from:"Mo McRoberts"

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 13:49, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
 Um, it's not weview, it's YouView, (though no, I'm no fan of the name or the
 branding) and copyright for content of a website is usually vested in the
 website owner- I'd doubt you'd find much different on most commercial
 company web sites, and YouView is a commercial joint venture (albeit with a
 PSB partner).  Your points regarding the marketing spend are open to debate,
 butif this is going to be a success and bring IP TV to most UK livingrooms
 then yeah, it will need selling.  A good idea won't sell itself.


Should also be noted that the bits of the tech that Canvas is doing
aren't particularly expensive develop -- bulk of it is staffing costs
over a not especially long period, and it's drawing on BBC RD's work
in this area in any case. The bulk of Canvas's budget being a
marketing budget is pretty much what it _should_ be, other issues with
the proposition notwithstanding.

M.

-
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 Canvas' to be called 'YouView':

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:45, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
 http://www.youview.com/terms-and-conditions/

 Clauses 3.2.2, clause 5 (esp where the code is open source), clause 10.

 Basically it would appear that the jv are trying to close what was
 previously open.

Also worth noting that the CDPA has specific clauses to permit
decompilation and disassembly for the purposes of interoperability
which, if my memory serves, renders prohibitive clauses relating to
the same void.

However, the terms relate specifically to youview.com *content* and
the website itself. It's not especially clear how this might relate to
the YouView service as provided by OEMs and service providers,
*especially* clause 9.

In all honesty, it looks boilerplate.

M.
-
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 Canvas' to be called 'YouView':

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 15:45, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Ahem.  I think it's worth reading clause 1.1...  These are terms for using
 the website and for content provided on You View.  There's no claiming of
 copyright ownership over open source software.
 [snip]
 If you use YouView.com, you agree to be legally bound by whichever version
 of these Terms is in force at such time.

One day, somebody is going to realise quite how ridiculous this statement is.

-
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 Canvas' to be called 'YouView':

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 16:09, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote:

 People have been saying that for years.
 My favourite are the terms that say you have to have a licence to link to 
 their site.

Amongst my pet hates are the sites which cheerfully note that you
don't need a licence to link to them (because although well-meaning,
it serves to legitimise the stance of the above).
-
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] HDCP RIP

2010-09-15 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:38, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:

 On 14 September 2010 17:12, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote:

 For all it's flaws I think there was a decent model at the heart of it.
 It did describe a model of media use that made sense, that described the
 reasonable expectations of use of the ordinary user, and the ... oh, no
 wait, I'm thinking of something else.

 At least the BBC didn't waste any time and money on HDCP
 being selectively enabled on Freeview HD devices.
 Oh wait, I'm thinking of something else too.

You're forgetting Freesat.

M.

-
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 09:35, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote:

 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.

Depends how you define work.

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.

M.
-
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:

 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?

Depends on the features. Depends if you travel. Or have family in
Germany. Or emigrate.

(I know people with Sky+ who live in Amsterdam, for example).

Europe is a small place. People move around :)

-
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 12:34, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote:

 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.

Given the specs haven't been finished yet, it's the preserve of
precisely nobody _right now_.

However, the positioning is very much of a Freeview plus Internet
(rather than an IPTV proposition per se), which means it'll be pushed
very very hard in the direction of those flogging Freeview/Freesat
boxes today.

The specs as they stand are not going to be an accident. The intent
will be that existing box suppliers can bolt on Canvas capabilities
with not a huge amount of effort, and thus, within a year or so of
mainstream launch, traditional Freeview boxes will cease to exist.

You don't plough the amount of money the BBC has loaned the partners
into a venture like this without having a plan along these lines. Even
BT, TalkTalk, and the broadcasters aren't _that_ daft.

M.


M.
-
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 13:42, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 13:08, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:

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.

Pretty sure Pace and Humax are.

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?

Well, widespread support from the industry:

http://www.projectcanvas.info/index.cfm/news/?mode=aliasalias=INDUSTRY-GETS-BEHIND-PROJECT-CANVAS

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.

What're they going to do? Make the negotiations public? Committing to
something like this is something which tends to happen in
syncronicity. A bunch of manufacturers announce, once the specs are
baked, that they'll be releasing products in time for x important
date. Until then, you get only rumours. They're a paranoid bunch,
generally.

Anyway, mark the Olympics in your diary.

M.
-
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] HDCP RIP

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 15:31, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
 Seems like that very silly almost-content-protection system HDCP is no
 more...
 http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/14/hdcp-master-key-supposedly-released-unlocks-hdtv-copy-protect/

Fear not! I'm sure HDCP+ will be along soon to save us from ourselves.
-
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

2010-09-13 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 13:21, Nick Morrott knowledgejun...@gmail.com wrote:

 Accordingly, Project Canvas should publish all the application
 programming interfaces (“API”s) and use unencumbered open standards so
 as to enable anyone to provide “Project Canvas-ready” client solutions
 on any platform.

Gah, this makes no sense in the context of what Canvas actually is.

If you're going to bitch and moan, at least bloody do it coherently.

-
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

2010-09-13 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 13:33, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
 On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 13:21, Nick Morrott knowledgejun...@gmail.com wrote:

 Accordingly, Project Canvas should publish all the application
 programming interfaces (“API”s) and use unencumbered open standards so
 as to enable anyone to provide “Project Canvas-ready” client solutions
 on any platform.

 Gah, this makes no sense in the context of what Canvas actually is.

 If you're going to bitch and moan, at least bloody do it coherently.

Clarification: when I say you I say so in the general sense, not you
specifically.

:)

-
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

2010-09-13 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 19:38, Scot McSweeney-Roberts bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-

 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.

Canvas is very short-sighted, but not because it's contrasted with
Google TV. GTV has its own raft of moronic issues.

From what I know, Canvas started life as something with a relatively
exciting promise: blur the lines between content delivered over IP and
content delivered over the air. Splendid. Nothing wrong with that. By
easing the massive barrier to entry which exists because of the medium
(well, media — DTT, cable, and satellite), you open the market up to a
whole host of potential content providers who can get their wares into
the living rooms of people who don't particularly want to faff around
with web (and all it entails) in order to watch some telly.

Unfortunately, this poses a bit of a problem. Not for the BBC
particularly (although doubtless many within it look upon such a
future with a certain amount of trepidation), but for the other
partners in the JV who have a whole lot more to lose if people can
chip away at their audience-share for everything except the major
series with not a lot of outlay. What would be a win to consumers, if
done sensible, is potentially a huge loss to ITV, Channel 4, and
Channel 5.

Essentially, the Canvas JV collectively wants to reap the benefits of
the Internet without letting consumers do the same.

What we're left with is a somewhat interesting platform. Technically —
as far as I can tell based upon what’s been released to date, it's not
bad at all, if not particularly forward-thinking. Where we have MHEG
on Freeview and Freesat, “application developers” have a choice of
MHEG, Flash Lite, or HTML5. Not too shabby. However, the fundamental
model remains one whereby the broadcasters as we know them today are
not on an equal footing with everybody else, despite a platform which
could allow some significant degree of levelling without going too far
the other way. Where there was the barrier-to-entry in the form of
spectrum and the like, there is now an artificial barrier-to-entry in
the form of the Canvas Joint Venture.

Thus, Canvas is more or less a souped-up Freeview. It's aiming at the
masses, but it’s some distance away from what *could* have been
implemented.

On the other hand, Google TV doesn't know _what_ it wants to be.
Google seems to have this notion that people want to search the web on
their TVs and that the user interface for this won't suck balls from
10ft away. Unfortunately, it will. In the end, it's another
interesting platform in technical terms, but one which lacks the user
experience needed to become a mainstream product (and in the context
of this conversation, that's dependent upon whether it lands in the UK
any time in the next year or so, which is by no means guaranteed).
Worse, GTV – as far as I can tell — lacks any integration between the
broadcast stream and the IP-delivered stuff. GTV is, effectively, just
a layer on top of whatever happens to be airing. No triggering, no
introspection.

The “worldwide” angle is a misnomer, because pretty much no TV-related
product operates worldwide. Some stuff works generically across all
implementations of a particular broadcast standard, but will do so
without any of the local niceties. Others will implement multiple
standards (although they tend to be quite pricey).

The flipside is that the technical aspects of the Canvas specs will
probably get punted up to ETSI at some point, and so other countries
can run their own “Canvas” ventures working to the same standards.

