens? * Who pays for power usage? * ISPs provide list of IP addresses to directed to said servers * How is this done? Manually? How many ISPs? Or as fun as those automatic emails to/from Nominet? * ISPs sometimes move users from one end of the country to the other on the same IPs, but via different (effective) POPs. How much information needs to be transmitted to allow closer proxies? * Is the mapping of IPs to logical network layout confidential? * BBC copies each new file (and deletes) to these servers * How much disk space required? * Standard protocols to copy files? (rsync? HTTP?) New ones? * How can you be sure ISPs delete the content when they are meant to? * iPlayer software detect and redirects to BBC servers inside ISP network * Big list of IPs to scan on a regular basis. Performance issues? * What if ISP proxy is dead? * What if it dies during playback? * What if it doesn't have the content yet/already deleted it? * Interim solution until fatter pipes purchased, say 2-3 years. * Agreed. Fibre FTW, as they say. * But who pays? -jeremy - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
In this blog post Mark Thompson has said that the BBC is aiming to launch a download version of iPlayer for Mac this year: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/iplayer_choices.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean DALY Sent: 15 April 2008 13:33 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost) Michael, that's easy: I would judge you on your actions. For my part, many (that would be MANY) moons ago I was a journalist for a Windows magazine and later, purchased over a quarter of a million dollars in Microsoft licences; in both ways I helped build their monopolies. I can't even say I didn't know there was cheating back then; I saw the first conclusive proof of undocumented system calls by Excel in 1993. Back then, I thought it was great that IBM's stranglehold on the industry was being challenged and that unfair competition was not too high a price to pay for a common platform. People at Microsoft are used to distrust and resentment, although generally speaking they ascribe that to jealousy of success and not Microsoft's actions. For many years working against standards for commercial gain was just the way things were done unless there was mutual recognition that more opportunities would come from standards support. Remember IPX/SPX? I remember how a little company called Adobe got the idea to distribute a free reader for their portable document format (one of four in the market at that time) from a smaller and fiercer competitor taking market share, Farallon. Adobe won that war and buried Farallon, but it took them many years to seek ISO standardisation for PDF and the world is better off for it. (Of course, Microsoft can't stand it, they won't support PDF and they want to attack Adobe with Windows-only XPS. So much for Microsoft interoperability.) When Mr. Huggers says he is proud of his work at Microsoft which included blocking open standards, concerns about conflict of interest are justified. Those concerns can be allayed by promoting open standards. Of course, that means dropping Windows Media (which means dropping Microsoft DRM). Can a former executive promoting Windows Media be reasonably expected to reverse a decision to use Windows Media? I say give him the benefit of the doubt, but for how long? There is still no download support for iPlayer outside of Windows. What will he propose? No one is better positioned than he to enlarge WM Player's usefulness by negotiating Dirac support in WM Player, either natively, in a branded player, or as a standalone codec installer. Sean. - 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] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Michael, that's easy: I would judge you on your actions. For my part, many (that would be MANY) moons ago I was a journalist for a Windows magazine and later, purchased over a quarter of a million dollars in Microsoft licences; in both ways I helped build their monopolies. I can't even say I didn't know there was cheating back then; I saw the first conclusive proof of undocumented system calls by Excel in 1993. Back then, I thought it was great that IBM's stranglehold on the industry was being challenged and that unfair competition was not too high a price to pay for a common platform. People at Microsoft are used to distrust and resentment, although generally speaking they ascribe that to jealousy of success and not Microsoft's actions. For many years working against standards for commercial gain was just the way things were done unless there was mutual recognition that more opportunities would come from standards support. Remember IPX/SPX? I remember how a little company called Adobe got the idea to distribute a free reader for their portable document format (one of four in the market at that time) from a smaller and fiercer competitor taking market share, Farallon. Adobe won that war and buried Farallon, but it took them many years to seek ISO standardisation for PDF and the world is better off for it. (Of course, Microsoft can't stand it, they