Re: [backstage] Screen Scraping Advice ...
Murray, Simon (IED) wrote: Some time ago I wrote a simple screen scrape script in classic ASP using the Internet Transfer Protocol (InetCtls.Inet) which had it's limitations. I'm interested in using .Net and the HttpWebRequest class, but would welcome any guidance on the subjectparticularly when accessing data spanning across multiple pages. Again, a not .Net answer - I've successfully used Python with Beautiful Soup - http://www.crummy.com/software/BeautifulSoup/ Saying that, there is a version of Python for .Net called IronPython, so maybe you can get Beautiful Soup to work with that http://www.codeplex.com/Wiki/View.aspx?ProjectName=IronPython cheers Scot
Re: [backstage] A couple of things including Arrington
Mr I Forrester wrote: and you might want to check out the comments from Mike TechCrunch Arrington on the BBC - http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/news/archives/2007/02/michael_arringt.html Is there some more background to what he said? The BBC should be dissolved is a fairly strong statement, and I would have thought there'd be at least a few words either before or after as to why the BBC should be dissolved (and I'd rather not have to trudge through a a video to find 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] A couple of things including Arrington
blogHUD wrote: I have posted the audio here: http://kosso.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/techcrunchs-mike-arrington-calls-for-the-end-of-the-bbc/ http://kosso.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/techcrunchs-mike-arrington-calls-for-the-end-of-the-bbc/ download! share! mock! taunt! ;) Maybe I'm going deaf, but the audio isn't audible - I've got my speakers turned up full blast, and while there is enough sound to know that there is something there, it's still not audible. - 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] A couple of things including Arrington
Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: Maybe I'm going deaf, but the audio isn't audible - I've got my speakers turned up full blast, and while there is enough sound to know that there is something there, it's still not audible. I take it back (partially). I swapped speakers and I got to at least hear a bit of it - but I still had problems with parts of it being unitelligable. I don't suppose there's a transcript anywhere? - - 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] A couple of things including Arrington
Andy Leighton wrote: It is often worse than that. Look at Firefly - shown out of order and pulled from air before they had shown all the episodes of that series (11 out of 14 broadcast). That was Fox, again. That is something I can hardly imagine the BBC (or for that matter commercial TV in Britain) doing to a new drama series they were showing. Maybe not most types of drama, but sci fi dramas occasionally get badly treated in the UK as well (like how Channel 4 put the final season of Babylon 5 on in the small hours of the morning, didn't bother to tell any one that it was even on, and kept changing the day and time it was on). If Firefly was a straight western instead of a western in space then Fox might have treated it better. Scot - 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] HD-DVD how DRM was defeated
Andrew Bowden wrote: A less cynical way can be explained on the subject of web usability. Usability experts will tell you that many users get rather daunted by very long pages full of text, so the way round it is to split the article over several pages. Which is something I've always found odd - I prefer all the content on a single page (especially as having the content spread across multiple web pages makes it difficult to review earlier material). It's why I find IBM's DeveloperWorks one of the better developer sites on the net, as each article is on a single page. I tend to dislike the ones that separate their articles into several pages (webmonkey would be an example, but there are countless others). Maybe it depends on your target audience, or maybe it's old advice from when looking at long pages of text on a computer was a fairly new experience to a lot of people. However, it is difficult not to get cynical as it does seem like the sites that use a single page are the ones that are less dependent on advertising. Scot
Re: [backstage] Ad Blocking
James Cridland wrote: Incidentally, I have written stuff (for one of my websites) which blocks website content if the ads don't load. It's quite easy to do, depending on how your ads are being served. If ad-blockers grow, you'll see a ton of these scripts proliferating on the web. (Given the stats from one of the websites I'm responsible for, I estimate that 5% of pages are served to people with adblockers; which I see as fairly acceptable - 20% might not be, though). And if those content blockers proliferate, so will Greasemonkey scripts to counter them. It's an arms race. Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: Try offering content that people want instead, and ask them to show support by clicking on the ads; I think asking people to click on the ads is against the Google's Adsense policy. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=48182topic=8423 In particular: May not encourage users to click the Google ads by using phrases such as click the ads, support us, visit these links or other similar language Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
vijay chopra wrote: Take a site like slashdot, I visit, I like the content, so I decide to white-list. However I find the ads over intrusive so I put it back on the black list, Do you subscribe to slashdot? One of the perks of slashdot membership is you don't get ads. Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
Richard Lockwood wrote: I don't have to read the adverts in magazines or newspapers no one considers those an intrinsic part of [their] content No - but they're still there. You flick past them, and they don't annoy you by their very presence, which web ads appear to. Saying that, ads in newspapers and magazines don't flash, animate, play sounds, pop up over the article you're reading or jump out of the paper after you've closed it. If people have gotten used to using adblockers, a lot of the blame has to go to the advertisers for using such annoying techniques. Web browsing is usually more similar to reading a magazine than watching TV, but the marketers tried their best to make the ads TV-like or worse/better (depending on your point of view). Had the ads not been so intrusive, then the arms race wouldn't have begun. Well, maybe there would have been the odd person intent on blocking ads (along with cookies and javascript), but adblocking would never have become a standard part of every browser. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jim Gardner wrote: I would like to know what percentage of my license fee will go towards funding the proposed iPlayer services which are only to be made available to people stupid enough to be using Windows Are you certain Microsoft isn't funding it? I thought most of the Windows Media tools are free (as in beer - if you've payed your Microsoft tax). Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Jason Cartwright wrote: This is all my personal point of view. I can't receive digital TV, so I'd like a refund on money spent to make BBC3 and BBC4. Oh, and I can't read welsh so could TV Licencing please send me a cheque for the money spend on http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymru/ Didn't some people say exactly that when digital TV first started? Didn't there used to be a Black White TV licence? If so, there is precedent for a lower fee for those with less capable equipment. Also, wouldn't the Welsh content be paid for by Welsh viewers (or is the amount of Welsh language content disproportionate to the number of native Welsh speakers). More importantly, if the BBC had chosen to not use the DVB standard but some proprietary technology only available from single manufacturer (that was already a convicted monopolist), would there have been even more discontent about digital TV? Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Kenneth Burrell-CAPITA wrote: Hi Which is like paying income tax for Health Service and then having to pay for prescriptions? ... I can choose to go to Boots, or Tesco or one of any number of small chemists to get the prescription. I'm not forced into going to a single chemist, which may be inconvenient or costly to go to (or that I just don't like, for whatever reason). And, unlike the licence fee, people on low incomes don't have to pay prescription charges no matter where they go. Can someone suggest a way of how you could efficiently and effectively collect payment (s) that reflects all individuals use of BBC services and programmes? Annual packages or subscription based on likes and dislikes/hours viewed or listened/bbc web pages viewed/services accessed/content downloaded/free concerts attended/freephone helpline numbers dialed/... You could extend the mechanisms used by adverterisers to gather ratings, so that every household with a TV Licence gets one of those boxes they use to monitor what people are watching/listening to combined with a password to use the BBC website and linking it together with every licence fee payers phone number so you know who dialed what freephone number (though the privacy issues around such an idea are immense, and I somehow doubt that it would qualify as efficient). You then use that with charging model that uses per use pricing (like, 10p for an hour of TV, 1p per kilobyte of data from the website). Alternatively you could encrypt everything, and people could pay for packages (like on Sky) - so you could just get news documentaries and childrens, while leaving out the sport. I don't think you could do it at level of the individual (except for people who live on their own), only for households, which is what the licence fee is currently targeted at any way. But then, both of those methods still leave the question - how do you pay for the unpopular, but worthy, programming? If you are going to go to a model where people only pay for what they like, then you're really talking about commercial television. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