M.

-
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] Canvas specs

2010-09-10 Thread Mo McRoberts

Nobody else has mentioned it here, so I might as well.

In case you've not seen already, *some* of the Canvas specs have been
released. They date back to May, so look like some of the ones which
were circulated to DTG members back then which Robert Andrews from
pc:UK failed to get disclosed, but might be out of date in some areas
by now :)

There's some vaguely interesting stuff in there, though.

http://www.projectcanvas.info/index.cfm/technology/technical-documents/

M.
-
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 specs

2010-09-10 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 21:54, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote:

 Thanks.. but why are they being so bloody anal about not being able to
 patch this into the aux connector on a sound system?

 Analogue ports being excluded?  Bastards...

’cos you might record the audio, and that would somehow be bad.

-
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 specs

2010-09-10 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 00:58, Alex Cockell a...@acockell.eclipse.co.uk wrote:

 but what about plugging the box into my hifi to get better sound? Don't they
 think of that aspect?

 Or is that more the Beeb I remember from a few years ago?

From what I know, and have been told from people in an assortment of
capacities, what this boils down to is... this isn't just the BBC.

(And I don't mean the ever-present rightsholders, either -- the other
JV partners have just as much input into the specs [in theory] as the
BBC does).

M.
-
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] IPv6 questionnaire

2010-09-06 Thread Mo McRoberts

Hi all,

Weirdly, Google doesn't provide a way to link to its handy responses
summary page for a form, so you can have the raw data instead (names
 email addresses removed).

There weren't a massive number of responses to this, but it makes for
some interesting reading as a finger-in-the-air survey of issues.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AtjAsC_LIC-ndDc3MzV3ZjVKdUZuY2NkQm1BakdJQkEhl=en_GBauthkey=COfsk80M#gid=0

Thanks to everybody who filled it in!

M.
-
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] regional news - footage available online?

2010-09-01 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 15:25, Gavin Johnson gavin.john...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Hi Phil, Jim et al

 You be already aware of this but the BBC proposed a local video service last
 year. The proposal was rejected by the Trust following public consultation.
 One of the key concerns was about the ‘adverse impact on the market’. You
 can read a full explanation from the Trust here:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/pvt/local_video_proposal.shtml

 So while there would be (minor) technical issues involved in delivering
 local video on bbc.co.uk, they haven’t been explored because there isn’t a
 remit to provide the service.

It's worth stressing that the PVT referred to above covered a new £68m
service which goes somewhat over and above the existing output from
the regions (though I suspect extended versions of material which is
edited down for broadcast would fall under that remit). As the Trust
says:

Within the bounds of existing service licences, the BBC offers
regional news on television, local radio and local websites.
Programming from the BBC's television services can be shown on the
internet.

Hunting through /programmes, it seems as hit and miss as suggested
earlier. e.g., Points West:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006pft9

versus Reporting Scotland:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mj3s

M.

-
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] TV-Anytime files on Backstage and old Web API for TV/Radio data closing down

2010-08-26 Thread Mo McRoberts

Hi Andrew,

On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:50, Andrew McParland
andrew.mcparl...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:

 We are starting to lose the source of data we are using for the TV-Anytime
 files on Backstage:

 http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/feeds/tvradio/

Is there any chance of the archive being kept around even if it's not
going to be updated? There's not a huge amount of TVA XML out there in
the wild, so it makes for quite a handy learning resource (for its
sins).

out of interest, would I be right in thinking the chances of getting
(real, not the pretend ones derived from sid+eid) crids in /programmes
data any time in the near future would be best described as 'hazy'? :)

Cheers!

M.
-
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] IPv6 questionnaire

Happy Friday 13th Everybody!

This month, I'm running a short questionnaire (should only take a
couple of minutes to complete) on IPv6 planning and adoption in the
UK. Not the most exciting of topics, I realise, but *quite* important
in some respects.

Some of you will undoubtedly have seen this mentioned elsewhere, and
may even have filled it in (if so, thanks!). For the rest, though, I'd
appreciate it if you could take a couple of minutes to have a look.
Some answers from within bits of the BBC would be grand if it's at all
possible, but I know it's relevant to a number of others on the list,
too.

You can find the questionnaire at:

https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDc3MzV3ZjVKdUZuY2NkQm1BakdJQkE6MQ

I'll be closing it on Friday 3rd September in time for UKNOF17
(http://uknof.org.uk/) -- I'm not presenting the results, but I will
be publishing the stats in time for the meeting on the offchance that
there are related sessions on the agenda.

Cheers!

M.
-
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] IPv6 questionnaire

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:55, Matt Hammond matt.hamm...@rd.bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Hi Mo,

 I was looking at the question: What is your current level of IPv6
 deployment?. Either you've added the No plans at all question, or I
 missed it first time around! Either way, I have no concerns about this now.

You're not going mad -- I took a wild guess that was the question you
meant and added the option in :)

Cheers!

M.
-
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] IPv6 questionnaire

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:11, Ant Miller ant.mil...@gmail.com wrote:
 We got contacted by a researcher on an eu project looking at this question.  
 I pointed them to core tech strategy types.  Not sure what response was.

 FOI time?  Would need carefully framing.

I have been pondering that route -- I don't particularly like FOI
requests, mind. the staff in that dept are very nice, but they do
wield a hefty stick on everyone else, and I don't like making (much)
trouble unless there's a pressing reason...

we'll see how it goes. some off-the-record gesticulation would
probably be easiest to get.

M.

-
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] IPv6 questionnaire

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 14:13, Gareth Davis gareth.da...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 I couldn't tell you what the official BBC position is on IPv6. But it
 has been an ongoing agenda item for some months at the Online Operations
 meetings, and we are well aware that we do have to adopt it sooner
 rather than later. RD have been doing some work in the area, and there
 was (and may still be) a frontend server for the news site accessible
 over pure IPv6.

 How we transition the public facing infrastructure is still up for
 discussion (using some kind of proxy, a pure implementation or some
 hybrid of the two) as we have well over a decade of legacy to consider,
 which has the potential to behave in all sorts of new and exciting ways
 when exposed to IP addresses greater than 32 bits long :)

Thanks Gareth -- you've been tremendously useful!

M.
-
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] Tried to submit a prototype but got an error 500

2010-07-20 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 13:13, blueBill Mobile
bluebill-mob...@tidalwave.it wrote:

 Fabrizio Giudici
 bluebill-mob...@tidalwave.it
 blueBill Mobile with BBC integration
 http://weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici/archive/2010/07/16/about-android-semantic-web-and-bbc

Ohhh, that's *you*?

That prototype's generated quite a bit of buzz already :)

I can't answer your query about the licence (as I'm not a staffer;
hopefully somebody will be able to chime in), but from where I'm sat,
it's a very very nice app!

M.
-
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] Tried to submit a prototype but got an error 500

2010-07-20 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 14:13, blueBill Mobile
bluebill-mob...@tidalwave.it wrote:

 That prototype's generated quite a bit of buzz already :)

 Thanks :-) Out of curiosity, where's the buzz? In private emails or some
 public forum? Because I've always wondered whether blog posts (that
 don't receive direct comments) have an effect on some other part of the
 web ;-)

I've seen it linked to both privately and out in the open -- the
latterly mostly on Twitter, including the BBC_on_blogs Twitter
account.

M.
-
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 Content Management

2010-07-20 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 20-Jul-2010, at 18:26, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 More DRM...
 
 http://www.betanews.com/article/The-entertainment-Industry-debuts-yet-another-DRM-scheme-Ultraviolet/1279643971?

The mind boggles. A lot of it sounds like Marlin (even down to the wide range 
of industry partners, including Sony).

On second thoughts…

Users will have to create UltraViolet accounts, where they access and manage 
all of their content. Licensing deals have not yet been announced, since the 
UltraViolet tech specs have not yet been released.

Attempting to create an alternative to the iTunes regime, by the looks of it.

(Also: fail fail fail fail fail fail)




-
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 Content Management

2010-07-19 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:38, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Mo - although we didn't publish your article on the blog I did circulate
 it to other colleagues in the BBC and I was pleased to see it published
 in the Guardian. We also linked to it from the blog when it was
 published.

Nick - honestly, I do appreciate your efforts on that front, please
don't think otherwise! (Apologies if I'd given some other impression).