won't support PDF and they want to attack Adobe with Windows-only XPS. So much for Microsoft interoperability.) When Mr. Huggers says he is proud of his work at Microsoft which included blocking open standards, concerns about conflict of interest are justified. Those concerns can be allayed by promoting open standards. Of course, that means dropping Windows Media (which means dropping Microsoft DRM). Can a former executive promoting Windows Media be reasonably expected to reverse a decision to use Windows Media? I say give him the benefit of the doubt, but for how long? There is still no download support for iPlayer outside of Windows. What will he propose? No one is better positioned than he to enlarge WM Player's usefulness by negotiating Dirac support in WM Player, either natively, in a branded player, or as a standalone codec installer. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Isn't this what Akamai are doing for the iPlayer content already? Doesn't get the content close enough to the consumer to solve the issues ISPs apparently have. J On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to say that I am very impressed with Ashly Highfield at the moment. His defense of the public interest and also of BBC money is worthy of high praise. He is 100% correct when he says that the Internet Service Providers should provide an Internet service. The whole way the Internet has developed (and I've been using ever since it could be reached in the UK) has required ISPs to buy bigger and bigger pipes, to support more and more users. The economics (which I have gone into before) provides that the more you buy, the cheaper each bit becomes. The ISPs (just to recap) are complaining because they need more capacity because the BBC iPlayer is popular, and people are suddenly watching whole half-hour and hour-long programmes, streamed from the BBC's servers. I am of the mind that if you are a Internet host (like the BBC in this case) then you pay for your end of the connection to the cloud and the end-user pays for theirs via their ISP. So, Mr Highfield is correct to reject the idea that the BBC should pay for ISPs Internet pipes. However, I wrote a paper about this when I worked at BT Broadcast Services (about ten years ago, in fact) about dealing with this situation, and as I recall (I don't have it here with me on Crete) there are a few ways to deal with it: 1. ISPs by BIGGER PIPES and upgrade their network. This is 100% the correct answer in the long run. Moore's Law tends to work at a bit-delivery level, so the great evil here is probably the BT wholesale provision which seems to be behaving somewhat monopolisticly, which is a tendency that I know BT has. 2. Use transparent or non-transparent PROXY SERVERS. This might work, but my experience of them is that transparent proxies reduce overall performance because they need to get in the way of each and every HTTP transaction. Non-transparent proxies are fine on corporate and educational networks because you deny access to people who do not use them, or you can do complicated configuration scripts. 3. Store and forward: Locate MIRROR SERVERS inside the ISP network. This seems a much better idea. Rather than the ISP being given BBC cash, which is an intolerable idea, the ISP provide the BBC with rack space 'inside' their networks for mirror servers. These could work in one of two ways: - use DNS to redirect the requests for content (the massive files that are the video 'streams') to these servers. - change the main BBC iPlayer to redirect requests for the content to the Mirror Server located in the ISPs network. DNS is a tricy beast and almost impossible to manage in these situations, due to the way it is cached. If people switch networks regularly, which they do, DNS trickery can turn into a nightmare. The second solution is clearly a better one. The iPlayer already checks the end-users IP address to ensure that they are in the UK. It would be very simple to check to see if the users is in the range for a particular ISP and issue a HTTP redirect (or similar) to the ISPs server to get the content. The BBC would simply have to provide servers for each ISP which are fed with each of the iPlayer content files when they are produced, and manage the IP address lists for each server on a central BBC machine. This would mean transferring each file to the BBC machine inside the ISP network just once, and this would take seconds as it would be out there in the 'fat pipe' bit of the cloud. Finally, the client Flash Player software would need to know that if the content could not be obtained for some reason from the BBC machine inside the ISPs network, by calling back to the main BBC iPlayer server with an extra parameter. The BBC could argue that the ISP should provide these mirror servers, but as the hardware and storage costs of much machines is 'tiny' (and fixed) it would be better for these to remain under BBC control, from a management and responsibility point of view. Now, cut the crap and make it happen... Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161
RE: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea?
