Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 22/10/2007, Duncan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Going back to mosaics, I'm fairly sure Sky could do it because don't they have monitor (or at least have the ability to monitor) every channel being broadcast at any time from their NOC? The way it's done on CanalSat is the mosaic's presented as a full-frame live video stream, and all the ...but can't! Of course, as we all know, broadcast rights is a minefield, I can only approach this from the logical common-sense point of view, but it still seems like a good idea. Ahh its done at the head end, I was wondering how else you'd do video previews across several mux's! Now I think about it, I do remember someone doing something along these lines at my college a few years ago on a local DVB-C system. I don't know why Sky would be so against it, after all there are some services on Sky which use a similar principle for full screen video. NHS direct for instance is based on a number of quad-split video feeds which are then enlarged by the set-top box at the user end. Perhaps its changed now but it was still being done like that in January. Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. Sky Subscriber Services Ltd do provide the encryption systems for the channels that their card is used for, but they do not own the upload services. Also, logical channel numbers (101, 102, 103, etc) do not in anyway follow the satellite transponders, viz: http://www.lyngsat.com/28east.html Sky do not have anything to do with many of the transponders as they do not provide the content, up link or have anything to do with non-Sky transponders (like those used by the BBC, ITV and many others). So, why should Sky pay good money to put up a ten channels of mosaics? Sorry to be negative, but an understanding of the medium is helpful before suggesting changing 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/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
If you were addressing my comments; Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. Sky Subscriber Services Ltd do provide the encryption systems for the channels that their card is used for, but they do not own the upload services. I knew this, they lease space on them just like everybody else. I also know that the EPG numbers don't correlate with transpoder or PIDs, but surely that's the whole point... The mosaic, with its pages of different content - maybe even spread across the transponders to use less bandwidth in one place, though I'd prefer them in one place (unless boxes can switch transponders quickly now to avoid that horrible lag - well, it could be nestled anywhere in Sky's bouquet of channels. They already have enough channels of that rolling demo, they could axe one of those and use the same channel's bandwidth if they're *that* desperate capacity-wise (I sorely doubt they are). Are you implying that Sky don't actually control a lot of the content which is broadcast and received via their closed-loop system? If so, that would seem a bit amateurish on their behalf. Surely they have the power to vet and withdraw channels in realtime? I've seen occasions where the box has been unable to lock to a channel, showing the This channel has a technical fault message, and I'm sure that can't just be fully automated. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. And on the subject of good money, I'd see a mosaic as definite value-added (possibly persuading me to stay with them a little longer) and they could tout it as a brand new feature making Sky easier for everyone or somesuch similar... And anyway, what's a PC for the rendering and a few megabits per second of upstream bandwidth between friends? - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Are you implying that Sky don't actually control a lot of the content which is broadcast and received via their closed-loop system? If so, that would seem a bit amateurish on their behalf. Surely they have the power to vet and withdraw channels in realtime? For technical reasons they do - to appear in the Sky EPG you must agree to certain technical standards IIRC, and to supply correct EPG data. You also have to pay your money! However Sky's EPG open to all and Sky is not allowed to pick and choose who appears in it. They can, of course, block all new entrants for technical reasons - as they have done recently. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Some broadcasters pay Sky to playout their channels and they'll monitor those I'm sure. Many broadcasters go through 3rd parties or do it themselves. Who knows what the exact proportions are, but given how many channels there are, there's a lot of channels to monitor and Sky won't want to be doing regular monitoring of most of the channels, I'm sure. Ultimately playout monitoring has to be the resposibility of the broadcaster in question - which is why four floors below my desk, there's a batch of people working for Red Bee Media whose job it is to check what they pump out (which includes BBC, BBC Worldwide, UKTV and Virgin Media Television) And on the subject of good money, I'd see a mosaic as definite value-added (possibly persuading me to stay with them a little longer) and they could tout it as a brand new feature making Sky easier for everyone or somesuch similar... And anyway, what's a PC for the rendering and a few megabits per second of upstream bandwidth between friends? You'd need a lot of mosaics to cover the sheer number of channels available through Sky's EPG. Cos if you didn't cover them all, someone would no doubt complain of bias to Ofcom! - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 10/23/07, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some broadcasters pay Sky to playout their channels and they'll monitor those I'm sure. Many broadcasters go through 3rd parties or do it themselves. Who knows what the exact proportions are, but given how many channels there are, there's a lot of channels to monitor and Sky won't want to be doing regular monitoring of most of the channels, I'm sure. Ultimately playout monitoring has to be the resposibility of the broadcaster in question - which is why four floors below my desk, there's a batch of people working for Red Bee Media whose job it is to check what they pump out (which includes BBC, BBC Worldwide, UKTV and Virgin Media Television) Likewise, the organisations who deal with the coding and multiplexing of those channels (not always the same people as playout) will be monitoring the streams they're sending up to the satellites and other distribution platforms to make sure all that's happening OK. And they'll have lots of mosaics in front of them too.