The issue is that the information that was in that article is the
information people were asking for in comments on the blog posts, and
should really have been made clear from the outset. That's the thing
-- if the BBC had published a post explaining clearly what the
proposal was and how it would affect people simultaneously with the
submission to Ofcom, there'd be no cause to be critical of anything
except the meat of the proposal itself, which surely would have made
lives (especially yours!) easier all-round!

M.
-
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 Archiver

2010-07-18 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 18-Jul-2010, at 12:05, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 Personally, whilst there are a few design decisions I might personally have 
 done differently, I think the change is clearly one for the better.

 this.

M.


-
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 Content Management

2010-07-16 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing is
 cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the About The
 BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was published
 first there.

 What happens in practice in general is;

 - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we ask
 someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet points but
 we don't write it for them

 - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and in
 some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people write
 posts

 But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik.
 Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example
 writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like
 more of a steer.

 All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask for
 a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - although I
 can only recall one occasion where we have.

That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog
post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general
(even if it varies).

on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A.

 Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd like
 to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about interpretation
 of information, which is another thing entirely.

I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about
it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things
are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how
things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior
knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck
by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get
answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing
over details which might not seem important but are). it's very
difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a
product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case,
though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as
I say, though, I'll follow up on this later.

M.
-
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 Content Management

2010-07-16 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 19:27, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 glossing over details which might not seem important but are

 What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and
 is in the eye of the beholder...

Not really...

What does this mean for consumers in real terms? is pretty important
-- that's why I wrote the guardian article (can't think of a better
way to refer to that piece, sorry).

I'm not sure that's particularly subjective, given that most of the
questions being posed were along those lines, most of the
misunderstandings (which came about as a result of it not being
clearly explained _prior_ to anybody else having a stab at it) were in
that area, and there was still stuff that -- unless you already knew
the technology well -- was completely non-obvious (for example,
compatibility with TVs which didn't support HDCP).

The *big* thing people wanted to know from the outset was how it would
affect them -- whether they'd have to replace bits of their equipment,
whether they'd even want to, what things would stop working and what
things wouldn't -- most people couldn't care less if Tom Watson or
Cory Doctorow was wrong, because even being wrong they were saying
more that was substantive and along the right lines than the BBC were.
People didn't really *want* Oh, Tom got it all wrong in his blog
post, they wanted Tom got it all wrong in his blog post, we're sorry
we didn't post this sooner, these are the things you need to know.

M.
-
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 Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
 archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
 for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
 holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
 legitimately.

I'm actually flabbergasted that people think this is a serious concern.

 My own personal definition of a pirate and I would stress it is a personal 
 one not a BBC or official one is someone who knowingly attempts to sell or 
 commercially exploit other people's intellectual property without their 
 permission.

mine's actually a little broader than that, but at least we generally
agree on something :)

 People say there's nothing people can do about this but Pirate Bay was 
 closed down and fined heavily and I haven't seen much about them since.

They were back online within about 24 hours and are still running more
or less quite happily. And, more to the point, there were *one* site
of many. Running a tracker's easy - that's the problem with
peer-to-peer. It's not a million miles away from trying to stop people
delivering letters to one another by hand.

M.

-
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 Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:15, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 I don't write other people's posts on the blog I only write my own.

Okay, just so we're clear (and as a minor educational exercise in
behind-the-scenes-on-the-Internet-Blog) - a post from, say, Erik
Huggers (like the one today) - was that written by Erik, and then sent
over to you (or Paul) for tidying up/formatting/etc., or do you guys
write the bulk of it based upon information Erik sends over? One can
never quite be sure how much a byline implies.

 I have to accept what my colleagues write in good faith, although if I think 
 there are inaccuracies or things which are unclear then I will obviously ask 
 for clarification. The blog is striving to be accurate and impartial. That's 
 particularly difficult to do when you are talking about yourself but that's 
 the aim.

 I have to be pragmatic. There may be things which people cannot talk about 
 for good reason (e.g. confidentiality, or damaging a relationship with a 
 partner). My aim is to get them to say something. If they say something, even 
 if its not perfect, then that may spark a useful conversation and the next 
 time they speak, it may be an improvement on what was said previously.

This is a given - as I said, I don't doubt your intentions at all. I
think you've been fed misleading information, and you're not in a
position to either necessarily *know* that it's misleading, nor in
some circumstances do anything about it (especially when some of the
posts come from well above the paygrades of anybody here :)

And, it's part of your job to defend the BBC in these circles unless
you have a bloody good reason to think they're in the wrong. Indeed, I
think most people here would defend the BBC to the hilt in general
terms, myself included.

However, in this case, the BBC - the organisation, and the message it
conveyed - was misleading to the public. I don't think that's your
fault, and I don't think you could have necessarily done anything
about it, nor even known it to be the case. I *do* think the
corporation, again collectively, could have handled things a lot
better and ensured this didn't arise, but they didn't. That's the
reason for my disappointment, and nothing I've seen since has swayed
me from this view (and, as it goes, I might be stubborn, but I'm
stubborn based on available evidence - I know when I a gut feeling is
just that).

M.

-
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 Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:33, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 What I'm describing is not home taping - it's publishing - the internet
 makes everything different

The point is -- the leap from 'having recorded some programmes' to
'publishing them on the Internet' isn't a small one in real terms. It
may well be a concern, but all evidence to date points to it being a
pretty misplaced one (in part because the determined pirates who
everybody knows aren't foiled by any of these measures continue
unabated regardless - thus, there's no incentive for ordinary honest
folk to go to the trouble of finding out how they might start to
publish their archive on the Internet). Plus, publishing a stash of
iPlayered content would stand out like a sore thumb -- unless you were
clued up enough that you're technically on a par with the determined
pirate class of users, you're not going to be able to keep something
like that hidden from BBC Legal for very long. It doesn't take much
imagination to see how selfsame honest folk would react to getting a
letter in the post from m'learned friends as a result of their
publication activities. Turn the bloody thing off! would tend
towards being high on the list of priorities.

M.
-
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 Content Management

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 11:10, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 I think it is a kind of slippery slope - one day you're making a personal 
 archive of a TV programme, the next you are publishing it all on the internet 
 for your friends - even this which might seem harmless might prevent a rights 
 holder setting up their own website to do the same thing commercially and 
 legitimately.

Actually, more to the point:

If -- for example -- iPlayer Desktop didn't DRM the files, who do you
think would know? And those that did become aware of it, what
proportion of those people would have the smarts to make use of that
in order to keep copies of the files and create a personal archive of
a TV programme (which they can do with a PVR, of course, given
sufficient disk space)?

Of those people who have the technical smarts to do that, what
proportion of those *don't* know how to create a personal archive of a
TV programme through some other means (captured from broadcast,
BitTorrent, Usenet, IRC, whatever)?

And then, of those people, how many of them are going to want to
distribute the captured programmes to other people willy-nilly, given
that their peer group can likely accomplish the same thing all by
themselves, or alternately is happy with the status quo (i.e., what
level of demand is there for people doing this)?

If the BDG don't have a figure for that which shows it's anything
other than infinitesimal, then the whole thing is essentially based on
somebody's hunch, and not a very well-thought-through one at that.

M.

-
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 Content Management

2010-07-13 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 16:43, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Hi Mo,

 I am going out this evening so will be away from a computer.

 However I thought I would try and give you a quick response to some of
 your questions.

 1. Because I didn't know it was happening until after it was mentioned
 by third parties. I'd point out that one of those third parties (Tom
 Watson) corrected his first blog post about the subject as he admitted
 was inaccurate.


Nick, you're responding as though I'm criticising _you_. I'm not. It's
not your responsibility to know that this stuff was being sent to
Ofcom and make sure that the public were properly informed of it.
However, it *is* the BBC's responsibility to make this happen (and
when that kicks off, _then_ it becomes your problem).

Tom Watson having to correct his post is something I answered back
when we were talking about this previously - he wouldn't have had to
do that if clear and accurate information had been published by the
BBC *in the first place*!


 2. Possibly because it wasn't published on the internet. I certainly
 can't find it on OFCOM's website now.

It was published -- that's how people managed to respond to it :)
Graham Plumb would certainly have known where it was (and indeed,
would have had a copy of it -- you could have hosted a copy
yourselves!). It wasn't easy to find on Ofcom's site, because it was
pitched at the broadcasting industry, not the public (even though it
concerns every potential customer of Freeview HD!)