Brian - don't think this is the list to get feedback on the image shift of News 24 - this is after all the developer list for the BBC, not a general BBC Discussion list ;-) I'd suggest that you move this to a more relevant list (don't ask I don't know one) or contact News 24 directly via the various paes with 'contact us' links on and I'm sure someone will get back to you. m ___ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media Technology, Research and Innovation BC4A5, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TS T:020 8008 3959(02 83959) M:07711 913241(072 83959) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Tue 15/04/2008 13:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Just a question. On Monday BBC World is going to become BBC World News. This is an excellent idea. In the global market an news channel really needs to the word News in it. Full marks for this, and it's 100% better than BBC World Service Television, which was a laudable but long name without a decent acronym (BBCWSTV). But BBC News 24 is going to get rid of the 24, which has been in the name since Sunday 9th November 1997. Ten years of a channel associated with the number 24. Not only is this 42 backwards... but it has been the mainstay of the channel identity, even back in the Quantel flags and drum days. http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/news/bbcnews24/index.html I know that you, dearest Auntie, have been thinking about this for a year and a half... but, I can't find anyone who thinks it is a good idea - because how do you mention the channel without putting the world channel on the end? People are going to say on the BBC News channel or on The BBC News Channel right now and so on. Not only that, but the 24 has been copied in France (France 24) and Italy (RAI News 24) and lots of other places. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, Sky just made a big error with their silly bouncing captions[1].. can someone explain how a channel that has wiped the floor with Sky News should be denuded of it's perfectly sensible numeric appendage? Hoping for a rational explanation... Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051360 PS: I have my fingers crossed that those titles with the concave satellite dishes that do not reflect the signal won't be there anymore. It's so embarrassing [2] PPS: I also have my other fingers crossed for the new channel to have stereo sound. PPPS: And a HD version. :-D --- [1] http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mediamonkey/2008/04/monkeys_diary_from_the_mediagu_19.html *Bouncing into oblivion* Monkey's number of the day: three. The number of days (approximately) that *Sky News*'s bouncing captions survived the news channel's latest relaunch before being summarily dropped [2] But I got an apoology from Panorama. winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Yes Nick, that reminded me of Toyota aiming for zero emissions, wonder if they'll hit it this year (joke). DRM on Mac means Fairplay, so the announcement really should be no download support for GNU/Linux actually planned or possible since our proprietary software DRM partners make mutually incompatible solutions, none of which work over GNU/Linux. Mr. Thompson's blog post was I felt well-reasoned and well written, although I wouldn't agree that the BBC should throw up its hands and give up just because its partners don't support standards. I also disagree with the assessment that is less expensive to go proprietary for 90% of the online viewership; I believe it would be far less expensive to go open-standards for 100% of the viewership. Of course, DRM messes up that scenario, which is why a non-DRM solution needs to be found, such as Dirac with watermarking in a branded player. He also didn't touch upon on the ISP/bandwidth/controlled P2P issue which is a major component of the Windows-only download client, over which he was questioned at that same HoC hearing. I wonder what the plan is in that department for Mac? Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
What Brian explained is how the dutch public broadcast organization is collaborating with 8 ISP's to ensure the best service for catch-up tv over the internet (uitzendiggemist.nl) There is an article in dutch that explains this collaboration : http://www.emerce.nl/nieuws.jsp?id=2103122 -- -- ir. Werner Ramaekers Read my Blog at http://www.werner.be -- Werner Ramaekers Internet Technologies for Media VRT Medialab -IBBT On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Jeremy James [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Butterworth wrote: * ISPs provide rack space for BBC servers inside their network * Who pays for servers? * Who maintains servers? ISP? Siemens? * Who pays for power usage? * ISPs provide list of IP addresses to directed to said servers * How is this done? Manually? How many ISPs? Or as fun as those automatic emails to/from Nominet? * ISPs sometimes move users from one end of the country to the other on the same IPs, but via different (effective) POPs. How much information needs to be transmitted to allow closer proxies? * Is the mapping of IPs to logical network layout confidential? * BBC copies each new file (and deletes) to these servers * How much disk space required? * Standard protocols to copy files? (rsync? HTTP?) New ones? * How can you be sure ISPs delete the content when they are meant to? * iPlayer software detect and redirects to BBC servers inside ISP network * Big list of IPs to scan on a regular basis. Performance issues? * What if ISP proxy is dead? * What if it dies during playback? * What if it doesn't have the content yet/already deleted it? * Interim solution until fatter pipes purchased, say 2-3 years. * Agreed. Fibre FTW, as they say. * But who pays? -jeremy - 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] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea?