[1] Technically what's being suggested here is easy - and there are bits of kit which will do it without a sweat[2]. Likewise, the interactive part of the channel picking isn't hard - see the BBC News multiscreen for a simple example, and you could associate plenty more audio streams with a service. I think what we've probably established so far is that the politics of getting such a service up and running are what might prevent getting it off the ground. But surely that's not insurmountable, and if someone like Sky wanted to offer it as 'added value' for their subscribers, then they could buy some mosaics, some off-air recievers, lease some more bandwidth, and do it. (It needn't even neccesarily take up a precious Sky EPG number, by making it accessable from an option on the Sky guide) - martin [1] I'm not sure why I'm talking in hypotheticals here - I sit in front of such monitoring walls at work... [2] http://www.zandar.com/products/dx.htm for example
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. I wasn't suggesting that Sky own the Astra fleet at all, I am quite aware of this. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Andrew's got in before me and is right, no Sky arent responsible directly for every channel (although its still the biggest MCR I've been in to date so they are monitoring more than they playout). I suppose the responsibility is between the channel playout center and whoever is uplinking will also have monitoring of various sorts although it won't always be people looking at monitors, most of the time its automatic video and freeze frame detection kit. As Chris mentioned, its a value added sort of thing, its not a direct money maker but might encourage people to subscribe to channels they don't have. I do however take Andrews point that it is a lot of 'pages'. Which equals a lot of expensive equipment to make it happen for every channel. Even if you had 8 channels on each 'page', which is about as many as I reckon you'd get away with thats still quite a large number of pages. Added to that the complexities of bringing the channels together to make the mosaics, for instance we have BBC1, BBC 2, ITV1, C4, Five at the start of the EPG. Sky don't have access directly to ITV for one, as it doesnt go through them, it goes from ITV to Arqiva London-Winchester-Morn Hill so they'd have to bring the video feed in to make their mosaic for this first page either off air or via an expensive video circuit. And if you do that for every channel thats uplinked by someone else thats going to get expensive unless you reorganise the EPG to fit around the content provider. Sorry if that last bit doesnt entirely make sense to some, I've got an image of the diagrams for a lot of these services in my head but its difficult to translate onto paper. It would be a nice idea tho! - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 07:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Erm, yeah, I know. I did stuff like this in the past. What I meant was it was not possible to implement it in the set-top box (Sky Digibox). Actually Sky *could* do that. The processing power may be massively underpowered (no idea of spec, but I'm assuming v low performance), but a Sky+ box could certainly be changed (by sky) to do this. After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it? * Second tuner that's usually idle (got that, except when recording a channel you're not watching) * A disk store (got that) * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that) * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that) * A means of tiling images, and then having a selection UI. Pretty much every thing needed (by Sky) is there. That linux based sky receiver (Dreambox?) is probably moddable as a DIY, but I guess would have dubious legality. For the limited subset of image processing required, storage and UI display, I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it. The advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to. (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in time, potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.) On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by didn't share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintained (but didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical ordering), it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping it relevant. (result from web caching UI window buffer placement caching) Michael - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Duncan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. I wasn't suggesting that Sky own the Astra fleet at all, I am quite aware of this. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Andrew's got in before me and is right, no Sky arent responsible directly for every channel (although its still the biggest MCR I've been in to date so they are monitoring more than they playout). I suppose the responsibility is between the channel playout center and whoever is uplinking will also have monitoring of various sorts although it won't always be people looking at monitors, most of the time its automatic video and freeze frame detection kit. When I was at BT Broadcast, we did indeed monitor all these kinds of things, both for Sky and other broadcasters. Whilst putting up some of the channels on screens was one option - it certainly wasn't mosaics - either the picture went onto a dedicated small monitor on a video wall or to an operator's dedicated monitor (using a video switch). We developed some sophisticated kit that can sit at various parts of the broadcast network and detect problems that the human eye wouldn't even be able to detect, especially from a multi screen. For example, any break in the audio (a few second of silence) or problems with the technical nature of the picture would result in an alarm. Depending on where the actual fault originated in the network, you would get a single alarm or the whole network lighting up red. Sometimes this could have quite humour effects - we had a contract with C4 for delivery of their channel around the UK. The whole annual value of the contract was due to be repaid if thirty-seconds of downtime happened during the year. One day, C4 broadcast an obituary programme and left thirty seconds of silence at the end of the programme - unheard of. We had calibrated our instruments to regard more than five seconds of silence as a systematic failure, so six seconds into the silence the monitoring systems, then the Master Control Room and then every automatic escalation notification system went nuts. Thankfully as it didn't really happen, we didn't have to repay the £4m to C4. As Chris mentioned, its a value added sort of thing, its not a direct money maker but might encourage people to subscribe to channels they don't have. I do however take Andrews point that it is a lot of 'pages'. Which equals a lot of expensive equipment to make it happen for every channel. Even if you had 8 channels on each 'page', which is about as many as I reckon you'd get away with thats still quite a large number of pages. And you would get into all the usual arguments about 'prominence'... Added to that the complexities of bringing the channels together to make the mosaics, for instance we have BBC1, BBC 2, ITV1, C4, Five at the start of the EPG. Sky don't have access directly to ITV for one, as it doesnt go through them, it goes from ITV to Arqiva London-Winchester-Morn Hill so they'd have to bring the video feed in to make their mosaic for this first page either off air or via an expensive video circuit. And if you do that for every channel thats uplinked by someone else thats going to get expensive unless you reorganise the EPG to fit around the content provider. And here's the problem in a nutshell. Also, BBC1 has 17 UK regions on satellite. BBC2 has four, ITV1 has 24, C4 has six (used for advertising only), so it would be impossible to do a matrix for these channels. http://www.ukfree.tv/helpme.php?faqid=10 http://www.ukfree.tv/maps.php Sorry if that last bit doesnt entirely make sense to some, I've got an image of the diagrams for a lot of these services in my head but its difficult to translate onto paper. It would be a nice idea tho! - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 10/23/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And here's the problem in a nutshell. Also, BBC1 has 17 UK regions on satellite. BBC2 has four, ITV1 has 24, C4 has six (used for advertising only), so it would be impossible to do a matrix for these channels. There are, I'm told, 28 effective regional combinations. It's not impossible, just very very improbable that you'd want to uplink 28 different mosaics containing Sky channels 101-104. - martin
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/10/2007, Duncan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/10/2007, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's just get this 100% clear: Sky DO NOT OWN THE ASTRA SATELLITES. I wasn't suggesting that Sky own the Astra fleet at all, I am quite aware of this. Surely as the platform provider Sky have a responsibility to monitor all the content broadcast through their systems (even if they don't own the satellites and just lease bandwidth)? It would've seemed a bit pointless to not have the facilities to monitor all the channels being broadcast. Andrew's got in before me and is right, no Sky arent responsible directly for every channel (although its still the biggest MCR I've been in to date so they are monitoring more than they playout). I suppose the responsibility is between the channel playout center and whoever is uplinking will also have monitoring of various sorts although it won't always be people looking at monitors, most of the time its automatic video and freeze frame detection kit. When I was at BT Broadcast, we did indeed monitor all these kinds of things, both for Sky and other broadcasters. Whilst putting up some of the channels on screens was one option - it certainly wasn't mosaics - either the picture went onto a dedicated small monitor on a video wall or to an operator's dedicated monitor (using a video switch). Ahh, your ex BT, I was wondering...! We developed some sophisticated kit that can sit at various parts of the broadcast network and detect problems that the human eye wouldn't even be able to detect, especially from a multi screen. For example, any break in the audio (a few second of silence) or problems with the technical nature of the picture would result in an alarm. Depending on where the actual fault originated in the network, you would get a single alarm or the whole network lighting up red. Yes I've seen a few of the current incarnations around the place, 1U units with a load of twinkling LED's, ASI/SDI inputs and network outs. We've got various similar bits, mainly in house built as well. Sometimes this could have quite humour effects - we had a contract with C4 for delivery of their channel around the UK. The whole annual value of the contract was due to be repaid if thirty-seconds of downtime happened during the year. One day, C4 broadcast an obituary programme and left thirty seconds of silence at the end of the programme - unheard of. We had calibrated our instruments to regard more than five seconds of silence