It _should_ be here:

http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/other-issues/bbc-multiplex-enquiry/

But Ofcom have completely reorganised their site in the last couple of
weeks, so I have no idea where it might have gone now.

 3. Is this a falsehood? I'd like to know more.

Yes, which is why I wrote the post which ended up in the Guardian:
there are lots of things it prevents -- or at least seeks to -- so
saying the only thing you won't be able to is X is false.

 4. We answered most of those questions in subsequent blog posts and
 comments.

A big part of the frustration on the part of the commenters was
because questions weren't being answered. And, again, this isn't a
criticism of you because I know you were trying to get answers, but
ultimately a lot of quite clear and direct questions never had any
followup at all.

 5. Don't know the answer to this one. Will check.

Thanks -- appreciated.

 6. I don't understand your point. The purpose of these measures is to
 keep honest people honest. If pirates choose to do certain things then
 that is their responsibility  not the BBCs. If we had no content
 protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates doing
 anything they want.

The point is: what evidence was there that honest people *needed*
technological measures to keep them honest? If they're honest, but do
something in an unsupported way, perhaps with a cheap imported
receiver, or an HD television which doesn't support the protected
path, are they still honest?

You're contradicting yourself when you say if we had no content
protection at all clearly we would be opening the door to pirates
doing anything they want: first, this is not true, because copyright
law applies whether or not content protection is applied, and second,
both Graham's post and your statement there says that you're not
targeting the pirates in the first place.

 7. I'm not in charge of the BBC's Media Literacy strategy. I am only in
 charge of the blog. I do my best to make it as accurate and impartial as
 possible.

Indeed, and again, much of this is not criticism of the BBC Internet
Blog specifically, but of the organisation's broader policy and
communication strategy as it relates to this issue. The Internet Blog
is obviously a part of that, but it's not the be-all and end-all.

 8.  ...but the devil's in the detail, and _that_ hasn't been anything
 close to being honestly conveyed.

 I disagree - we have linked to and included all the detail that is
 publicly available and tried to dig out as much as we can, and we will
 continue to try and dig out more with an honest intent.

I think *you* have tried to, certainly. I don't think you've managed
it nearly as well as you could have if those providing the
explanations and content had been as upfront as they could have - if
they had, the questions above wouldn't exist :)

 We do not spin or misdirect on the Internet blog.

 I am saddened by your assertion that we do.

I'm as sure as I can be that you have no intention of doing so, but
with the best will in the world, you don't *write* the posts, and do
you?

M.

-
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 web complaints form ate my complaint.

2010-07-07 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 13:39, Gordon Joly gordon.j...@pobox.com wrote:

 No, since the line break ate the URI !!

interestingly[0], GMail's web interface is smart enough to correct that. neat.

M.




[0] I use the term loosely.
-
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 web complaints form ate my complaint.

2010-07-07 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 14:21, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 Handy tip that many people don't know about.  Wrap longish URLs in
 angular brackets

 E.g.
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/01/freeview_hd_content_mana
 ement.html

 Most email clients won't do line breaks in it (waits the inevitable
 failing of this to work)

That wrapped for me, and to make matters worse, is no longer clickable
in full in GMail/web.

So, yeah. Don't do that :)

-
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 ...

2010-06-30 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:56, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:

 Without the Canvas UX, you're not permitted to access any Canvas content.

 That is, you can run a completely separate system based on the Canvas
 specs, but unless you implement the Canvas UX, you can't access the
 content the Canvas JV partners supply to the real Canvas system.


 1.20.
 This approval is given subject to the free-to-air principle, that users
 will always be able to access Canvas free to air,

The Approval Document _specifically_ covers, in several places, the
mandated UX requirement.

(Admittedly, it covers it by way of yes, we're aware there are lots
of objections to this, but we think it's fine. go take a hike., but
the point stands: the mandated UX is part of the approval).

 1.24

 the joint venture may develop ways in which to recover operational costs
 but, for the avoidance of doubt, any such activity will be charged to third
 parties on a cost recovery basis only;

 entry controls in terms of technical and content standards will be minimal;

 access will not be bundled with other products or services; and

you're misunderstanding. that's entry controls for *content providers*.

 Assuming that as an individual you pay the relevant cost recovery (zero for
 iplayer) it would appear to be anti-competitive (illegal and against BBC
 policy) to restrict access to the Canvas UX, and also defeat the purpose of
 publishing the specification.

well, you're muddling content provider and consumer conditions, but
essentially, yes: the mandated UX is bonkers. there are better ways to
achieve the same goals (which weren't particularly well-stated at any
stage of the process, incidentally).

the mandated UX was my primary objection to Canvas (and indeed, apart
from the shockingly bad consultation process, if it weren't an issue,
I probably wouldn't have objected - repeatedly - in the first place).

 I would not be in the slightest bit surprised if the only way to get
 at the specs is via the DTG -- that hasn't been confirmed yet, but
 there's been little to suggest otherwise to date.


 I would, my expectation is that the specifications will be public.
 The BBC has legal obligations to make it's services available to the public
 and not to behave in an anti-competitive manner.

 Associate membership of the DTG is a possibility (insufficient detail
 available) but as I have stated, I do not expect this to be necessary.

You're entitled to your expectation, but I think you're being
incredibly optimistic.

M.
-
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 ...

2010-06-30 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 14:03, David Tomlinson
d.tomlin...@tiscali.co.uk wrote:

 It is a legal obligation for the BBC (and other public service broadcasters)
 to make it's services available to the public and act in a
 non-discriminatory way to all third parties (in my view).
^

In *your* view, based upon your reading of the obligations handed down
to the corporation. If only it were ever that easy.

the fact is, the BBC considers the DTG to be a non-partisan
organisation, and so (despite the exorbitant costs of membership) very
likely considers it to be a satisfactory vehicle as far as
'non-discriminatory' is concerned.

an entirely artificial cost barrier is not generally deemed to be
'discriminating' by the BBC, even if in real terms it actually is.

 See sections 4.62, 4.72 and 4.74
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/our_work/canvas/canvas_conclusions.pdf

 I think this is sufficient to require the specification to be public.
 Mo disagrees, we will know for certain in less than 20 days time.

actually, no: it's not that I disagree. I'd be over the moon if you were right.

I don't think the BBC agrees with you, though.

M.
-
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] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality

2010-06-24 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:13, Ian Stirling backstage...@mauve.plus.com wrote:

 Proritising classes of traffic can be less bad than the alternatives.

No, they're a bloody stupid way of doing it.

By all means, offer it as an option for those users who don't know how
to configure QoS/prioritisation at the CPE side, but charging *more*
to turn that off is retarded. Indeed, if you pitch it that way, you
can sell it as a value-add instead of having to get embroiled in
debates like this. It also gives you more flexibility to deal with the
you're mis-classifying my traffic as BitTorrent when it's actually a
MMORPG! issues which arise comparatively regularly.

But then, sane marketing has never been ISPs' strong suits.

 A) Build out the network to take several times the peak yearly demand.
 B) Apply a really low quota, to reduce the peak demand, as everyone is
 scared of blowing it, and not being able to use the net that month.
 C) (what is usually spoken of as net neutrality) Whitelisting some sites to
 improve their performance.

Nowadays, net neutrality is commonly used to refer to both.

 And other possible alternatives.

What, you mean like the sensible one? Your 'dumb pipe' connection is
throttled back according to how much you're shifting in relation to
everybody else (which has been a feature of networking kit for
decades, of course). If the user wants to make sure their SSH
connections are responsive even when pulling the most a connection
will allow at a given time, they can prioritise them at their end.

 Bandwidth is rarely free.

I don't think anybody (sane) has actually claimed it is?

 Net neutrality is normally not neutrality in terms of protocols, but
 neutrality in terms of content provider.

 It's the idea that - for example - the BBC iplayer site runs just as slowly
 or as fast on any connection, as '4oD', or Dave Doing the Dishes video
 player.

Once upon a time that was the case, until people started rolling out
DPI kit to do application-layer throttling.
-
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] Ofcom opens debate on net neutrality

2010-06-24 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:48, Ian Stirling backstage...@mauve.plus.com wrote:

 Regrettably, most people do not know how to setup QOS.

yes, which is why I accounted for that right at the beginning of my e-mail...