try saying it's not technical when you're trying to get the /programmes news 24 urls right ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Cashmore Sent: Tue 4/15/2008 2:37 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Brian - don't think this is the list to get feedback on the image shift of News 24 - this is after all the developer list for the BBC, not a general BBC Discussion list ;-) I'd suggest that you move this to a more relevant list (don't ask I don't know one) or contact News 24 directly via the various paes with 'contact us' links on and I'm sure someone will get back to you. m ___ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media Technology, Research and Innovation BC4A5, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TS T:020 8008 3959(02 83959) M:07711 913241(072 83959) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Tue 15/04/2008 13:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Just a question. On Monday BBC World is going to become BBC World News. This is an excellent idea. In the global market an news channel really needs to the word News in it. Full marks for this, and it's 100% better than BBC World Service Television, which was a laudable but long name without a decent acronym (BBCWSTV). But BBC News 24 is going to get rid of the 24, which has been in the name since Sunday 9th November 1997. Ten years of a channel associated with the number 24. Not only is this 42 backwards... but it has been the mainstay of the channel identity, even back in the Quantel flags and drum days. http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/news/bbcnews24/index.html I know that you, dearest Auntie, have been thinking about this for a year and a half... but, I can't find anyone who thinks it is a good idea - because how do you mention the channel without putting the world channel on the end? People are going to say on the BBC News channel or on The BBC News Channel right now and so on. Not only that, but the 24 has been copied in France (France 24) and Italy (RAI News 24) and lots of other places. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, Sky just made a big error with their silly bouncing captions[1].. can someone explain how a channel that has wiped the floor with Sky News should be denuded of it's perfectly sensible numeric appendage? Hoping for a rational explanation... Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051360 PS: I have my fingers crossed that those titles with the concave satellite dishes that do not reflect the signal won't be there anymore. It's so embarrassing [2] PPS: I also have my other fingers crossed for the new channel to have stereo sound. PPPS: And a HD version. :-D --- [1] http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mediamonkey/2008/04/monkeys_diary_from_the_mediagu_19.html *Bouncing into oblivion* Monkey's number of the day: three. The number of days (approximately) that *Sky News*'s bouncing captions survived the news channel's latest relaunch before being summarily dropped [2] But I got an apoology from Panorama. winmail.dat
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Wouldn't life be easier all around if the BBC just scrapped the download version of iPlayer completely and had it exclusively streaming? Streaming works across the board, uses less bandwidth and for the average user is a lot easier to use - plus the VAST majority of people using iPlayer already use the streaming version. Then when Kangaroo launches it can offer the downloads as a pay per play or pay to own service. After all streaming is closer to 'television' and iPlayer is just a television catch up service. I'm sure I'll get hate mail for that but - oh well :) Ryan Morrison upyourego.com Sean DALY [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes Nick, that reminded me of Toyota aiming for zero emissions, wonder if they'll hit it this year (joke). DRM on Mac means Fairplay, so the announcement really should be no download support for GNU/Linux actually planned or possible since our proprietary software DRM partners make mutually incompatible solutions, none of which work over GNU/Linux. Mr. Thompson's blog post was I felt well-reasoned and well written, although I wouldn't agree that the BBC should throw up its hands and give up just because its partners don't support standards. I also disagree with the assessment that is less expensive to go proprietary for 90% of the online viewership; I believe it would be far less expensive to go open-standards for 100% of the viewership. Of course, DRM messes up that scenario, which is why a non-DRM solution needs to be found, such as Dirac with watermarking in a branded player. He also didn't touch upon on the ISP/bandwidth/controlled P2P issue which is a major component of the Windows-only download client, over which he was questioned at that same HoC hearing. I wonder what the plan is in that department for Mac? Sean. - 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] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Dear backstage.co.uk admins, These DRM discussions are just so much fun, ... maybe they deserve a whole email list all to themselves? cheers, Dan -- http://danbri.org/ - 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] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea?