George Wright wrote: On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 18:09 +, Jim Gardner wrote: I'm sure Microsoft are desperately pleased with themselves for earning what ever percentage of that £131 million is theirs Programme ingest, programme creation, programme/contributor rights, content distribution, application development, infrastructure, promotion, QA, deployment, salaries... None of these things involve Microsoft or DRM. Programme ingest, content distribution and infrastructure may be based on Microsoft technologies - so MS would be getting some money from server licences. I suppose you could do most of it with Macs or Linux, but there's probably at least one Windows server somewhere doing the transcoding. Maybe you could use hardware encoders instead, but MS would still be getting some licensing money from those. I would also assume they'd get something from the application development with Visual Studio and/or MSDN licences. It would be interesting to hear how the backend of iPlayer is actually being done. Scot - 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/
[backstage] Freesat
Sorry if this isn't the best place to ask this question, but maybe somebody here knows - is Freesat proposing to launch a set of channels on a different satellite, or is it just an alternative EPG to Sky's? I've looked at the consultation paper, but it doesn't go in to any of the technical details (though I think it might mention MHEG somewhere). cheers Scot - 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] Ad Blocking
Jason Cartwright wrote: Slashdot has put content on a public network, it serves me what I request, there is no obligation on me to request it all. The deal your informally entering into with Slashdot is that in order to pay for your request taking up thier resources you are served an advert. If you don't like this 'deal' then you shouldn't request the content. Slashdot probably isn't the best example - I think they expect a lot of ad blocking (considering who there audience is) and so their business model probably takes that more into account than other sites might (which is why you can subscribe to slashdot and get a few perks besides not seeing ads). Scot
Re: [backstage] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Richard Lockwood wrote: This is the argument that always crops up: Use a different business model. I've yet to hear someone come up with a workable one. Giving the end product away - and allowing everyone else to do the same - is *not* a workable business model. I wonder if there really is that much of a workable business model for entertainment anyway, even if we constrain ourselves to 20th century entertainment technologies. While some people have made a lot of money, it's rarely the artists and a lot of that money is made by very sharp accounting practices (ie, Hollywood Accounting). Lord Of The Rings has been mentioned - look at the arguments between Peter Jackson and New Line for an example of the artist not getting his fair share (or at least not feeling that he is getting his fair share). There's a book on the music industry (whose name escapes me, I can look it up if anyones interested) that goes into some detail on how dubious an industry it is. I even knew someone who was once in a band that got signed, sent to the Bahamas to make a record and then the record was never released, and when they asked why, they were told that they were being used as a writeoff (which is exactly one of the sorts of practices mentioned in the book). I think it's this fundamental lack of a real business model that's driving the calls for DRM - the entertainment industry's business model is mostly smoke and mirrors, and easy copying takes away some of the mirrors. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 28/02/07, Mario Menti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In just about every definition, loss can mean being deprived of something, regardless of whether you physically possessed that thing in the first place. What loss are rights holders taking? Loss of potential revenue (though only potential, as you've said there's no guarantee that the person getting the copy would ever have bought/rented the DVD in the first place). I wouldn't go so far as to call it theft, but it's certainly a violation of rights. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. Scot - 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] Percentage of License fee going towards DRM?
Dave Crossland wrote: On 01/03/07, Scot McSweeney-Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dave Crossland wrote: Consider why authors always cede their rights to publishers, and if they would do this if it was indeed a natural right? I thought that in certain countries (France springs to mind) you can't really cede your copyright to publishers, as copyright really is a considered a natural right. Are we in France? Natural rights are considered to be fairly universal, even if not universally enforced. Scot - 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] Traffic Info
Andrew Bowden wrote: It's certainly interesting as a concept, although I'm cautious on the fact that it doesn't really take into account the speed limits on different roads. Although I've actually no idea how you could take that into account! ** Perhaps a GIS, with a database of what road sections have what speeds, and then you match current road speed against what the GIS says the road speed should be. Easy ;-) Scot
Re: [backstage] Flash required?
Andy wrote: On 04/03/07, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Switch to Ruby on Rails and AJAX over and above Java? Ruby is server side, unless I am mistaken. Thus would not need to be installed locally, so a good thing there. Javascript (needed for AJAX) is implemented differently across browser. not even sure the XMLHTTPRequest function, or whatever it is called, is standardised or if websites just pray all vendors implemented it the same way. Generally, you would use a Javascript library to abstract XHR so that you don't need to worry what the particular browser quirks are. In Rail's case, it uses Prototype - http://prototypejs.org/. Most libraries abstract XHR so much that AJAX even works on browsers that don't support XHR (through the use of hidden IFRAMES). I suggested Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript as Java is more versatile. Java will also run on many more platforms than Flash. You can even get embedded versions of Java. Java is a more full featured language than javascript, or I might just not know Javascript well enough. Seeing as Google Web Toolkit compiles Java to Javascript, I would assume they must be fairly feature equivalent, at least at the language level (though which one's easier to program in is debatable). Java has more libraries, but how many of them are useful when using Java as a Flash replacement? From personal experience, one of the biggest problem with using Javascript/HTML/CSS as a Flash replacement is sound support which, from what I can tell, is fairly non existent (though I'm really hoping somebody can prove me wrong on this). Assuming you don't need sound support, I don't see what is gained from using Java over HTML/CSS/Javascript. DHTML/AJAX sites are often far more responsive than anything I've seen done in a Java Applet, not that there are that many Java applet sites left to compare with. While Java may be more versatile, in most cases it's going to be overkill (and not just on the client - a lot of RoR's success is due to it being a lot easier to whip up a Web 2.0 style website in RoR than in JEE). And of course security wise Flash is a no go area. If you can't see what code is doing to your machine better assume its doing something bad to it. Of course I could run flash in a VM but the overhead just to run the BBC webpage would be completely unacceptable, even with kernel level acceleration (I don't have native support for VM on my CPU, unless I upgrade). But Flash is a VM, and is sandboxed (just like Java). Looking at Adobe's page on security in Flash 8 (in particular the sandboxing) at http://www.adobe.com/devnet/flash/articles/fplayer8_security_03.html Flash's sandboxing model is strikingly similar to Java Applets. Scot - 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] Flash required?
Tim Cowlishaw wrote: Is all the discussion of AJAX here missing the point slightly? It depends on how you define Ajax. Ajax is now often used to mean Web 2.0 style websites, based primarily on HTML/CSS/Javascript as opposed to just Asynchronous Javascript and XML. Especially as some AJAX based site are often turning to JSON instead of XML for data transport and for a lot of sites there's just not that much in the way of Asynchronous calls. Since it's a lot easier to say AJAX than it is to say DHTML, or HTML/CSS/Javascript and all the terms are related anyway the term Ajax now has more than it's original meaning. Which sounds better: We could use HTML/CSS/Synchronous Javascript/JSON instead of Flash We could use Ajax instead of Flash While the first might be technically more correct, the second is easier to say, and you still get the gist of what sort of site you're developing. Scot - 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] Flash required?