 Are you seriously arguing that everyone should have a deep understanding of
 QOS, or a high speed unlimited package if they want their VOIP not to
 stutter when someone else in the house downloads a 3 meg PDF?

nope. not least because that's not what I said. I'd be interested,
though: do plusnet priotise RTP sessions ahead of HTTP? can you
differentiate between somebody pulling an RTP stream containing some
TV and having a VoIP call? what about SSH? can customers choose the
ordering?

 IMO - traffic prioritisation - when done in an open transparent manner (and
 yes, there are issues on traffic trying to pretend to be something it's not)
 is less bad than the alternatives.

open and transparent is good. *not mandating it* needs to be part of
that, too. make it an extra, a selling point - 'we do it so that you
don't have to worry about it, but if you want to, you can always turn
it off'.

nothing to do with traffic 'pretending to be something it's not',
rather it's the fact that inspection technology is inherently (and,
depending upon what you're using it, fatally) imperfect.

M.
-
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] Little iPlayer icon mashup

2010-06-18 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:41, Guy Strelitz guy.strel...@bbc.co.uk wrote:

 That’s very cool!  It starts to turn it into a data visualisation
 tool/toy...
 I think my IA mate was talking about actually linking through to the
 programme, on iPlayer or /programmes.

 Don’t suppose you still have the PIDs associated with the images do you?

The PID is in the image filename it links to.you could do a
regexp-replace on the HTML...

M.

-
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] Little iPlayer icon mashup

2010-06-17 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 17-Jun-2010, at 21:36, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I read http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/16/stephen-fry-doctor-who
 
 So, I found a folder with 15,871 very small caches of the pictures used for 
 each of the iPlayer programmes.  Well, they were when I removed 90,000 
 duplicates.  I've made 5,000 of the programme images into a single relevant 
 image.  
 
 http://bnb.bpweb.net/iplayerimages/

*very* cool!

 Zoom in.  
 
 I should speculate about the copyright...

oh you’ll never manage to answer that one. I know of a fair few which are BBC 
employees  friends’ photos, some are captures, some are publicity shots… :)

M.


-
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

2010-06-16 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:29, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote:
 ... and then everyone who uses an open source
 project could individually get their own tables.

only for those people who *actively* use open source. doesn't help at
all with open source stacks embedded in consumer-facing products.

M.
-
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

2010-06-16 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:12, Scot McSweeney-Roberts
bbc_backst...@mcsweeney-roberts.co.uk wrote:

 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.

actually, that's not a bad approach with respect to the tables
themselves: /tmp/eit-decoder.sock

the snag is in what conditions the tables are licensed under - because
we're not just talking about a license for the tables themselves, but
conditions which apply to the whole device which must be adhered to in
order to use those tables (enforceable or not, I know not - but who
wants to take the risk?)

if they say no user-modification of the device shall be permitted,
but the license for the software includes anti-TiVoisation clauses,
then that's a problem - irrespective of whether the tables or the
decoder app are open or closed.

without seeing what the terms say in full, it's impossible to know
whether there's a workable solution. there are lots of this might be
okay if you work around it in *this* manner or this might cause
serious legal problems, but there are very few sureties (except for
the fact that somebody has to do the legwork to figure all of this
stuff out, which comes at a nonzero cost).
-
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 Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT
nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 The BBC had a choice

 a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
 payers

 b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small
 negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any
 negative effect at all

with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no
technical understanding of the proposal.

your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
-
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 Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT
 nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 The BBC had a choice

 a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee
 payers

 b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small
 negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any
 negative effect at all

 with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no
 technical understanding of the proposal.

 your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
 effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.

to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or
brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff
works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and
over again, to be met with the same thing every time.

key points:

the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest.
the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not
inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) -
they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the
like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally
law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the
officially-branded boxes are crippled
start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced
-
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 Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote:

 If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
 - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
 around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
 that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content
 management built in.
 Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I
 record this TV show?, Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc.

why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?

-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group.  To unsubscribe, please 
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.  
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:16, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote:

 If the desired effect was to limit what the average consumer can do with TV
 - i.e. only making one recording, and limiting how they can transfer this
 around their home - then it looks like it could achieve it. This ensures
 that any consumer electronics for Freeview HD will have to have content
 management built in.
 Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course. Why can't I
 record this TV show?, Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc.

but it's okay, there's a blog post about it!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2009/04/welcome_to_some_new_initials_d.html

we are absolutely committed to continuing to find ways to allow you
to enjoy our programmes as you choose

Pull the other one, it has got bells on 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] Freeview HD Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:37, Andrew Bowden andrew.bow...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 From: Adam Bradley
 Similar questions to Andrew's above will be asked, of course.
 Why can't I record this TV show?,

 Unless I've missed something (and I'm sure someone will tell me if I
 have!) there's no proposals on the table to prevent people from
 recording HD content - as long as the user has a suitable device.

you're not wrong. you can always PVR stuff, you're just limited in
what you can do with that recording.

 And if we're honest here, the overwhelming majority will have a suitable
 device.  I know one of my colleagues has an uber amazing magatastic
 satellite dish that has three tunes and can control the position of his
 satellite dish, but most people buy their box from Currys or Tesco.  The
 chances of a major UK retailer selling something that wouldn't support
 this protection system are very slim IMHO.

that's a big part of why it's wrong...

 Why do some of my shows not copy to my iPod?, etc.

 It's so hard for me currently to get SD content off my PVR and on to my
 iPod that I've never done it.  This is despite me having a PVR which has
 a USB connection so I can download stuff on to my PC, and me having the
 software that converts (eventually!) the transport stream into an MPEG2.

on the flipside, these workflows are pretty new territory for the STB
manufacturers, and are improving all the time (where not hamstrung!)

 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?

next year's iPad will probably do at least 720p, judging by the iPhone
4 (it's not _that_ far off now). there are HD tablets emerging, too.

 Of course there's an argument that what if you've only recorded the HD
 version, but for me the ease of use of getting stuff off a PVR or
 something and onto a handheld still makes it a pretty niche requirement.

well, I do wonder about this: how well will the downscaling work? if
you've recorded an HD prog, will you be able to get an SD version off
it that isn't complete tosh? I don't have a huge amount of faith in
this, and that's saying something.

 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.

oh, definitely... where iPlayer hasn't also been artificially
restricted (hello, Android).

M.

-
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 Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:33, Paul Battley pbatt...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 15 June 2010 16:23, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
 why can I not watch Freeview HD on my (slightly older) HD TV?

 This (HDCP) is one of the restrictions I understand the least. It's
 like screwing shut the cat-flap (the DVI/HDMI signal) when the door
 (unencrypted broadcasts) is open. If you want to rip HD content, you'd
 do it at the point where it's easy.

the HDCP requirement's part of a larger ecosystem - bonus crippling!

all of this stuff is largely *designed* to support conditional-access
setups, but because it's already supported by some devices, it's
attractive.

incidentally, are the BBC being paid by Panasonic or something? they
seem very keen to note that we'll still  be able to record programmes
on those Blu-Ray recorders that nobody wants.
-
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 Content Management

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 16:48, Adam Bradley a...@doublegeek.com wrote:

 Point taken, but it would be nice if someone made it easy in future and this
 just makes it less likely.
 Perhaps Why can't I stream this on my network player upstairs would be a
 more likely question in the future.

Oh, but it can! So long as it supports DNLA...

(ignoring the fact that DNLA interop seems to be a huge minefield,
unsurprisingly)
-
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 Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:34, Adam Sampson wrote:

 While I'm sure the Huffman tables will be reverse-engineered soon
 enough, it'd be much better if I, as a license fee payer, could obtain a
 legal copy from the BBC for my personal use. UK copyright law is already
 very clear on exactly what I'm allowed to do in terms of time-shifting
 recordings...

…but oft-misunderstood.

“it is not an offence if” is not the same as “shall not be prevented from”, 
sadly.


-
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 Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:

 With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
 the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

!?!?!

with some caveats, that doesn’t actually contradict what I’ve said!

 
 nwhitfield 
 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
 My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
 sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
 be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
 broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
 but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.
 
 It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that
 it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what
 they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes).
 
 In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used,
 everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been
 broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even
 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.
 
 Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.
 Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able to
 watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to make
 space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring the fact
 that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to.
 
 How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and
 made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?
 
 Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a
 certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same
 technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of
 proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards.
 