Saying BBC News doesn't make much sense either as there are lots of BBC News programme transmissions other than News 24 (notwithstanding the fact that so many of the transmissions have more or less the same content, so it doesn't really matter where you've seen it). BBC 24 would (IMO) have been a better bit of branding ... especially as the channel covers more than just raw news stuff. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ryan Morrison Sent: 15 April 2008 14:55 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Without wanting to drag an off topic discussion on any more than is necessary - there is a simple explanation. At the moment when refering to BBC News 24 most people just say News 24 so did you see that interview on News 24 last night I know I've done it. It's all about branding and brand awareness - by changing the name to BBC News people have to use the BBC as just saying News Channel doesn't make much sense. So the awareness of it as a BBC brand thus increases. Anyway - thanks. Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: try saying it's not technical when you're trying to get the /programmes news 24 urls right ;-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Matthew Cashmore Sent: Tue 4/15/2008 2:37 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Brian - don't think this is the list to get feedback on the image shift of News 24 - this is after all the developer list for the BBC, not a general BBC Discussion list ;-) I'd suggest that you move this to a more relevant list (don't ask I don't know one) or contact News 24 directly via the various paes with 'contact us' links on and I'm sure someone will get back to you. m ___ Matthew Cashmore Development Producer BBC Future Media Technology, Research and Innovation BC4A5, Broadcast Centre, Media Village, W12 7TS T:020 8008 3959(02 83959) M:07711 913241(072 83959) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Brian Butterworth Sent: Tue 15/04/2008 13:19 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea? Just a question. On Monday BBC World is going to become BBC World News. This is an excellent idea. In the global market an news channel really needs to the word News in it. Full marks for this, and it's 100% better than BBC World Service Television, which was a laudable but long name without a decent acronym (BBCWSTV). But BBC News 24 is going to get rid of the 24, which has been in the name since Sunday 9th November 1997. Ten years of a channel associated with the number 24. Not only is this 42 backwards... but it has been the mainstay of the channel identity, even back in the Quantel flags and drum days. http://www2.tv-ark.org.uk/news/bbcnews24/index.html I know that you, dearest Auntie, have been thinking about this for a year and a half... but, I can't find anyone who thinks it is a good idea - because how do you mention the channel without putting the world channel on the end? People are going to say on the BBC News channel or on The BBC News Channel right now and so on. Not only that, but the 24 has been copied in France (France 24) and Italy (RAI News 24) and lots of other places. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, Sky just made a big error with their silly bouncing captions[1].. can someone explain how a channel that has wiped the floor with Sky News should be denuded of it's perfectly sensible numeric appendage? Hoping for a rational explanation... Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051360 PS: I have my fingers crossed that those titles with the concave satellite dishes that do not reflect the signal won't be there anymore. It's so embarrassing [2] PPS: I also have my other fingers crossed for the new channel to have stereo sound. PPPS: And a HD version. :-D --- [1] http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mediamonkey/2008/04/monkeys_diary_from_the_media gu_19.html *Bouncing into oblivion* Monkey's number of the day: three. The number of days (approximately) that *Sky News*'s bouncing captions survived the news channel's latest relaunch before being summarily dropped [2] But I got an apoology from Panorama. - 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:
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Dan, I take your point. It's the worst sort of technical issue, the kind that can only be solved by non-engineers. It's also of little interest to most developers, a mere nuisance, except for those obliged to code for it or silly enough to not use Windows. Sean. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:58:49AM +0100, Tim Duckett wrote: But hold on - you're confusing two issues here. Erik Huggers no longer work for Microsoft - he works for the BBC. So either we say that working for Microsoft at some point in his past has made him fundamentally untrustworthy for all time, and therefore unqualified to make these kind of decisions for another organisation in the future; OR we take the view that he will work on behalf of the organisation that he's being paid by, in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Promoting closed formats in the face of all the arguments was doing the right thing as far as Microsoft was concerned - so if he's got a track record of doing the right thing by his employer, it's reasonable to assume that he's going to try to do the right thing for the BBC - whatever that happens to be. I have noticed that a number of people (and not just people associated with Microsoft) do sometimes tend to pick solutions with which they are somewhat familiar. I have coped with projects where that has happened on more than one occasion. Nothing sinister, just that they think they are doing the right thing due to a disparity in their level of knowledge between competing solutions. That isn't to say that Huggers (or anyone else) will do that but it does require careful thought when bringing in someone who might have such an inbuilt preference. -- Andy Leighton = [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Question.. is denuding News 24 of its digits a brilliant idea?