Jason Cartwright wrote: Why isn't the BBC spending my money wisely by making my child a flash game? Because it makes Mike TechCrunch Arrington angry? We can't have that. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC parliment
Matthew Somerville wrote: The copyright rests with Parliament, presumably the Parliamentary Recording Unit, from whom you can purchase archive footage. As long as you stick to the rules about what you can do with the material even then: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmbroad/786/786.pdf [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmbroad/642/64202.htm I found the following interesting: /no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire; / I guess that almost rules out there ever being a Daily Show UK. Scot
Re: [backstage] BBC parliment
Richard Lockwood wrote: I don't recall The Daily Show relying on transcripts of Congress (or whatever they call it in those forn parts). The Daily Show uses video footage of Congress all the time. An equivalent usage of parliamentary video footage is specifically banned by that no extracts of Parliamentary proceedings may be used in any light entertainment programme or in a programme of political satire rule (as stated in The Rules of Coverage linked to previously). The Daily Show makes enough use of congressional footage that it wouldn't be quite the same show if it wasn't allowed. If anything, a Daily Show UK would be even more reliant on parliamentary footage, thanks to greater importance of Parliament compared to Congress. You couldn't do a Daily Show UK without at least some Prime Ministers Question Time material, for example. Let's face it - The Daily Show (which is a fantastic show) draws heavily on the history of satirical political TV programming - I see Not The Nine O'Clock News in there, I see David Frost in there, I see Peter Cook in there... None of which ever used video of MPs and Lords at work. It would be interesting to know how much (if at all) the people behind The Daily Show (other than John Oliver) were influenced by Not The Nine O'Clock News et al. - were they even shown in the US? cheers Scot - 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] Backstage Podcast number 2
George Bray wrote: So currently we have a couple of guests, however... 1. Who should we get on the podcast? The EMI guy who did the deal with Steve Jobs. An EMI competitor. An artist - someone who has a stake in their intellectual property, and a bit of an understanding on the distribution crossroads we're at. Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant? How about Dave Rowntree from Blur (and the Open Rights Group as well)? Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Archive trial
James Cox wrote: I hope that if this gets past the various layers of governance and gets budget to become a 'real' project, some effort into hooking up into bittorrent (I'm sure Bram could come up with some trickery to have certified users (ie, license fee payers ;)) only which would permit some kind of higher bandwidth product. I've never really felt comfortable with distributed P2P for content that I've paid for. It's great when bittorrent is used for transfering ubuntu iso's around (as it's members of a community helping others in the same community), it's less great but at least makes some sense when it's used for piracy (as it's still a members of a community helping other members in a community, all be it an illicit one) but when it comes to content that I'm paying somebody to send to me, I don't see why I should waste my upload bandwith for someone else's business model. Even with content from the BBC, I pay the licence fee so why should I pay in bandwidth as well? Scot - 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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
Adam Bowie wrote: I don't think there's a set-top box involved. But if they make it an open standard then it's conceivable that set-top box makers could incorporate it into their boxes. In my opinion, the TV is still the best place to watch TV, so set top box integration might help make downloading more popular. Also, looking at the Guardian article The insider went on: Ultimately, Freeview boxes provide a clear way into a mass number of homes for their on-demand content. So it looks like set top boxes are involved. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer, loved by millions, disliked by a single US citizen
On 5/6/08, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I go to Morrisons this evening to buy four bottles of Timothy Taylor Landlord (other supermarkets and beers are available), do they ask me at the checkout how much I earn before deciding how much to charge me? No. Well then - it's exactly the same with the TV license. But there's no British Supermarkets Corporation supermarket that you are required pay 140 a year to in order to obatain a supermarket licence so that you could legally go shopping at any supermarket (whether it's a BSC public service supermarket or a private one like Morrisons), backed up with the threat of a 1000 pound fine or jail time for anyone who goes shopping but doesn't have a licence. If you want to even it up, why not put a charge, or an annual license on each device capable of viewing BBC content? (Waits for Dave Crossland to start spitting feathers) That way, the wealthy with a TV in every room will pay more, as they will (probably) be consuming more output. That assumes that wealthy people will have more TVs per room than people on lower incomes, and I doubt that's true. Seeing as TVs are fairly low cost (and used TVs can be picked up for next to nothing) you can't equate TVs per room with wealth. Besides, it would be a nightmare to implement, requiring even more draconian invasions of people's privacy than the current system. Far better to go the simple option and fund the BBC straight from normal taxation, like most other public services. Scot
Re: [backstage] Freesat: open platform AND iPlayer
On 5/8/08, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unfortunately this was all done with what we term reference recievers - basically Linux based PCs which pretend to be set top boxes. The actual software in the Freesat set top boxes to handle text stuff is unlikely to be fully functional yet - and streaming of video is a bit away away! Out of interest, does anyone know if any of the Freesat receivers are Linux based?
Re: [backstage] Internet TV without streaming is like
On 7/21/08, Oeztunali, Sebnem (CT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag von Dave Crossland Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juli 2008 20:20 An: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Betreff: Re: [backstage] Internet TV without streaming is like But still flash runs in every browser, hence every device capable of Internet-connectivity (has a browser) is able to receive that stream. There's a version of flash for lynx? What does it do, convert the video to ascii art? :-) Scot
Re: [backstage] erik huggers on open standards
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 1:16 AM, Mike Melanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Name 2. I keep up with current subnotebooks and I don't know any that use non-x86 CPUs. The Maplin minibook uses an XBurst (MIPS). I could stretch the point and say that so does the Razorbook 400 (which would name 2), but that looks identical to the Maplin.
Re: [backstage] BBC DRM iplayer mobiles etc
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Iain Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Similarly, if Channel 4 want to DRM all their media then it's entirely their choice because they don't have my money and they aren't funded by what amounts to a tax. If I was a Channel 4 shareholder I might raise the same issues of DRM at an AGM I don't think C4 have shareholders, they're a public broadcaster like the BBC (just advertising funded, not tax funded). IIRC, they were originally funded by what amounted to a tax on the ITV companies. This page http://www.channel4.com/about4/overview.html has this - The Corporation's board is appointed by OFCOM in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. So it looks like C4 is shareholder-free.
Re: [backstage] Is DRM on its last throes at last?
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 12:18, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.ukwrote: I mean what other popular DRM is there now? Windows media plays for sure? Audible.com still DRMs their audiobooks, in their own proprietary formats.
Re: [backstage] Digital Britain Interim Report is published
I love how they make it sound like Apple's recent dumping of DRM was an embrace of some form of DRM that would work on any and all devices: Digital Rights Management (DRM), properly applied, also has a role (i.e. where it allows users to access content on any device that they own, rather than being device limited – which is the paradigm that the film industry has encouraged and one that, in music, Apple's iTunes has now embraced, in a welcome recent co-operation between rights-owners and a device/ distributor). (page 43) I guess you could argue that no DRM is the only proper application of DRM, but even then that sentence seems really wrong - since when has the film industry been behind a form of DRM that works on any and all devices?. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 15:27, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: A lot to enjoy here... Our plans for the level of service which we believe should be universal. We anticipate this consideration will include options up to 2Mb/s. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/publications/digital_britain_interimreportjan09.pdf Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Digital Britain Interim Report is published
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of FM vs DAB quality. Even if the coverage is (eventually) there, if the quality isn't as good then I don't see 50% of the population switching to DAB any time soon. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 16:31, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: In the box on page 34, the second table has no headings. Nowhere does it mention the 'planned coverage' is for 2030. And best of all... N.B. Comparing analogue FM to DAB coverage is not straightforward due to the individual characteristics of each platform and it is necessary to measure the performance in different ways ... current coverage of DAB on local commercial multiplexes varies considerably. 2009/1/29 Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv I'm quite impressed by the way that the whole DAB+ issue has become a box about the boring sounding European 'Digital Radio Receivers Profiles' on page 33. Strange way to write a long-term plan if you ask me. 2009/1/29 Jim Tonge jim_d_to...@yahoo.co.uk And plenty not to: (page 22) On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented. At least I'll be able to get to the quality at AOL news faster... Jim On 29 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Brian Butterworth wrote: A lot to enjoy here... Our plans for the level of service which we believe should be universal. We anticipate this consideration will include options up to 2Mb/s. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/publications/digital_britain_interimreportjan09.pdf Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 Jim -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Digital Britain Interim Report is published
But if it's 50% digital listening and let's say 90% of that isn't DAB, then why bother making a clear statement of Government and policy commitment to enabling DAB to be a primary distribution network for radio;? On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 18:05, John Ousby john.ou...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The recommendation isn't 50% dab, it's 50% digital listening - so combination of DAB, IP, DTV etc. i.e. choose the one that matches your expectations of quality. on the DAB+ point, the boring sounding profiles bit means that there is a set of profiles that mean that a digital broadcast radio can work anywhere in europe (DAB, DAB+, DMB-A) hence introducing economies of scale and getting round the fact that a lot of manufacturers don't just provide devices for a particular territory. hope this helps best J -- *From:* owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] *On Behalf Of *Scot McSweeney-Roberts *Sent:* 29 January 2009 16:41 *To:* backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk *Subject:* Re: [backstage] Digital Britain Interim Report is published Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see any mention of FM vs DAB quality. Even if the coverage is (eventually) there, if the quality isn't as good then I don't see 50% of the population switching to DAB any time soon. On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 16:31, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: In the box on page 34, the second table has no headings. Nowhere does it mention the 'planned coverage' is for 2030. And best of all... N.B. Comparing analogue FM to DAB coverage is not straightforward due to the individual characteristics of each platform and it is necessary to measure the performance in different ways ... current coverage of DAB on local commercial multiplexes varies considerably. 2009/1/29 Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv I'm quite impressed by the way that the whole DAB+ issue has become a box about the boring sounding European 'Digital Radio Receivers Profiles' on page 33. Strange way to write a long-term plan if you ask me. 2009/1/29 Jim Tonge jim_d_to...@yahoo.co.uk And plenty not to: (page 22) On the same basis, the Government has yet to see a case for legislation in favour of net neutrality. In consequence, unless Ofcom find network operators or ISPs to have Significant Market Power and justify intervention on competition grounds, traffic management will not be prevented. At least I'll be able to get to the quality at AOL news faster... Jim On 29 Jan 2009, at 15:27, Brian Butterworth wrote: A lot to enjoy here... Our plans for the level of service which we believe should be universal. We anticipate this consideration will include options up to 2Mb/s. http://www.dcms.gov.uk/images/publications/digital_britain_interimreportjan09.pdf Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 Jim -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Clay Shirky: Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:45, Kevin Anderson global...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, we're in a post-industrial era for journalism. That's been pretty clear to most of us who weren't wed to the old model. We don't really know what comes next. There was a speech at SxSW on that - http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2009/03/the-following-is-a-speech-i-gave-yesterday-at-the-south-by-southwest-interactive-festival-in-austiniif-you-happened-to-being.html To sum it up, you can look at what's happened to tech and (US) political news coverage over the last 20 years to get an idea of what's going to happen to all news coverage.