 -Original Message-
 From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
 [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
 Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
 
 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FMT 
 nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote:
 The BBC had a choice
 
 a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence
 
 fee payers
 
 b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very 
 small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it 
 has any negative effect at all
 
 with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no 
 technical understanding of the proposal.
 
 your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired
 
 effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
 
 to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque.
 I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works
 fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over
 again, to be met with the same thing every time.
 
 key points:
 
 the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not
 inhibited by this in the slightest.
 the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not
 inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) -
 they may or may not have a FVHD receiver.
 the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the
 like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding
 consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are
 crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially
 fatally) inconvenienced
 -
 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] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:

 Nor does it contradict anything I said either!

through omission, no. that’s hardly a ringing endorsement, is 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] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:

 With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
 the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:

those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:

 nwhitfield 
 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
 My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
 sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
 be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
 broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
 but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.

Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well 
need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* 
distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty 
of them.

 It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this that
 it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to record what
 they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes).

it would be quite insane for anybody to propose otherwise, if you think about 
it.

 In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be used,
 everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already been
 broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, then even
 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK.

the fourth word of that paragraph is quite important.

 Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all.

that depends on quite a few factors. longer-term, it will (although perhaps 
unknowingly) affect increasing numbers of people. unfortunately, they won’t 
know what they’ve been missing.

 How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and
 made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded?

DVD whatnow? who cares about DVD recorders, really? these things have hard 
disks, network and USB ports.

 Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a
 certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same
 technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of
 proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards.

MythTV copes with Freesat because it previously reverse-engineered _this_ 
scheme. the BBC has explicitly threatened legal action against people who do 
this, although whether they follow through on it is anybody’s guess. either 
way, however, the protection measure has been broken before it was even 
submitted for regulatory approval. this means, for the stated aim of preventing 
the pirates from uploading content to the Internet, it’s completely worthless.

the above talks solely about the direct effect upon consumers in the short term 
based on the equipment which exists today and assuming they don’t want to do 
any of the things which the scheme prohibits _and_ have up-to-date equipment 
supporting the various schemes which make it work. anybody who’s paying any 
attention at all to “next-generation” TV stuff knows that “next-generation” 
isn’t very far away *at all*. it also doesn’t account for changing trends in 
consumer behaviour, nor does it account for the innovations which will be made 
harder [that is, more costly, or not possible] because of the licensing regime.

and so, we’re left with a system which “do something which didn't achieve the 
desired effect, and caused additional negative effects”.

this somewhat contradicts your equivalent:

 do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small 
 negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any negative 
 effect at all

…which is patently false.

people complained vocally about this when it was rolled out on Freesat. people 
had problems with equipment not working (not the receivers themselves so much, 
but other parts of the puzzle). how can you *possibly* think it will go any 
better for a significantly larger roll-out?

remind me who it is that has to do with the front-line support for all of this? 
I don’t envy that job one little bit.

so, just explain to me, in the face of all of this, how is “because the 
rights-holder demanded it and threatened to pull their content, despite 
evidence showing that on the balance of probabilities, this is unlikely” as 
what amounts to the *sole* justification for doing it absolutely fine all the 
way up the chain?

my earlier (undirected) question about baseball caps was serious, incidentally, 
even if the choice of demand was deliberately flippant (it’s no *less* flippant 
than this one is, though — and indeed, would have even less risk of negative 
effects). would you be in favour, or 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] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:36, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:

 Omission from who? 
 
 Me?
 
 Or the person quoted?

the person quoted. he didn’t contradict you because he didn’t cover those 
points in enough detail. sheesh.

 
 -Original Message-
 From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk
 [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts
 Sent: 15 June 2010 21:21
 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
 Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
 
 
 On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:13, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
 
 Nor does it contradict anything I said either!
 
 through omission, no. that's hardly a ringing endorsement, is 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/
 
 -
 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] Freeview HD Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 21:38, Mo McRoberts wrote:

 
 On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:
 
 With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on
 the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
 
 those caveats, which make quite a significant difference:
 
 nwhitfield 
 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM
 My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on
 sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to
 be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's
 broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them,
 but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard.
 
 Freeview HD receivers on sale today will be unaffected, though they may well 
 need a firmware upgrade. that rather depends on whether the BBC has *already* 
 distributed the decoding table to manufacturers, which would be quite naughty 
 of them.

oops, missed out: but if the receiver is the only part of the chain being 
upgraded (i.e., they already have an HDTV, as many people do), “everything 
working” is *far* from guaranteed.


-
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 Content Management

right,

I’m going to level with you all:

I’m tired. very tired. I’m juggling a day-job building e-commerce websites with 
a hobby helping to build some very very cool things, and I’ve put an awful lot 
of time and effort into questioning, gaining understanding of and explaining 
this whole Freeview HD copy-protection debacle. I don’t think I’ve been 
especially unclear, or got caught up in rhetoric and emotion to any a great 
extent, and I’ve done my best to try to answer questions and concerns and 
everything else to the best of my knowledge. now, it’s true that my knowledge 
of DVB internals isn’t the best in the world: the people for whom that holds 
true work for the BBC and so can’t really comment too much. but, I’ve taken 
what I do know and tried to put it into plain English as much as I possibly 
can, and as far as I can see much of this whole thing is rather cut-and-dried.

now, to be clear, this scheme hasn’t particularly irritated me. in all honesty, 
it was to be expected to an extent. there are aspects of it which *have* 
annoyed me, but not to the point of getting angry about it (the last time that 
happened, I spent all a whole day adding signatures to the bottom of an open 
letter…)

what _has_ irritated to me, however, is the fact that nobody representing the 
BBC will be straight about it. everything has to be dressed up to make it look 
appealing (especially where it isn’t), which makes it a whole lot worse if it’s 
principally motivated by _other_ Freeview HD broadcasters. the whole approach 
to it was not one of informing the public in a fair and impartial manner, but 
of public relations.

now, I wrote this article, originally for the BBC Internet Blog, but it was 
declined (as the BBC had already made their position clear and wanted nothing 
which might detract from it), and luckily I managed to persuade the Guardian to 
run it instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/01/bbc-hd-consultation-hdmi

this was an article that I wrote deliberately (given its target outlet) to 
avoid speculation, half-truths, paranoia, cynicism or knee-jerk, sticking as 
much as humanly possible to the facts. if anything, I probably gave the BBC the 
benefit of the doubt a little more than I should! now, I can understand that it 
was declined for publication. after all, at that point, a guest post from a 
non-staffer was pretty unprecedented. but that’s besides the point: why was it 
necessary for me to write that post in the first place?

the method of engagement which the BBC employed — principally the BBC Internet 
blog (and only _after_ Cory Doctorow and Tom Watson drew attention to the 
proposal which had been quietly submitted to Ofcom without any form of public 
statement by the BBC) — glossed over the stuff that was in there, and yet those 
were the things people wanted to know most of all.

so, all in all, I’m disappointed by the BBC. not for pushing this through per 
se, but for its approach to it, which has been nothing short of disgraceful. 
for the record, Nick, although I *disagree* with you on some things, I think 
you’ve done as good a job as you could have done with this whole thing — I do 
think it was ridiculous that you were left to field questions, though 
(questions which would never have arisen had the BBC been upfront and honest 
with everybody in the first place).

I’ve made my position on the actual scheme quite clear, so I’m going to stop 
now. most of us on here are as far as I know (save for some quibbles over minor 
details and loopholes) of *broadly* the same opinion, though depending on your 
perspective your position might vary from “argh!” to “worthless waste of 
everybody’s time” (or more likely, somewhere in between). there are some who 
disagree, who think the short-term gain is worth the long-term loss, and I 
can’t do anything but agree to disagree. my colours have been nailed to the 
mast, and I’m not going to continue re-stating the facts in as many different 
ways as I can muster in order to answer the same points over and over again.

as I said, I have better things to be doing with my time. I’m not going 
anywhere, and I’ll still be reading this thread, but I don’t honestly have the 
energy to keep replying to anything but purely technical stuff in relation to 
this.

I really am very tired.

M.


-
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 Content Management


On 15-Jun-2010, at 22:41, Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote:

 The BBC has made its position quite clear on the blog - not once but
 several times. We have been straight about it as you can see from these
 blog posts, not just recently but as far back as April last year (see
 Danielle Nagler's post in the list below) - so the idea that we didn't
 want to talk about this is false:

well, yes. the *position* was very clear. the facts — that is, what was being 
proposed and the nitty-gritty of how it would actually affect people — weren’t, 
as evidenced by the many questions which went unanswered in the blog comments.

