Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
Adam Bowie wrote: I don't think there's a set-top box involved. But if they make it an open standard then it's conceivable that set-top box makers could incorporate it into their boxes. In my opinion, the TV is still the best place to watch TV, so set top box integration might help make downloading more popular. Also, looking at the Guardian article The insider went on: Ultimately, Freeview boxes provide a clear way into a mass number of homes for their on-demand content. So it looks like set top boxes are involved. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
On 21/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. If only someone had written a standard for transferring data. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2616.txt Or a standard for peer to peer transfers. http://www.bittorrent.org/protocol.html Or a standard for representing structured data. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Or a standard for Audio/Video coding http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 Or a standard for DRM http://www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/drm_v2_0.html We have many standards, which stuff our we missing a standard for? Certain organisations just refuse to use an open interoperable standard despite them existing. -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
Actually, I was thinking that if there was a network of Freeview boxes the content would be in MPEG2 already. The only bit that would require writing is a system that creates a tracker for each recorded programme... On 22/06/07, Andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. If only someone had written a standard for transferring data. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2616.txt Or a standard for peer to peer transfers. http://www.bittorrent.org/protocol.html Or a standard for representing structured data. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Or a standard for Audio/Video coding http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 Or a standard for DRM http://www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/drm_v2_0.html We have many standards, which stuff our we missing a standard for? Certain organisations just refuse to use an open interoperable standard despite them existing. -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
At 13:17 +0100 22/6/07, Andy wrote: On 21/06/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. If only someone had written a standard for transferring data. ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2616.txt Or a standard for peer to peer transfers. http://www.bittorrent.org/protocol.html Or a standard for representing structured data. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ Or a standard for Audio/Video coding http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.264 Or a standard for DRM http://www.openmobilealliance.org/release_program/drm_v2_0.html We have many standards, which stuff our we missing a standard for? Certain organisations just refuse to use an open interoperable standard despite them existing. And RFC 822? Gordon -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// - 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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
I read about Project Kangaroo in the press the other day. It seems to be a set top box iPlayer. http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8242/9266/BBC-ITV-C4-Project-Kangeroo.phtml Wouldn't the BBC be better off just getting broadband Freeview Playback boxes to exchange content with each other, rather than this top down solution? Oh, and it would cost almost nothing to run... -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
I don't think there's a set-top box involved. Surely it's just early discussions to try to achieve a single downloading architecture across all the UK broadcasters? At the moment I have to download one app. for the BBC, another for 4od, another for Sky Anytime and goodness knows what for Five, ITV or any other broadcaster. And they're not all necessarily compatible. A single solution would be sensible in the long run. On 6/21/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read about Project Kangaroo in the press the other day. It seems to be a set top box iPlayer. http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/8242/9266/BBC-ITV-C4-Project-Kangeroo.phtml Wouldn't the BBC be better off just getting broadband Freeview Playback boxes to exchange content with each other, rather than this top down solution? Oh, and it would cost almost nothing to run... -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote: I don't think there's a set-top box involved. Surely it's just early discussions to try to achieve a single downloading architecture across all the UK broadcasters? At the moment I have to download one app. for the BBC, another for 4od, another for Sky Anytime and goodness knows what for Five, ITV or any other broadcaster. And they're not all necessarily compatible. A single solution would be sensible in the long run. No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. -- dwmw2 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
On 6/21/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote: A single solution would be sensible in the long run. No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. As a user, I don't want to have install a new piece of software every time I download a different piece of programming from a different broadcaster. Aside from anything else, multiple clients all using peer to peer technology will kill my broadband connectivity. Of course an open solution would be best. But then there's DRM which currently each broadcaster has their own solution to (even if they're really all the same just now), but I'm not going to get into 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] Project Kangaroo - what's the point?
On 21/06/07, Adam Bowie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/21/07, David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 15:47 +0100, Adam Bowie wrote: A single solution would be sensible in the long run. No. A selection of _open_, interoperable solutions would be sensible. As a user, I don't want to have install a new piece of software every time I download a different piece of programming from a different broadcaster. That's where the word interoperable comes in Aside from anything else, multiple clients all using peer to peer technology will kill my broadband connectivity. Again, if they're interoperable you'd only need one client, but you'd get a choice of which one. Of course an open solution would be best. But then there's DRM which currently each broadcaster has their own solution to (even if they're really all the same just now), but I'm not going to get into that... Indeed.