Re: [backstage] You Tube to drop support for IE6
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 13:22, Peter Bowyer pe...@bowyer.org wrote: of the UK government still use IE6 unfortunately. Especially unfortunate if you happen to be a member of that community If you're in an organization (government or not) that's still mandating IE6 aren't you probably going to be working somewhere where they don't want you watching YouTube anyway? Scot
Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Autonomo.us] Skype, out?
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 08:13, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: Have you heard of Red Hat? There was an episode of Global Business on the World Service about them last week http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003r602
Re: [backstage] License to Kill Innovation: the Broadcast Flag for UK Digital TV?
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 17:29, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote: Keeping audiences happy as DSO happens and Freeview+ rolls out is a critical task, I think that there's going to be a lot of unhappy freeview HDTV owners wondering why the TV they have recently bought isn't picking up the new HD channels when they're launched (especially as the TV was probably sold as HD Ready).
Re: [backstage] License to Kill Innovation: the Broadcast Flag for UK Digital TV?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 01:01, Mr I Forrester mail...@cubicgarden.comwrote: On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 22:04 +0100, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: I think that there's going to be a lot of unhappy freeview HDTV owners wondering why the TV they have recently bought isn't picking up the new HD channels when they're launched (especially as the TV was probably sold as HD Ready). But to be fair, whos's fault is that? Ian It doesn't matter whose at fault (especially as blame would have to spread across Ofcom, freeview, the broadcasters, the retailers, the manufacturers and the public themselves). If what matters is Keeping audiences happy as DSO happens and Freeview+ rolls, then that's probably not going to happen in a lot of HD Ready households.
Re: [backstage] License to Kill Innovation: the Broadcast Flag for UK Digital TV?
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 15:54, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: Once again, Freeview+ is the PVR, Freeview HD is the HD service I know that, I was requoting Ant's minor slipup of using Freeview+ for FreeviewHD
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 18:21, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: Cory's piece is inaccurate in many respects - see this http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti on_up.htmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/09/freeview_hd_copy_protecti%0Aon_up.html Is there any explanation out there of how huffman lookup tables provide content management? I'd like to have a better idea of what exactly is being proposed and what the effect will be. I think the statement no existing Freeview boxes will be affected by this whatsoever near the top of that article is a bit of a Jedi mind trick. Of course no freeview box on the market will be affected by encryption/encryption-like techniques that might be used with DVB-T2, but that's not the point. The point is that with DVB-T transmissions people have been able to do what ever they want with them and I'm guessing that the messing about with lookup tables on HD transmissions will put a stop to that. If that's the case, then I think there should be some public debate about it. Scot
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: that's why there's a public consultation Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20-%20TV You'd think they'd be the ones doing the consulting.
Re: [backstage] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
Ofcom's letter to DTT industry stakeholders inviting comments To me, that's not the quite the same thing as a public debate on the issue. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 09:27, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Scot McSweeney-Roberts On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 19:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: that's why there's a public consultation Where? There doesn't seem to be anything related on ofcom's site http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20 -%20TVhttp://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/?open=Yessector=Broadcasting%20%0A-%20TV You'd think they'd be the ones doing the consulting. This is from an Ofcom email sent on their updates mailing list: Ofcom has today published a letter from BBC Free to View Ltd concerning its licence for DTT Multiplex B. A modification to the licence would allow Ofcom and the BBC to agree the BBC's proposal to compress service information text on the Multiplex. The BBC's letter, alongside Ofcom's letter to DTT industry stakeholders inviting comments by 16 September 2009, can be found here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tvlicensing/enquiry/; - 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] The BBC is encrypting its HD signal by the back door
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 19:53, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.ukwrote: How would the cause of audiences be served if the BBC refused to deal with content vendors and as a result audiences could not access that content? As usual it's a difficult balancing act. But the content providers are trying to sell stuff to the BBC. You would think the BBC would be in much the same position as Tesco is allegedly in with regards to farmers and be able to exert some pressure on your suppliers. Are all the content providers suicidal enough to not sell content to the BBC if you refuse to use DRM on HD? Even with multichannel, there aren't that many buyers of content inthe UK and most of them aren't as big as the BBC, so I'm surprised that the BBC is in such a difficult bargaining position.
Re: [backstage] Encryption of HD by the BBC - cont ...
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 15:00, Sean DALY sdaly...@gmail.com wrote: David, I'm curious, what's your basis for asserting that FLOSS is incompatible with DRM? Sun's Open Media Commons project is designed to allow media playback restriction. OpenIPMP (http://sourceforge.net/projects/openipmp/) is not an active project AFAIK, but it is Mozilla MPL. I can't speak for David, but my own feeling on the subject is that because the source is in the open, circumventing any restrictions would become fairly trivial. While security through obscurity is no security still holds (and is why even closed DRM has proven ineffective), it's hard to see how FLOSS DRM would be in any way effective. At least with closed DRM, it might take a little time to break. While I can't see much argument for FLOSS DRM, I can see a lot of argument that if you're touting a DRM system, supporting FLOSS platforms is a really good idea. Look at what happend with DVD - some kid wanted to watch DVDs on his Linux box, the powers that be couldn't be bothered creating a licensed DVD player for Linux so the kid breaks DVD's CSS, rendering CSS useless. All it takes is one individual to break a DRM system and the exact same superdistribution that DRM is trying to stop will quickly spread the circumvention technique. Thinking about it, whatever DRM the BBC uses will be broken. Otherwise law abiding people will then turn what could well be criminal activity just to use the HD signal the way they currently use the SD signal. I don't see how this is in the public interest.
Re: [backstage] dot.life, windows 7 ubuntu
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 13:31, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: http://popey.com/blog/2009/10/21/bbc-breakfast-talk-up-windows-7-dismiss-rivals/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2009/10/24_hours_with_ubuntu.html I noticed this line in the dot.life article But when I tried to install a free open-source audio editing program, Audacity, it appeared more complex to get hold of an Ubuntu version than the one I've used on a Mac. What's really sad about this statement is he could have had audacity installed in seconds - I guess he didn't know about the package manager. I'm starting to think that the first thing a fresh Ubuntu install should do (especially if it's straight from the factory) is show a video highlighting the features of Ubuntu and one of the first things shown should be how to install software. In general, installing software a much better experience then what you get with WIndows and Macs but it's also very different, so you end up with people claiming installing software is dificult.