Tom Watson’s blog post contained inaccuracies because he was interpreting a 
very technical industry document without background knowledge — which was what 
everybody else (myself included) had to do in order to figure out what it was 
that was actually being proposed (how else are people supposed to know what 
they’re dealing with?)

the _position_ took priority over the facts. the BBC was very effective at 
communicating the position. it was abysmal at communicating the facts. the 
closest it came was Danielle’s post back in April last year (which I linked to 
earlier in this thread — I was very aware of it!), and even that was rather 
heavy on the PR, and took some flak at the time for it.

 I have worked hard to get the BBC to engage with you and in my view
 bearing in mind the obvious sensitivities we have done this well. Even I
 though we couldn't publish your blog post I spent time trying to get it
 published in other places, encouraged you to do so and I was pleased
 when it was.


Don’t get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your efforts — please don’t take 
this as a personal criticism, because it’s not, at all — in no small part 
because it’s not *your* job to translate engineering terms into the actual 
effects. I’m not sure what the sensitivities are — does the public not have a 
right to make an informed judgement given the facts of it?

 And I'm saddened that you use the word disgraceful in your email
 below. I believe the BBC has communicated this as well as we can.

I’m sorry you’re saddened, but believe me, the BBC (not “you” singular), could 
have done a lot better better. Communication on this was shoddy and haphazard, 
it — with the exception of Danielle’s post — reeked of damage-limitation, 
missed out half of the stuff that people would naturally want to know, and you 
weren’t able to find out the answer to. In fact, you had asked some of same 
questions, because you didn’t know the answer either. I know for a fact, 
though, that lots of the people within the BBC who were involved in creating 
this whole thing would have known the answers, because if you’re an expert in 
DVB, it’s actually pretty basic stuff! (don’t forget, this had already been 
implemented once already, and the BBC, via the DTG and DTLA, were talking to 
receiver manufacturers to ensure they were doing the right thing).

so, to be brutally honest, if there’s something you couldn’t be more wrong 
about in this whole affair, it’s this. the BBC wasn’t particularly honest — it 
didn’t lie, but it was a very very long way away from the whole truth — and I 
think it’s unfortunate that you’ve been taken along for the ride. I think 
*you*, not to mention everybody else, deserve better than that, even if we 
ultimately disagree about whether the actual proposal is a good or a bad thing.

M.
-
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 Content Management

2010-06-14 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 14-Jun-2010, at 17:31, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 #FAIL
 
 http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-freeview-allowed-to-use-drm-to-curtail-online-piracy/
 
 Not much of a shock really.  Or much use for the stated purpose. 

+2


-
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 Content Management

2010-06-14 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 14-Jun-2010, at 18:14, Alex Cockell wrote:

 So i'll have to buy box after box to watch content? 

doubtful. those which have been sold for FVHD already will have in-built 
support for the mechanism (it's specced by the ETSI DVB standards), but will 
likely need an update to get the decoding table.

that is, unless they're going to use the same decoding table as Freesat (given 
the fact that it was claimed to have been generated from a large sample set in 
order to ensure optimal compression rates, it _should_ be)…

M.


-
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] Developer: Parsing AOD xml, and which PID is permanent?

2010-06-09 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 12:56, Steve Clarke
mailinglis...@trumpton.org.uk wrote:
 Thanks Mo  Paul,

 I've done a bit of playing with the BBC website, and, indeed, the b007k1sk
 link works in http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007k1sk, which tells you of all
 the previous broadcasts, and http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sqhl
 automatically refreshes and takes you to the same b007k1sk page, so
 pidxx/pid, it is!!!

Ah, it will do that - try appending '.rdf' to the URL; they'll stop
refreshing then, as in the context of producing RDF you'll be asking
for two different things (an end-user browsing /programmes doesn't
need to care about the difference between a version and an episode,
hence the refresh).

You'll also note that the RDF (for the episode) gives you the three
different synopses - is that good enough for you, or is it a pain to
iterate the programmes you have and fetch them individually? (If the
latter, unfortunately I don't know what to suggest, but others might!)

M.
-
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] Developer: Parsing AOD xml, and which PID is permanent?

2010-06-09 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 13:36, Steve Clarke
mailinglis...@trumpton.org.uk wrote:
 Again, Mo and Paul, thanks for a lightning response.  I didn't see anything
 about http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006sqhl.rdf when I was searching, and
 now you've found it for me, it will do exactly what I want.

It's hidden in plain sight:

link rel=alternate type=application/rdf+xml
href=/programmes/b007k1sk.rdf /

:)

(ISTR it supports other formats, though I can't recall which... would
have to probe Yves  co).

M.

-
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] Developer: Parsing AOD xml, and which PID is permanent?

2010-06-09 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 13:59, Yves Raimond yves.raim...@gmail.com wrote:

 The pid feeds in XML, JSON and YAML are likely to change shape some
 time soon, which is the reason we didn't advertise them more widely,
 and didn't put rel=alternate links to them yet. The RDF feeds
 mentioned above will be more stable (that is, if you parse them as
 RDF, and not as XML!).

D'oh. I have some scripts to fix :) I should have known, really...

Cheers!

M.
-
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] Does the BBC ever respond to web site feedback?

2010-06-04 Thread Mo McRoberts

On Friday, June 4, 2010, Brian Butterworth briant...@freeview.tv wrote:
 The short form of the headlines are destined for Ceefax - where 0x23 is £ 
 and 0x5F is #...

/me idly wonders if any of the common character set conversion
libraries support MODE7's character set…

-
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] Re: [backstage] Re: [backstage] R e: [backstage] Re: [backstage] Re: get_iplayer 2.77 release (was Re: [backstage] get_iplayer dropped in response to BBC¹s lack of support f or open

2010-05-28 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 28-May-2010, at 19:13, Anthony McKale wrote:

 Have you tried these?
 
 They use the offical bbc emp (embedded media player) which is a offical
 verified swf in an iframe configured to play the video,
 
 Of course I haven't spoken to Duncan for a while, but I think it still works

Similarly… http://gist.github.com/284592 :)

I think this kinda defeats the point, though. Just embedding EMP doesn’t solve 
anything except “how to embed the EMP into an arbitrary web page” (arguably 
that could be considered far ‘worse’ than any of the things the likes of 
get_iplayer does, because you’re “distributing” the content in an different 
context; the official line is, as far as I know, that the BBC’s content 
offering is not available for piecemeal syndication…)

It’s a fun experiment, though. With the right parameters, you can get it doing 
the simulcasts, too… or multiple simulcast streams (if you have the bandwidth) 
:)

M.

 
 Ant
 
 
 
 On 28/05/2010 15:15, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
 
 On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:11 +0100, Anthony McKale wrote:
 Has everyone seen -
 http://whomwah.github.com/radioaunty/
 http://whomwah.github.com/tellybox/
 
 Doesn't seem too hard if someone was interested to build a ondemand
 version of these apps,
 
 A bit like http://code.google.com/p/xbmc-iplayerv2/ ?
 
 -- 
 Anthony Mckale, Senior CSD
 Mob : 07912981657 
 Internal Phone : (02 776) 64470
 BBC FMT Children's, TVC East Tower, Floor 1, Room E164 
 
 -
 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/

[backstage] Re: get_iplayer 2.77 release (was Re: [back stage] get_iplayer dropped in response to BBC ’s lack of support for open source)

2010-05-26 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 26-May-2010, at 15:27, David Woodhouse wrote:

 I can give accounts on git.infradead.org if you want to publish a git
 tree there with your changes, or you can just mail patches to the list
 (or to me in private if you'd like them to be applied anonymously for
 some reason).

JOOI, how much divergance is there between this and 
http://github.com/jjl/get_iplayer ?

M.


-
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] Re: Looking for hotshot video develeopers to work at the BBC (was RE: [backstage] Fancy joining BBC RD?)

2010-05-14 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 14-May-2010, at 11:38, Gavin Johnson wrote:

 On 13/05/2010 20:33, Mo McRoberts m...@nevali.net wrote:
 
 (sadly, even this aside, I’m not applying thanks to being thoroughly in the
 wrong part of the UK… so this really is just flinging from the 
 peanut-gallery)
 
 BBC is pretty London-centric but things are changing. We have people here in
 Cardiff working on central projects and same is true for other parts of the
 UK. 