On 15/04/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saying BBC News doesn't make much sense either as there are lots of BBC News programme transmissions other than News 24 (notwithstanding the fact that so many of the transmissions have more or less the same content, so it doesn't really matter where you've seen it). BBC 24 would (IMO) have been a better bit of branding ... especially as the channel covers more than just raw news stuff. cf 'CBBC' (generic brand for childrens content strand found all over the place) and 'CBBC Channel' (name for channel which carries lots of the above). (I can't believe I just posted in this thread... aarrgghh) -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
On 15/04/2008, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/04/2008, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this what Akamai are doing for the iPlayer content already? Yes Doesn't get the content close enough to the consumer to solve the issues ISPs apparently have. No - as has been pointed out several times here, it's the last-mile (individual ADSL line) You are saying that the capacity on each individual ADSL line here is the problem? I really don't see that. The STATED problem is PAYING for the PIPES to backbone from BT. If this isn't the problem, then someone is lying. and second-last-mile (backhaul from DLE to the ISP's network via BT's ATM network) that's the problem. BTW's usage-based-charging model on IPStream makes it jolly expensive for the ISP when the bandwidth utilisation goes up. Their business model is based on an average utilisation which they see as under threat. Ah, back to the BT-behaves-like-a-monopoly-issue. LLU operators have more flexibility because typically their backhaul network is not accounted for on a usage-based model. Again as has been mentioned before, these are financial issues not technical ones. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - 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 http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Dutch providers and tv-zenders start this autumn with a new cooperation for the distribution of video by means of Internet. That is necessary because of the fast increase of online video. In the cooperation bond around the Internet button point Ams-IXhttp://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=nl_entrurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ams-ix.net%2fwork some providers and the public broadcasting and RTL for common appointments and an open protocol with which video distribution must become by means of Internet cheaper and more reliable. The first technical tests starts this autumn. In the system most popular content on the servers of provider themselves it is put automatically. The previous years were there already mutual appointments between providers exchange band width at Ams-IX, the ' peering '. The new system goes according to the people concerned a step further. It ensures that automatically on servers of the providers to come stand whereupon they most examined video files the those pictures within its own network are able spread. That saves date movement to the providers and the servers of tv-zenders also less is by it charged. A similar system twists already internal at the public broadcasting. Ams-IX the video working party is open for all Ams-IX members. A subgroup with among others the public broadcasting, RTL, XS4all and Solcon develop the protocol and the appointments. We look at if we can an open system in which contentbedrijven offer directly to providers make and that can distribute then within their own network this way efficient possible further. And that this way automated possible, technical director of XS4All says Simon Hania. Oftewel: automatic caching of most interesting content at the ISP. We want agree an open protocol with which can be exchanged content and as closely as possible to the end-user can be brought. Then is finished automatically content. The most popular videos are added up by provider. If maximumaantal are reached, then the file is moved to its own network of the provider, lay Egon moult, consultant new media of the public broadcasting, from. *' worldwide unique ' * The system is formulated as internetdraft. Within a couple months must be it ready. The complete procedure, the totaalpakket, is worldwide still nowhere present. thus Simon