I meant to say, these services should be carried on Multiplex 2 (and PSB2)
because they come out of the ITV "3&4 Ltd" free Freeview allocation!
2009/6/18 Brian Butterworth
>
>
> 2009/6/18 Andy Leighton
>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote:
>> > East Midlands Co
2009/6/18 Andy Leighton
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> > East Midlands Counties
> (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland)
> > Norfolk and Suffolk
> > Cambridge and Bedford
>
> Whilst a more local news service is the solution I think that some
>
Ok before delving into the subject, Tom can you put it on
ideas.welcomebackstage.com. Its very much the right place to post this type of
thing.
I think its significantly different to this,
http://ideas.welcomebackstage.com/ideatorrent/idea/6/
It also helps to have something more structured whe
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 12:28:54PM +0100, Brian Butterworth wrote:
> East Midlands Counties (Notts/Derbys/Lincs/Northamptons/Leictersh/Rutland)
> Norfolk and Suffolk
> Cambridge and Bedford
Whilst a more local news service is the solution I think that some
of your breakdowns will need more thou
2009/6/18 Simon Thompson
>
>
> Brian Butterworth wrote:
>
>
>
> *132. "Another missing infrastructure link for digital terrestrial TV is a
> return path for interactive services - a capability already provided on
> satellite, DSL and cable networks."*
>
> That's because it's a broadcast, not a pe
2009/6/18 Alex Mace
> Is there a demand for this service though? IIRC the BBC was providing
> "local" news channels through the website but they've since been removed, I
> presume because of lack of people watching it.
>
There was a demo service, based on "counties" that was a bit basic. It was
Is there a demand for this service though? IIRC the BBC was providing
"local" news channels through the website but they've since been
removed, I presume because of lack of people watching it.
On 18 Jun 2009, at 12:28, Brian Butterworth wrote:
2009/6/18 Andrew Bowden
Well each one would
Brian Butterworth wrote:
*132. "Another missing infrastructure link for digital terrestrial TV
is a return path for interactive services - a capability already
provided on satellite, DSL and cable networks."*
That's because it's a broadcast, not a peer-to-peer network. And this
"return p
Thanks - I hadn't noticed they'd "released" it.
If you read the licensing agreement first
( http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/pdf/rtmp_specification_license_1.0.pdf )
then you'll probably not want to go and download the specs.
There are plenty of reasons why you'd not want to download and use th
That was the idea. It would certainly be good to have services for all the
major connerbations, but as TV transmitters often cover many, I can't see
there being a Derby/Nottingham split, but there would be a Nottingham/rural
East Midlands split.
2009/6/18
> Does this get around somebody in Blac
2009/6/18 Andrew Bowden
> Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's
> possible, but only if that included satellite and internet distribution.
>
> Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network.
>
Thankfully this isn't about the current transmi
2009/6/18 Steve Carpenter :
> They released the specs earlier this week. :)
>
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/
>
Is this going to make the Adobe hounds less DMCA trigger happy against
tools such as rtmpdump ?
Cheers,
Al.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, ple
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 11:19:17AM +0100, Phil Lewis wrote:
> IMHO, RTMP is not DRM at all. With RTMP there is no rights management,
> encryption, crypto signing, registration of players, conditional access,
> etc. OK, it is 'Digital' but that is about as close as it gets!
Okay I shouldn't have sa
Does this get around somebody in Blackburn not being interested in
Liverpool news, someone in Derby not being intersted in Nottingham
etc.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:00:29 +0100 Andrew Bowden
wrote:
>Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's
>possible, but only if that inc
They released the specs earlier this week. :)
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/rtmp/
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:29 +0100, David Johnston wrote:
> > 2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
> >
> > This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK.
> > Currently
> >
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
>
> The same rights holders probably didn't like VCRs either - or digital
> terrestrial tv broadcasting.
They didn't. They also didn't like cable TV, MP3 and just about any other
cash cow you can mention. You have to force them to get rich each time. It's
really quite embar
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 10:29 +0100, David Johnston wrote:
> 2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
>
> This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK.
> Currently
> all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD
> streams) is
> delivered withou
Well each one would have a budget of £5m by that estimate. It's possible, but
only if that included satellite and internet distribution.
Terrestrial just wouldn't be possible with the current transmitter network.
From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.u
The think I have the most of an issue with is the funding of a regional news
programme for ITV.
If you are going to spend £150m (say) of BBC money, it would be better to
break up the BBC regional news service into a network of BBC local news
channels.
For a start it would make sense to supplement
2009/6/18 Phil Lewis
> This shouldn't be a problem from a rights perspective AFAIK. Currently
> all web based iPlayer content (including the 3200 kbps HD streams) is
> delivered without any DRM. RTMP is not DRM or content protection.
>
RTMP may not be DRM, but I it's close enough to serve that p
Hi
It's all a bit of a disappointment...
I'm still trying to work out how many times over this "so call surplus" from
the TV Licence is going to be spent, but whilst I go and spread some sheets,
I can't help noticing some of the good goofs in the Digital UK Report. My
favourite are:
*128 ... Fre
Ogg Theora is an excellent choice because it is not patent-encumbered
and has good metadata support (even if search engines and local
indexers like Spotlight neglect that metadata for now).
However, the Ogg container could just as well contain Dirac and in my
view the BBC is missing a major opport
On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 01:47 +0100, Tom Fitzhenry wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> Are there any plans on supporting HTML 5's tag for iPlayer?
>
> I realise there are rights issues with some programmes and that rights
> holders might have problems with non-DRM solutions, but presumably there
> are some pro
23 matches
Mail list logo