Unfortunately, I’m in Glasgow… which means that although the corporation has a 
great big regional headquarters in the shape of PQ, in terms of RD it’s but an 
outpost where the naughty types get sent to think about what they’ve done[0].

M.




[0] I might be making that part up. Brendan’s been having some fun up here - 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/02/bbc-scotland-prototype-program.shtml


-
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: Looking for hotshot video develeopers to work at the BBC (was RE: [backstage] Fancy joining BBC RD?)

2010-05-14 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 14-May-2010, at 13:34, Brendan Quinn wrote:

 The Ingex jobs look splendid (continued insistence on using 
 CVS for Ingex and libMXF notwithstanding... :)
 
 Heh -- well hopefully one of the first jobs of these two developers will
 be moving the codebase to a more modern version control system!

Actually, if anybody’s interested… I’ve got an [ongoing] git mirror of Ingex 
kicking around somewhere, and I’ve been slowly rewriting the build logic to be 
auto{conf,make}+libtool-driven (I’m targeting an expanded set of platforms — 
OpenSolaris, Mac OS X and Linux — so autoconf helps an awful lot).

Really should finish that off, actually. I’ve done most of AAF — 
http://github.com/nexgenta/aaf — I need to get it to install the sources that 
dumpmxf uses to somewhere useful, though, not to mention testing it properly. 
Feel free to holler at me off-list about any of this.

 It's more about the structure of the Ingex Solutions team and where it
 sits in the organisation: as we're just getting it started, we want to
 have the flexibility to move it around to different departments, or even
 move it outside to a proper spin-out if that opportunity becomes
 available in the ever-changing regulatory world of the BBC..!

Noted :)

 We want these roles to be in London to (a) be near the main part of the
 research team and (b) be able to physically build Ingex boxes, go and
 sit with productions who at the moment are mostly in London, etc. As the
 group expands, roles may become available elsewhere. And of course if
 you're interested in becoming an independent Ingex partner and helping
 to support local productions in your part of the country, we would be
 very interested to hear from you.

Makes a lot of sense, now I know the background!

M.


-
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: Looking for hotshot video develeopers to work at the BBC (was RE: [backstage] Fancy joining BBC RD?)

2010-05-14 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 14-May-2010, at 14:21, Kieran Kunhya wrote:

 I’ve been slowly rewriting the build logic to be
 auto{conf,make}+libtool-driven (I’m targeting an expanded
 set of platforms — OpenSolaris, Mac OS X and Linux — so
 autoconf helps an awful lot).
 
 There was shock amongst other x264 developers (myself not included since I 
 don't know enough about the merits of buildsystems to comment!) and ffmpeg 
 developers as to why you created an autoconf fork of x264 and ffmpeg.

Heh, really? I haven’t paid enough attention to the respective project chatter, 
clearly!

There’s not a lot in it, really, when their used on their own — x264  ffmpeg’s 
build logic[s?] are dandy. Problems arise when you start mixing and matching 
autoconf and non-autoconf stuff, and have dependencies between the two, and 
pass parameters into sub-projects’ configure scripts which would work fine if 
it was a real autoconf but chokes (or worse… gets silently ignored) when it’s 
not. 

my goal is to drag together a whole bunch of different tools into a nice 
convenient “Transmission Suite” package, covering DVB, MP4 containers, H.264, 
AAC, the Ogg family, Dirac, and MHEG… all building nicely and neatly in a 
single tree (dependencies dealt with automagically) which can then be installed 
somewhere useful and relied upon by higher-level stuff to be in place and 
configured in a consistent way.

that’s the plan, at least!

(In truth, I’ve not worked on any of this in a few weeks, and I was sorting out 
the low-hanging fruit before getting stuck into the bigger stuff like Ingex, 
x264 and ffmpeg)

M.
-
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: Looking for hotshot video develeopers to work at the BBC (was RE: [backstage] Fancy joining BBC RD?)

2010-05-13 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 13-May-2010, at 19:19, Brendan Quinn wrote:

 Ian wrote: 
 Interested in what we do in RD?
 
 The following roles within RD are currently being advertised 
 at: www.bbc.co.uk/jobs
 
 Senior Software Engineer Ingex Solutions (ref. 304587) 
 Software Engineer Ingex Solutions (ref. 304588) Trainee 
 Research Scientist (ref. NNP303403)
 
 Just to give a bit more info on the two Ingex Solutions jobs...

The Ingex jobs look splendid (continued insistence on using CVS for Ingex and 
libMXF notwithstanding… :)

6 month fixed-term, though? isn’t that pretty much the blink of an eye for the 
BBC? and, er, no salary+bens details? does the BBC not advertise externally the 
way every other company does? ;)

(sadly, even this aside, I’m not applying thanks to being thoroughly in the 
wrong part of the UK… so this really is just flinging from the peanut-gallery)

M.


-
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] Election Night

2010-05-06 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 6-May-2010, at 22:05, Sam Mbale wrote:

 BBC Television has it all covered with traditional media, where are the 
 Internets?

http://twitter.com/search?q=ge2010

 
 Sam Mbale
 Mpelembe Network
 http://www.mpelembe.net
 
 Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe
 


-
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] iPad and iPlayer

2010-04-15 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 15-Apr-2010, at 12:54, Brian Butterworth wrote:

 I thought a device had to have a reasonable UK market share before the BBC 
 supported it?

I’m not convinced that “rule” is applied remotely consistently, in either 
direction.

M.


-
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] iPad and iPlayer

2010-04-15 Thread Mo McRoberts


On 15-Apr-2010, at 13:00, Ian Stirling wrote:

 Personally, I would argue strongly against this on competition grounds.

That makes no sense. How is *extending* the user-agent whitelist bad for 
competition?

 The BBC should not be in the business of promoting any one vendor who choses 
 not to install flash on their platform for their own internal reasons.

So it should drop the Wii, PS3, Freesat and Nokia implementations?

More to the point, how is it *promoting* anything?

I dislike the fact that iPlayer is reliant upon a blessed Flash implementation 
unless you’re using one of the very narrow set of supported alternative 
devices, but this is no means of going about getting that changed…
-
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] TODAY: Digital Economy Bill Flashmob, 5pm [Manchester]


On 6-Apr-2010, at 19:15, Fearghas McKay wrote:

 
 On 6 Apr 2010, at 19:07, Mo McRoberts wrote:
 
 unlike Sion Simon who is talking about a fantasy world, in his own words...
 
 utter and total waffle.
 
 Tom Watson’s intervention sailed _right_ over his head.
 
 and then Pete Wishart, glossing over his register interests rather than 
 'fessing up in the clear.

the SNP’s sole member in the house.

I’m fast running out of parties to vote for next month. The only party actually 
voicing real dissent is the one which introduced the bill!


-
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] TODAY: Digital Economy Bill Flashmob, 5pm [Manchester]


On 6-Apr-2010, at 22:10, Christopher Woods wrote:

 I'm hoping they'll do the right thing and kill the bill.
 
 Nope - just voted to send it to the committee stage tomorrow.
 
 The eyes have it, the eyes have it. RT @rhodri: And that was that, folks.
 The ayes have it. Chuckling in the chamber. That's democracy, folks. #debill
 
 And now they all head (back?) off to Strangers for the subsidised pints ;)
 
 The irony I found with Wishart's apparent stance on this is that he's in a
 band, and has been in a few prior to this. Up until now I was under the
 impression that he was broadly in favour of doing *something* but that he
 took issue with the way certain amendments were almost overreaching their
 mandate (if such a thing is possible). I'm now worried he might not be
 considering how damaging sections of the Bill could potentially be to
 artists and bands who don't have the advantage of prior exposure.

I’m not willing to share my opinion to Wishart in polite company right now.

There’s lies, damned lies, statistics, and statistics quoted in parliament.
-
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] TODAY: Digital Economy Bill Flashmob, 5pm [Manchester]


On 6-Apr-2010, at 22:13, Alex Cockell wrote:

 On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 22:00 +0100, Fearghas McKay wrote:
 Nope - just voted to send it to the committee stage tomorrow.
 
 Umm - does that mean we've lost?

I *think* so. not really sure.

 That all we can look forward to is paying through the nose for
 absolutely everything? And the only route I have as a Linux user is to
 humbly ask any media supplier to make material available in a form I can
 do stuff with?

that has pretty much ’owt to do with any of the provisions of the bill.


-
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] TODAY: Digital Economy Bill Flashmob, 5pm [Manchester]