Hania. The situation in the Netherlands is favourable for the cooperation between providers and senders because of Ams-IX, success of on demand-video at the public broadcasting and RTL, and the high number of broadband connections. In the Netherlands we everything have concentrated spots on a couple. Moreover we have here already much online videocontent and the question after that is large, Jan Paul Dekker, say chef of technique at RTL. Because it concerns a test it is not yet looked at there to possible business models and setoffs, although the protocol for that, however, space gives, or to legal complications. According to Hania there ' expressly ' it is not spoken concerning ' commercial models '. It is beautiful that that does not need also. We have rapidly come free behind what the common interests to be: content must come well and cheap at the end-users. *capacity problems* The company Jetstream provides expertise to several providers and technique for the test, says director Stef of of the soul. at a couple providers already spullen stand which can be used immediately, and at Surfnet also a test will be set up, thus of of the soul, which set up the first live videostream in the Netherlands in 1994, of metalconcert in a gronings youth centre. Sometimes providers reach now already their capacity by the large number of internetkijkers. That happened for example in July then the NOS by means of the company Garnier live-beelden of the tour the France by means of Internet transmitted. Several providers walked towards then against their limitshttp://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=nl_entrurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.bright.nl%2fproviders-in-problemen-met-tour-de-france-stream. Of the causes was that those stream were sent from one point, where providers did not cooperate mutually. All providers are not according to of of the soul always even glad with the old peering model: Because the proportions between the movement which does not flow back and forth equal be. The proportion is sometimes gone. According to the people concerned turn out better than expected the problems cause by the growing popularity of online video now still, but it are the question if that is concerning a couple year still this way. Now it is problem still no. But if the large catalogue with old programmes is ask easily by means of the remote control on the TV, then the question increases still much, and is possible it a larger problem becomes. thus Jan Paul Dekker van RTL. *Peer-to-peer not ideal * Recently British providers reacted incensed to the new on demand-videosoftware of the BBC, the
RE: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
Brian, It has been pointed out several times now that the problem is between the home user and the ISP, not the ISP and the BBC/Akamai. Although it might appear from a traceroute that there is nothing between your home router and your ISP - there is, but the IP traffic is encapsulated and passed within BTs ATM cloud so you cannot see it. It is the cost of moving the encapsulated IP within this cloud between the home user and the ISP where the problem is. No amount of caching or proxying at the ISP end will help, because it is outside the ATM cloud. If any caching were to be effective it would have to work inside the cloud at exchange or regional level, and I'm not aware of any technology that can read the ATM packets, decap the IP packets from them, interpret the IP packets - then inject more packets with correctly encapsulated and valid IP into the ATM cloud as a response. All this would have to be at wire speed so as not to add latency to all connections passing through the device. Without doing this, there is no where else to put the proxy for it to be effective. Anyone who thinks they can do this, go and build it. You stand to make a vast amount of money installing them in every exchange. -- Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division * http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ * 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 15 April 2008 17:14 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution You are saying that the capacity on each individual ADSL line here is the problem? I really don't see that. The STATED problem is PAYING for the PIPES to backbone from BT. If this isn't the problem, then someone is lying.