Re: [backstage] dot.life, windows 7 ubuntu
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 20:04, Andy stude.l...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/10/23 Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk: What's really sad about this statement is he could have had audacity installed in seconds - I guess he didn't know about the package manager. The is an Add/Remove entry on the applications menu. However some people may think this adds entries to the menu instead of adding or removing applications to the system. Maybe it should be renamed it to Install/Uninstall Applications? The odd thing is Windows refers to the same thing as Add or Remove Programs doesn't it? Andy I think there are 2 problems 1) At the moment it's labelled Add/Remove but it's not immediately obvious what's being added/removed. I could swear it was called something more obvious in previous versions, but I can't remember what (I tend to use synaptic over add/remove, so it could change and I'd not notice). 2) In WIndows, Add/Remove is never really used to add software and it doesn't have a software catalogue inside it. Someone coming from Windows will probably not expect it to be as useful as it is. At least people are getting used to concept of app stores, so if it's explained as an app store for Ubuntu where everything's free new users might work out what it does sooner. Every time I hear the line software is hard to install on Linux I cringe. Maybe what's really needed is for Microsoft to start shipping an app store for Windows that has a least a vague similarity to way things work on modern Linux distros. Scot
Re: [backstage] Interview with Rupert Murdoch
There's an article on the guardian about how he wants to sue the BBC http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc Apparently, the BBC is stealing his news. I wonder how long it will be before he retires. Scot On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: Rupert - you are the weakest A HREF, goodbye 2009/11/10 Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net 37 minute interview with Rupert Murdoch... Very interesting to hear his perspective on everything, however much I disagree with it. He calls the BBC a scandal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI Thoughts? Anyone think he's got some valid points? Tim - 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 follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] Interview with Rupert Murdoch
For a different take on events, Mark Cuban thinks Murdoch is right and that News Corp only needs Twitter http://blogmaverick.com/2009/11/09/rupert-murdoch-to-block-google-smart-twitter-has-changed-it-all/ Though you would think with the way Murdoch is claiming everyone is stealing his news, he'd accuse Twitter of it as well. On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: There's an article on the guardian about how he wants to sue the BBC http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2009/nov/10/rupert-murdoch-bbc Apparently, the BBC is stealing his news. I wonder how long it will be before he retires. Scot On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 09:05, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: Rupert - you are the weakest A HREF, goodbye 2009/11/10 Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net 37 minute interview with Rupert Murdoch... Very interesting to hear his perspective on everything, however much I disagree with it. He calls the BBC a scandal... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI Thoughts? Anyone think he's got some valid points? Tim - 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 follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
Re: [backstage] iPlayer on Freesat in November.
I've got one (though I've not signed up to to the VOD service). You can get them for around 30 quid on ebay. The best thing about it is that you can pull recordings off of it over the network (no DRM needed to enable this sort of functionality either ;-) It's also useful as UPNP network media player. I doubt it will work with Freeview HD, simply because it doesn't have a DVB-T2 chip. I would guess a future upgraded model will. Scot On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 13:20, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: Interesting. It is clearly an updated version of the Netgem Iplayer device http://www.fetchtv.dslshop.co.uk/details.aspx?idProduct=1393 looks like they have their own subscription service for additional downloads. and includes statement saying that it can get stuff from BBC iPlayer catch up on shows you have missed watching BBC iPlayer Also claims: Multi-stream - up to 2 SD or HD simultaneous decoded streams No obvious statement that it can play the upcoming Freeview HD content but I presume that this is the plan. Main site: http://www.fetchtv.co.uk/ Paul On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:48:29 -, you wrote: The iPlayer set top box is now being used by Fetch TV. http://www.fetchtv.dslshop.co.uk/smartbox7000.aspx -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Webster Sent: 04 November 2009 15:34 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] iPlayer on Freesat in November. Netgem launched their device in 2002 and stopped selling it in UK around 2006 http://www.radioandtelly.co.uk/iplayer.html#availability However, they kept going in France (their home) and used their experience with Freeview to be ready for the French equivalent that launched later (TNT). http://www.netgem.com/ I have one - with Ethernet and IR keyboard. I fiddled with it at the start ... including transparent HTML overlay so could see new mail icon in bottom right of screen which I could then check (e.g. during adverts). Paul On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:11:40 +, you wrote: Nope. http://www.digitallogo.co.uk/company_search.php 2009/11/4 Simon Thompson simon.thomp...@rd.bbc.co.uk Was the Netgem ever awarded a Digital Tick? Paul Webster wrote: Freeview with Ethernet - yes Netgem iPlayer (yes - they had been using the name for ages before BBC iPlayer). Lots of advanced features - for it's time. (Ethernet via USB dongle) Paul -- Sent from my phone On 4 Nov 2009, at 09:35, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote: Can you name a single Freeview box with an Ethernet port? 2009/11/4 Nico Morrison microni...@gmail.com http://www.trustedreviews.com/home-cinema/news/2009/11/04/BBC-iPlaye r-Hits-Freesat-in-November/p1 Does that mean we'll get it on Freeview as well? Nico M -- Brian Butterworth follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/briantist web: http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002 -- -- *Simon Thompson MEng MIET* Research and Development Engineer simon.thomp...@rd.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/ - 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] MSIE Marketshare at 4%...
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 20:31, Dave Crossland d...@lab6.com wrote: ...on the PyGoWave website ;-) http://pygowave.net/ More seriously, I thought all you Wave fans might like to hear about this if you didn't already. I'm guessing from the name that it's a Wave server written in python and go, but nothing on the front page tells me what it is, except that it's a very ambitious project. Would be nice if it said what it is on the front page.
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC Homeplug product legal?
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 17:30, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tvwrote: Why would you want to use a HomePlug? To easily extend my home network. People used to have landline phones upstairs, and everyone was happy with wires for that. If everyone was happy with that, then DECT phone line extenders wouldn't exist. Seeing as DECT phone line extenders exist, I'm guessing not everyone was happy running wires. HomePlug is not just pointless, it is expensive and is to radio hams as light pollution is to astronomers. HomePlug isn't pointless and it's not expensive (especially compared to cost/effort of running CAT5 through a house). Maybe some Hams are getting some interference from some particular powerline devices - that doesn't mean that the powerline concept as a whole is somehow wrong or evil. Scot
Re: [backstage] Is this BBC Homeplug product legal?