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
On 15/04/2008, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/04/2008, Peter Bowyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 15/04/2008, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this what Akamai are doing for the iPlayer content already? Yes Doesn't get the content close enough to the consumer to solve the issues ISPs apparently have. No - as has been pointed out several times here, it's the last-mile (individual ADSL line) You are saying that the capacity on each individual ADSL line here is the problem? I really don't see that. The STATED problem is PAYING for the PIPES to backbone from BT. If this isn't the problem, then someone is lying. Not capacity of those lines, but the commercial model involved. and second-last-mile (backhaul from DLE to the ISP's network via BT's ATM network) that's the problem. BTW's usage-based-charging model on IPStream makes it jolly expensive for the ISP when the bandwidth utilisation goes up. Their business model is based on an average utilisation which they see as under threat. Ah, back to the BT-behaves-like-a-monopoly-issue. Not really, no. The introduction of usage-based charging on IPStream enabled BTW's resellers to compete on price with the LLU operators and their resellers. The reseller is able to decide their own price points and usage caps in order to differentiate their offering, attract the bit of the market they're interested in, and hopefully still make a profit based on the mix of punters and their usage patterns. The older capacity-based charge simply left them making a fixed and downward-trending margin reselling a simple product. . If suddenly all their punters' usage patterns change for the worse, this screws their business model - hence the outcry about iPlayer. IPStream backhaul is a bit simpler - resellers buy it in bandwidth chunks called 'central pipes' - small ones (STM-1) or large ones (Gig-E). There's no metering as such, but obviously the aggregate bandwidth demands from a reseller's userbase, the more pipes they need to maintain a given level of contention. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Sean, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I'd rather post-judge (if at all) rather than pre-judge. I did write a longer reply, but I don't see the point sending it. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Michael - mail me off-list. Thanks. Sean - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/04/15/who-should-be-the-next-web-guru-of-the-bbc-vote-now/ -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Peter Bowyer wrote: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/04/15/who-should-be-the-next-web-guru-of-the-bbc-vote-now/ Damm your quick! So I highly recommend everyone goes there and votes for the guy at the end of the list ;-) Mr Cridland is getting far too much support, we need to put him back in his place. Do it or I'll convert the backstage list to a MSN group ;-) You've been warned - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
Mr I Forrester wrote: Peter Bowyer wrote: http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/04/15/who-should-be-the-next-web-guru-of-the-bbc-vote-now/ So I highly recommend everyone goes there and votes for the guy at the end of the list ;-) Mr Cridland is getting far too much support, we need to put him back in his place. Controller of the children's Vision would be a great job title. Almost as good as Controller, Internet, or indeed Head of Time at the National Physical Laboratory. 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] Ashley Highfield leaves BBC (almost)
I knew a filmmaker who handed out a card with the title Grand Pooh-Bah. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution
On 15/04/2008, Gareth Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian, It has been pointed out several times now that the problem is between the home user and the ISP, not the ISP and the BBC/Akamai. Although it might appear from a traceroute that there is nothing between your home router and your ISP - there is, but the IP traffic is encapsulated and passed within BTs ATM cloud so you cannot see it. It is the cost of moving the encapsulated IP within this cloud between the home user and the ISP where the problem is. One does not depend upon traceroute for anything in these situations... you never learn anything to your advantage. Once again it is a great shame that we ended up with this deformed IP network, if the model had been constructed in a truly competitive market, as with the US, this problem would not have arisen. No amount of caching or proxying at the ISP end will help, because it is outside the ATM cloud. If any caching were to be effective it would have to work inside the cloud at exchange or regional level, and I'm not aware of any technology that can read the ATM packets, decap the IP packets from them, interpret the IP packets - then inject more packets with correctly encapsulated and valid IP into the ATM cloud as a response. All this would have to be at wire speed so as not to add latency to all connections passing through the device. Without doing this, there is no where else to put the proxy for it to be effective. Anyone who thinks they can do this, go and build it. You stand to make a vast amount of money installing them in every exchange. Putting the equipment in each exchange was, as I recall, was actually the conclusion of the report I wrote, all that time ago. And there is so much room in them as they were all built in the old Strouger days... -- *Gareth Davis* | Production Systems Specialist World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery Team - Part of BBC Global News Division 8 http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ + 702NE Bush House, Strand, London, WC2B 4PH -- *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Brian Butterworth *Sent:* 15 April 2008 17:14 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] iPlayer and the ISPs - a solution You are saying that the capacity on each individual ADSL line here is the problem? I really don't see that. The STATED problem is PAYING for the PIPES to backbone from BT. If this isn't the problem, then someone is lying. -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