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:11, Paul Webster p...@dabdig.com wrote: Radio Society has more info http://www.rsgb.org/plt/ In particular they are chasing after the Comtrend models supplied by BT. I thought the Comtrend powerline adapters aren't HomePlug ( http://www.homeplug.org/) standard compliant. Which makes me wonder why people are drawing the conclusion that all PLAs are bad, when at worst it appears to be a relative handful of non-standard ones that may be causing a limited amount of interference. It's like saying that because some cars on the road don't meet emissions standards then all cars don't and that all cars are illegal, going by some of the posts on the forums linked to in this thread. Scot
Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer and the Nokia N900
On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 13:19, Tim Dobson li...@tdobson.net wrote: We'll have to see what happens, but it wouldn't surprise me if 2010 was the year video DRM got dropped as DRM for audio and in music has been in the last year or two... I'm not that hopeful. I think the biggest driver behind the dropping of DRM for audio was that the music industry painted themselves into a corner with Apple+iTunes+FairPlay. The only way they could break the iTunes monopoly and regain some sense of control was to go DRM free. The same situation doesn't really exist for video. Maybe media executives will come to their senses and realize that DRM isn't worth the money they spend on it in 2010, but I doubt it - I'm fairly certain that what they're actually paying for is that feeling of being in control and not some technical method to stop piracy. Scot
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 13:08, Rob Myers r...@robmyers.org wrote: Holding a new service hostage is a convenient way of achieving this. Maybe they could just scrap Freeview HD all together and bring back the interactive services. If you want HD then you need Satellite or Cable, much in the same was as if you wanted colour you needed to get UHF. - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 07:19, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: OTOH, Apple has quite regularly suggested that Macs aren't necessarily consumer-focused. Seeing as the first few Macs couldn't even be opened up*, I doubt Steve Jobs has ever really cared for tinkering. I can remember the first time I used a Mac back in 1985 and the first thing that came across my mind was where's the Basic?. Back then you needed a $10,000 Lisa to develop for the Mac. I can't help but wonder if Macs would have been locked to an App Store from day one if networking back then was like it is now, with Apple continuing the Lisa line as the astoundingly expensive Mac for developers. I really do expect to see the Mac line become more and more like the iPhone/Pad/Pod. If Apple could get away with locking down Macs to an App Store, they would. The only thing I don't get is why people bother to jailbreak their pads/pods/phones/apple tvs when more open hardware is available. Scot *Unless you had a special screwdriver that most consumers wouldn't be able to find - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 13:17, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: Since Jobs' return to the helm, Macs have become steadily and increasingly more open with each passing year, both in hardware and software terms. Remember when the only way to run an alternative OS on a Mac was by booting Mac OS which then loaded a special extension which loaded the alternative OS over the top of Mac OS? Remember when you could buy a Mac clone with Apple's full permission? That you can run an alternative OS on a Mac with ease these days is more due to a grudging acceptance of market demands than a great step towards openness. I'd say Apple are less open since SJ's return - the death of the clones, the death of the Newton (which was licensed to 3rd parties like Siemens), iTunes Fairplay DRM, the iPhone/Pad lock down and Apple TV only working with iTunes. What have they done that's open? I wouldn't be so sure. I think Apple/Jobs realised that they actually *can't* lock down Macs and still sell them. The vision of utility get-stuff-done computing is incongruous with the expectations many people have of what a computer should let them do. Thus, the solution is to create a new category of computing product which pulls elements from both. This way, the new platform can be as locked down or as open as required with no legacy baggage, while the (rather profitable) more open systems continue to sell to those who need that sort of thing. What I expect to see is more and more iPhone OS computers (like more or less permanently docked iPads with 15 or 17 inch screens) and fewer and fewer midrange Macs (and no low end Macs at all). Plus, I don't actually think iPhone OS will remain as locked down as it is now for too long. Give it 18 months. Two years tops. So you're expecting Steve Jobs to leave in 18 months to two years? That's the about the only way I could see that happening. The only thing I don't get is why people bother to jailbreak their pads/pods/phones/apple tvs when more open hardware is available. Because the pads/pods/phones/apple tvs are well-designed and do 90%. switching wholesale for the sake of that 10% is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But there are other products that are also well designed and have 100% functionality, they're just not as fashionable. I think it has more to do with some people wanting to be followers of fashion (and a fashion item is something that Apple products have become since SJ's return) and then finding that fashionable straight jacket is too tight. It's just not rational behaviour. Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:49, Alex Mace a...@hollytree.co.uk wrote: So we're just ignoring WebKit, Darwin, Grand Central and the rest of the stuff on this list? WebKit wasn't Apple's - It was from originally KDE. Darwin is BSD on top of a Mach microkernel - again, not Apple's code. Giving back some code to open source community is hardly as open as, say, letting people run OSX on Dell hardware (which they have actively stopped people from doing with a recent release). More to the point, taking already open source code and layering a large proprietary layer on top is in no way, shape or form open. Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:58, Darren Stephens darren.steph...@hull.ac.uk wrote: No, For many people it is ENTIRELY rational behaviour. Most people are not like us (who jailbreak iphone and touch and tinker with OS X). Most people want a consumer project. They want something they can switch on and use, not spend the rest of your life trying to configure and tweak. Jailbreaking is the ultimate in configuring and tweeking. Buying an iPhone is a rational behaviour (assuming you don't care too much about your phone being all that great a phone). Buying an iPhone, knowing all the limitations and then jailbreaking it isn't rational behaviour when there are just as good alternative that don't require jailbreaking (I could see doing it for fun when the iPhone was new, but not now). If you can jailbreak an iPhone, then you shouldn't have any difficulty using Ovi or the Android store (or even sideloading apps that aren't in those stores) Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 15:01, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 14:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts Yup. it nearly put them out of business. I'm not sure 'open to the point of financial ruin' is a beneficial strategy for anybody concerned. I didn't say killing off the clones was bad for Apple. Without a doubt SJ saved the company, but in doing so Apple have moved further and further away from openness. I'd say Apple are less open since SJ's return - the death of the clones, the death of the Newton (which was licensed to 3rd parties like Siemens), iTunes Fairplay DRM, the iPhone/Pad lock down and Apple TV only working with iTunes. What have they done that's open? http://opensource.apple.com/ http://www.macosforge.org/ http://www.llvm.org/ (well, big chunks) http://www.cups.org/ Cups (like most of the OS projects Apple are involved in) existed long before Apple got involved. Apple use open source and even give back to the community, but that doesn't mean Apple's core strategy is in any way about openness. If anything, they actively discourage openness when it gets anywhere near a consumer (like deliberately changing OSX so it won't run on non Apple hardware). Fairplay? How would the iTunes Store have possibly existed without it? (and I don't mean in technical terms, where would they have got any content from?) Fairplay wasn't the only DRM system in town at the time. If the music industry had any foresight at all, they would have required Apple to use DRM that was licensable by non-Apple manufactures and required iTunes to work with something besides iPods. I wouldn't be so sure. I think Apple/Jobs realised that they actually *can't* lock down Macs and still sell them. The vision of utility get-stuff-done computing is incongruous with the expectations many people have of what a computer should let them do. Thus, the solution is to create a new category of computing product which pulls elements from both. This way, the new platform can be as locked down or as open as required with no legacy baggage, while the (rather profitable) more open systems continue to sell to those who need that sort of thing. What I expect to see is more and more iPhone OS computers (like more or less permanently docked iPads with 15 or 17 inch screens) and fewer and fewer midrange Macs (and no low end Macs at all). That makes no sense from a business perspective. Yes it does. Apple get a 30% cut of whatever software goes onto iPxxx. They get nothing from a Mac software sale. Assuming the margins on the hardware are about the same, Apple would be better off transitioning their low to mid end products to a fully controlled model. They could even make it a selling point - easy to find new software, reduced risk of malware, fewer compatibility problems, etc. If anyone can make locked down hardware seem like a great idea, it's Steve Jobs. But there are other products that are also well designed and have 100% functionality, they're just not as fashionable. I think it has more to do with some people wanting to be followers of fashion (and a fashion item is something that Apple products have become since SJ's return) and then finding that fashionable straight jacket is too tight. It's just not rational behaviour. some people doesn't account for the sales figures. That's because most iPhone owners don't jailbreak. It's the jailbreaking of the iPhone I don't get. If you're technically aware enough to be able to do it (and want to do it), why did you buy a phone that needs that sort of hacking in the first place? I could see maybe when it first came out, but not now. Show me a product which does everything my iPod touch does, weighs no more, has an equally accurate touchscreen, a usable OS that my six year old is capable of using (actually, my three year old does a pretty good job of it), doesn't require manual faffing in order to get media and apps (and actually HAS a good selection of well-written, well-designed applications) onto it _and_ doesn't have the drawbacks of iPhone OS. Oh, and costs the same or less. Take a look at the latest Android phones, like the Droid/Milestone. While Andoid and iPhone have different strengths and weaknesses, they are now comparable. I expect to see Android phones surpass iPhones fairly soon (maybe even at MWC), simply because there as so many companies making Android devices. Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 15:29, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 15:09, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: WebKit wasn't Apple's - It was from originally KDE. Darwin is BSD on top of a Mach microkernel - again, not Apple's code. Oh, right, well if it's that easy, I'll just toddle off here and build my _own_ OS kernel on top of Mach 2.5[0], update the BSD layer to match FreeBSD 5, apply a huge wodge of fixes (seriously, have you seen some of Mach's code from that era? it's horrible), build a new device driver layer, have it running on three different primary architectures (of which two come in both 32-bit and 64-bit variants), and build a certified SUS userspace on top of that. See you in ten years! Or you could do it the Apple way and buy a company that has already done it. Ideally, that company would be run your former CEO that you pushed out in favour of a guy best known for selling coloured sugar water. Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 17:06, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 16:57, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: No, Apple will actively stop me from doing it, by making subtle changes to the OS to ensure it won't run, such as actively not supporting Atom processors. How do you actively not do something, exactly? By adding in code that checks if the OS is running on Atom processor and if it is stop running. Which is exactly what Apple did in a recent update to OSX. It's one thing not to have drivers or what not for hardware you don't sell - that was an active counter measure against running OSX on non Apple hardware. Much like your jailbreak argument: why buy a Dell if you're going to run Mac OS X on it? No idea. Plenty of people seem to want to though. Hence the whole Hackintosh community. Unsurprisingly, I think they're a bit nuts - but the point is that Apple are not for tinkering and openness. Scot - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 17:14, Alex Mace a...@hollytree.co.uk wrote: Just don't use Apple products and stop moaning about it. I stopped using Apple products several years ago. I don't really care one way or another how open Apple it's products are - I do moan when people say Apple are open when history so clearly shows that they're not. - 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] Fwd: Slashdot| Apple's Trend Away From Tinkering
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 19:26, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 18:57, Scot McSweeney-Roberts I don’t think _anybody_ claimed that Apple was “open”. Apple have, however, become far _more_ open than they were, and are continuing to do so. And I'd say they're about as closed as they ever were. Apple's most open products were the non Steve Jobs ones (the Apple II series, the Netwon and the Pippin had it been released). The Mac was at it's most open when SJ wasn't around, and the iPxxx series are all about making things even more closed. Do you actually use any Apple products or pay any attention to changes due to land in upcoming OS releases, or is your information almost exclusively based on news reports and anecdotes? I still use my Netwon. My powerbook has been sitting in a cupboard since it's power supply went. I retired my 4400 (running debian as a server) last year. I have another 8 Apples (a //e, a III, a Lisa and several Macs of various vintage) in storage. As an apostate apple fan boy I still find myself keeping up with what Apple are doing even though I have no intention of going back to the them any time soon. If you want Atom support, patch it yourself. And end up with what, a Darwin based BSD experience? In that case I'd save myself time and stick with FreeBSD. Scot - 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/
[backstage] Podcasts feeds not working in Rythmbox
Has something been done recently to the podcast feeds as I just noticed Rhythmbox is having an error with all the BBC podcasts I'm subscribed to (non BBC podcasts are working just fine). It looks like something has changed sometime between the 4th and the 11th as the 4th was the last In Our Time that worked. One weird thing is that the RSS Feed Validator is saying that the feed is valid, so maybe something has changed that while valid breaks Rhythmbox. Scot - 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] Podcasts feeds not working in Rythmbox
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 17:53, Ian Forrester ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Have you tried another client like Banshee? Banshee seems to work. (I've been in two minds about switching to Banshee anyway). Send us in the XML file as you get it your end. Here's the XML ?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8? rss xmlns:media=http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/; xmlns:itunes=http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd; xmlns:ppg=http://bbc.co.uk/2009/01/ppgRss; xmlns:atom=http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom; version=2.0channeltitleIn Our Time With Melvyn Bragg/titlelinkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/linkdescriptionThe history of ideas discussed by Melvyn Bragg and guests including Philosophy, science, literature, religion and the influence these ideas have on us today./descriptionitunes:summaryThe history of ideas discussed by Melvyn Bragg and guests including Philosophy, science, literature, religion and the influence these ideas have on us today./itunes:summaryitunes:authorBBC Radio 4/itunes:authoritunes:owneritunes:nameBBC/itunes:nameitunes:emailpodcast.supp...@bbc.co.uk/itunes:email/itunes:ownerlanguageen-gb/languagettl720/ttlppg:systemRef systemId=pid.brand key=b006qykl /ppg:systemRef systemId=pid.format key=PT004 /ppg:systemRef systemId=pid.genre key=C00080 /ppg:systemRef systemId=pid.genre key=C00064 /ppg:systemRef systemId=pid.genre key=C00060 /ppg:network id=radio4 name=BBC Radio 4 /ppg:seriesDetails typicalDuration=PT42M active=true public=true region=all wwpid=0 launchDate=2009-01-21 frequency=weekly daysLive=7 liveItems=1 /imageurlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/iot/assets/_300x300.jpg/urltitleIn Our Time With Melvyn Bragg/titlelinkhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qykl/link/imageitunes:image href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/iot/assets/_300x300.jpg; /copyright(C) BBC 2010/copyrightpubDateThu, 18 Mar 2010 17:37:42 +/pubDateitunes:category text=Society amp; Culture /itunes:category text=Society amp; Cultureitunes:category text=History //itunes:categoryitunes:category text=Society amp; Cultureitunes:category text=Philosophy //itunes:categoryitunes:keywordsMelvin, brag, history, science, philosophy, culture, BBC, radio 4, ideas, thought/itunes:keywordsmedia:keywordsMelvin, brag, history, science, philosophy, culture, BBC, radio 4, ideas, thought/media:keywordsitunes:explicitno/itunes:explicitmedia:rating scheme=urn:simplenonadult/media:ratingatom:link href=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/rss.xml; rel=self type=application/rss+xml /itemtitleIOT: Edvard Munch and 'The Scream' 18 Mar 10/titledescriptionMelvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the work of the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch, focusing on his painting - 'The Scream'. With David Jackson, Dorothy Rowe and Alastair Wright/descriptionitunes:subtitleMelvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the work of the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch, focusing on his painting - 'The Scream'. With David Jackson, Dorothy Rowe and Alastair Wright.../itunes:subtitleitunes:summaryMelvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the work of the Norwegian artist Edvard Munch, focusing on his painting - 'The Scream'. With David Jackson, Dorothy Rowe and Alastair Wright/itunes:summarypubDateThu, 18 Mar 2010 17:20:00 +/pubDateitunes:duration41:32/itunes:durationenclosure url=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20100318-1720a.mp3; length=20005421 type=audio/mpeg /guid isPermaLink=falsehttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20100318-1720.mp3/guidlinkhttp://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20100318-1720a.mp3/linkmedia:content url=http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20100318-1720a.mp3; fileSize=20005421 type=audio/mpeg medium=audio expression=full duration=2492 /itunes:authorBBC Radio 4/itunes:author/item/channel/rss cheers Scot - 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/
[backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: get_iplayer 2.77 release (wa s Re: [backstage] get_iplayer dropped in response to BBC’s lack of suppor
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 18:10, Kieran Kunhya kie...@kunhya.com wrote: The point is the view is that Open Source software isn't considered bothering about by the BBC because too few people use it and there's the fear of piracy. (in spite of the fact that downloads from VoD aren't used by pirates because of the poor quality compared to broadcasts) What I always find funny is that by not supporting the Open Source Community the content providers often end up shooting themselves in the foot with their DRM plans. If this means disallowing recordings or respecting time restrictions then so be it. What would be the point? It's open source so almost everyone would use patched versions. It will also lower the proportion of people downloading the files from p2p networks just like iPlayer itself did when it was launched. I doubt it. A crippled (yet still open) solution wouldn't provide as good a product as what's on the torrents or uncrippled get_iplayer or even what you can get from a networked PVR. So most people would carrying on getting their content the way they're currently get their content. * * Most people aren't going to mess about with a command line app to do this. Which is their loss really. I think if people bothered to learn the CLI and basic scripting they'd find that would have a much easier and more satisfying computing experience all round.
Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: Ease of use aside, even the iPhone 4 doesn't really have the screen resolution to require HD content - will many handheld devices really need HD? The Archos 7 Home Tablet handles 720p. I would expect HD capability to become fairly standard on handheld devices, especially tablets. This is actually where services like iPlayer will really make a difference because iPlayer can do all the hard work - for the user it would just happen nicely. Shame that there's no Android app and flash will only work on Froyo and above android devices (which rules the Archos 7 out). Scot - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 09:57, Stuart Clark stuart.cl...@jahingo.com wrote: [I know such information doesn't help for open source projects, but it would be interesting to know the level of the monetary/contractual bar to people wanting to do things officially, and what effect doing so has on their products] If they did it right then it would be a help (of sorts) to Open Source projects and everybody would be happy. All that's needed is a website where there's a form that includes an all import I agree to the terms and conditions tick box and then everyone who uses an open source project could individually get their own tables. This would be pretty much identical to how a lot of Open Source projects that connect to Web Services that need a developer API key work. Scot - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:42, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: only for those people who *actively* use open source. doesn't help at all with open source stacks embedded in consumer-facing products. I doubt it would matter much with embedded systems. I can think of three cases - 1) The company involved doesn't release the source, even though they're obligated to (which is still worryingly common) - then they just include the tables in their product (so no different from a closed source system) 2) The company release their OS components, but the 'secret sauce' is a closed source app - again, they just include the include the tables in their product like a closed source system. 3) The company's embedded system is entirely open source - on the device they include the tables, in the source tarball they don't but include instructions along the lines of Download the tables from the the BBC website and unzip them into /src/resources/epg-tables. Scot - 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] Freeview HD Question
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:30, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote: But the BBC would require as part of the download agreement that you had appropriate content management on the device, wouldn't they? I would be very surprised if that wasn't part of the T C's, but then it's not much different from how Last.fm's T C's state that you won't use their API to write software that downloads their radio streams. While there's nothing really stopping people from violating the TCs that they agreed to, there's also little to stop people from illicitly cracking the system anyway. If there's a legal way to get the tables then at least there's a way for people to play along with the system as opposed to having to go down the illicit route from the get go. Scot - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] BBC Trust approves Project Canvas ...
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 09:24, Frank Wales fr...@limov.com wrote: Kieran Kunhya wrote: Does anyone else see this as the BBC effectively bailing out other broadcasters by providing a common platform backed with licence fee funded content and development? No, this is what I'd expect the BBC to do. One thing I don't get is why Project Canvas isn't an EBU thing. So the BBC would work on it with other broadcasters through the EBU, just like most of the other standards we have. It seems a bit odd to have a UK terrestrial broadcaster only standard. Scot - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:19, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: To quote the OSC. http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/downloads/project_canvas/project_canvas_consultation_response.pdf Project Canvas in its current form is going to lead to the BBC having unprecedented influence in the market for computer hardware and software. To be honest, I'm unconvinced by Project Canvas. It's difficult to see how a UK only system is going to compete in this day and age. What does it do that a Google TV box can't do? Why would a manufacturer make a Canvas box instead of something that they can sell in most of the world (or even all of the world with the right components)? All it does is remind me of the BBC Micro Vs PC Compatibles. Scot - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 21:22, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: The Google TV box (Logitech Revue) is an addition to your set top box, so it does not integrate with Free To Air TV and may be unable to access UK catch-up content. But it's also getting installed directly into televisions and there will probably be a DirectTV box in the US - it's not hard to imagine DVB-T2 boxes running Google TV. I'm not saying that Google TV is the Canvas killer - it's more that things like Google TV seem to make a lot more sense than Canvas (at least for boxes people go out and buy - maybe it makes sense for things BT Vision boxes). So that's anything like Google TV, Boxee, the modern Internet TVs companies like Samsung are making or one of the other options out there. Pretty much anything with a web browser + full fat flash will work with almost every TV catch up service out there, so I'm not sure why there needs to be a special UK only platform developed. Google TV adds organization, some sugar so I don't have to click on a full screen button and an app platform - which is why I find it far the most interesting option, other people will have other preferences. Or better still a simple URI and python/perl/ruby/curl script to access or download Canvas, Free To Air TV catchup content (including HDTV). As long as we're getting broadcaster solutions to internet problems then that's just not going to happen. Scot - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:22, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The systems in a UK TV reciever are different to those of a French one, of a German one, of a USA one Are you honestly saying that a DVB-T receiver bought today in Germany won't work in France or the UK? Yes, the US won't use DVB because it wasn't invented there and there are some slight differences in transmission details between countries, but your basic receiver bought today is probably going to work. An old On Digital box might not work, but then they don't work that well in the UK anymore. - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:43, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: As I said, it'll work in a basic generic fashion, but there are many many aspects which vary between countries, including the EPG and Red Button. Which doesn't help the consumer at all. If I buy an ATSC TV in the New York and take it to California it will work perfectly with no extra effort on the manufacturers part. For Europe, a DVB TV will work at a basic level and if the manufacturer puts in extra effort it will work perfectly - but I'm going to have to pay extra for that perfection. Now they want to make IPTV even more fragmented for no apparent reason. I'm failing to see what good is going to come 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:41, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:22, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote: The systems in a UK TV reciever are different to those of a French one, of a German one, of a USA one Are you honestly saying that a DVB-T receiver bought today in Germany won't work in France or the UK? It should work. But not everything will work. The EPG probably won't, nor the Now and Next. You're unlikely to get traditional teletext. And if you're German, you won't get the menus in German. As a German would you buy a UK set top box? As a Brit would you buy a German set top box? My sister in law lives in France and often goes shopping in Germany because prices in Germany tend to be lower. So while I wouldn't buy a set top box in Germany, she probably would. - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:21, David Tomlinson d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote: On 13/09/2010 23:11, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: The distributors already use GeoIP or billing addresses to attempt to restrict access on the internet to services (including the BBC), and while iplayer, ITV player, and SEE SAW TV may be an option (Full Fat Flash), the experience will be much more awkward than just using Canvas, which will dominate the UK Free To Air market and retailers. I think that until we start seeing manufacturers piping up saying that they're going to start supporting Canvas in devices I can pop down to Tesco and buy it's too early to say that Canvas will dominate the market. If it remains the sole preserve of BT Vision/Talk Talk TV boxes then it is far, far away from dominating the market. At the moment, Canvas seems to be the preserve of the terrestrial broadcasters and a handful of ISPs. - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:08, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: Given the specs haven't been finished yet, it's the preserve of precisely nobody _right now_. True, but I still would have expected at least one of the big manufacturers to be on board by now. Failing that, even someone like Tesco saying they will have a Freeview HD + Canvas box in their Technika range. I've not even seen any hint of non-committal support - who is going to be making this market destroying technology? What's the point of going through all the trouble of defining a spec if no one is going to use it to build something? At the moment it seems like we'll just dump this spec out in the world and like magic it will appear everywhere. - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:50, Stephen Jolly st...@jollys.org wrote: On 13 Sep 2010, at 19:38, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote: Why would a manufacturer make a Canvas box instead of something that they can sell in most of the world (or even all of the world with the right components)? Why would a manufacturer make a Freesat box instead of something that they can sell in most of the world (or even all of the world with the right components)? Seeing as it seems to be mostly Humax and Grundig making Freesat boxes (http://www.dixons.co.uk/gbuk/r/freesat/0_0_0/?srcid=369xtor=AL-63) it looks like most of them can't be bothered. And besides the copy protection, they're mostly international standards based tech, aren't they? - 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] Canvas - Open Source Consortium
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:51, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:42, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:08, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote: Well, widespread support from the industry: http://www.projectcanvas.info/index.cfm/news/?mode=aliasalias=INDUSTRY-GETS-BEHIND-PROJECT-CANVAS I guess anonymous support is better than no support What're they going to do? Make the negotiations public? How much negotiation do they need to do to join the Canvas Project? Every other bit of kit based on an open(*) platform has an alliance behind it that includes manufactures from the start. Why is Canvas different? Thinking about it, even closed platforms usually have early manufacturer support. I can't buy a WinMo 7 phone but at least I know who I can get one from when they arrive. (*) For definitions of open that don't satisfy everyone's definition of open :-) - 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] Ping...
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 18:35, Ben Weiner b...@readingtype.org.uk wrote: What benefits will be brought by a developer network over this fine and venerable list: a lick of paint and ... ? ;-) Please let it not be a web based forum. Scot - 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/