as a systematic failure, so six seconds into the silence the monitoring systems, then the Master Control Room and then every automatic escalation notification system went nuts. Thankfully as it didn't really happen, we didn't have to repay the £4m to C4. As Chris mentioned, its a value added sort of thing, its not a direct money maker but might encourage people to subscribe to channels they don't have. I do however take Andrews point that it is a lot of 'pages'. Which equals a lot of expensive equipment to make it happen for every channel. Even if you had 8 channels on each 'page', which is about as many as I reckon you'd get away with thats still quite a large number of pages. And you would get into all the usual arguments about 'prominence'... Yes, I guess you'd have to have it the same as the EPG. Added to that the complexities of bringing the channels together to make the mosaics, for instance we have BBC1, BBC 2, ITV1, C4, Five at the start of the EPG. Sky don't have access directly to ITV for one, as it doesnt go through them, it goes from ITV to Arqiva London-Winchester-Morn Hill so they'd have to bring the video feed in to make their mosaic for this first page either off air or via an expensive video circuit. And if you do that for every channel thats uplinked by someone else thats going to get expensive unless you reorganise the EPG to fit around the content provider. And here's the problem in a nutshell. Also, BBC1 has 17 UK regions on satellite. BBC2 has four, ITV1 has 24, C4 has six (used for advertising only), so it would be impossible to do a matrix for these channels. Yes the regions would make it even more difficult to justify the expense! Its possible at a user end to implement but only for the technically minded, a chap I know had a linux box with a couple of DVB-T cards which was multicasting the transport streams around the house network, you could then in theory make up a mosaic on whichever PC you were using, but thats not practical or a more widely applicable solution. It would be possible for individual broadcasters to do something like this in the form of an interactive application but not really feasible for Sky to do it directly. If you were sending a video stream containing say 12 channels as a single split screen you then use the set-top
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle... On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 07:12, Brian Butterworth wrote: Erm, yeah, I know. I did stuff like this in the past. What I meant was it was not possible to implement it in the set-top box (Sky Digibox). Actually Sky *could* do that. The processing power may be massively underpowered (no idea of spec, but I'm assuming v low performance), but a Sky+ box could certainly be changed (by sky) to do this. Sky+ boxes, of course, have two tuners, Sky boxes only the one. After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it? * Second tuner that's usually idle (got that, except when recording a channel you're not watching) Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in the box. Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a Sky+ box - you get a oh no you don't message. * A disk store (got that) Which can't be used by interactive services... sorry. * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that) In fact, you cannot do this. The OpenTV software has no grab facility. Remember the apps have two layers - one is a 256-colour-palette one used for rendining the text onto which some static images delivered from the carousel can be used. * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that) The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to blitter, but you have to do it by hand too... * A means of tiling images, and then having a selection UI. OK, it can do this! Pretty much every thing needed (by Sky) is there. That linux based sky receiver (Dreambox?) is probably moddable as a DIY, but I guess would have dubious legality. Indeed, you could do it using Windows Media Center and a DVB-S card too... For the limited subset of image processing required, storage and UI display, I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it. The advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to. If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around since 1998... (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in time, potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.) I'm not sure how useful... On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by didn't share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintained (but didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical ordering), it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping it relevant. (result from web caching UI window buffer placement caching) If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't subscribe to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter... Michael - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Michael, On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 13:36, Brian Butterworth wrote: Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle... ... After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it? Sky+ box of course. * Second tuner that's usually idle Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in the box. Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a Sky+ box - you get a oh no you don't message. So, in short, you're saying that they can't change the way they can use the box? I don't buy that for a second. :-) Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky? The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like: * If not recording, * If not in EPG, * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk BSkyB say that you cannot. If you wish to run an OpenTV application on the box you have to follow the Sky rules, which are somewhat onerous and do not allow access to the EPG or hard drive. * A disk store (got that) Which can't be used by interactive services... sorry. Who said anything about this being an interactive service? You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press. Perhaps application - meaning not just watching the TV - would have been a better word.. * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that) In fact, you cannot do this. *I* can't you're right, but it runs software. Software can be changed. If Sky wanted to do it, they could. (eg, it changed when they added the Anytime service) But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video buffer are not available in OpenTV. It's not MY rules... * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that) The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to blitter, but you have to do it by hand too... Not exactly difficult. No, but as you can't capture the image in the first place, academic. I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it. The advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to. If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around since 1998... Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile. I don't think Sky do worthwhile, they only do profitable. (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in time, potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.) I'm not sure how useful... See - that's what I meant above when I said they might not have thought it worth while :-) If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on Box Office and the movie channels would surely have been a priority? On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by didn't share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintaine (but didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical ordering), it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping it relevant. (result from web caching UI window buffer placement caching) If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't subscribe to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter... Not quite the same, but the grid view of favourites is pretty close. ie press tv guide, press blue button ? You can only have 20 favourites though. The default should be to list channels you can access, with a button to press to see them all. But the EPG is not driven by user requirements, but by Sky's sales requirements. Favourites themselves would be irrelevent with a LFU-time option of listing channels, and it could also be ordered by the likelihood you are to want to watch the channel. You wouldn't see channels you're not sub'd to because you wouldn't watch them. Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being shared devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal. Auto favourites is fine, but they only work on a personal basis. However, Sky might not like that because it discourages you from knowing what you're missing - cf the interleaving of the Sky Movies HD1,Sky Movies SD1, Sky Movies HD2, Sky Movies SD2 channels. By forcing you to skip past them its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ). (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use favourites) Yes, that is the idea, you should be able to get a job at Sky now :-) Similarly if you could look at a grid of video and see that
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 15:36, Brian Butterworth wrote: .. Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky? No, it's a random set of thoughts about something which is eminently doable if you completely control the hardware software platform, which Sky do. The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like: * If not recording, * If not in EPG, * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk BSkyB say that you cannot. _Sky_ can change their own rules to make it so that _they_ can run an application on the system that does this. Who said anything about this being an interactive service? You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press. Perhaps application - meaning not just watching the TV - would have been a better word.. Same difference on a machine I don't control. (A web service such as Gmail is both a service an application) But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video buffer are not available in OpenTV. It's not MY rules... If you control the platform, because its a closed system, you can do pretty much what you like. Like, for example, change the software. Unless of course Sky did something really (not-bright) like make it impossible *FOR THEM* to update the actual software on the system. (rather than just any open tv apps on the system). (Why dumb? Every piece of software has bugs and bug fixes are the most obvious reason to need to update the software) Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile. I don't think Sky do worthwhile, they only do profitable. *shrug* When I said worthwhile I meant worthwhile to them. That means profitable, or as something which they think will be popular and help sell more subscriptions. (which boils down to the same thing) If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on Box Office and the movie channels would surely have been a priority? I dunno. Their business, not mine. They *do* do promo clips of movies though on the Anytime service on a Sky+ box. Anyway, you're convinced they can't do it. I maintain that _Sky_ could do this if they want to because at the end of the day software can be updated and changed (sans caveat above), and its not a particularly difficult thing to do. You can only have 20 favourites though. 50. Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being shared devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal. Auto favourites is fine, but they only work on a personal basis. No, not with LFU, it'd still make a difference. (If you wanted to be fancy you could have it tempered by the LFU counts for each hour). Least frequently used policies in web caches work particularly well for example, even where the groups of people are very disparate groups. By forcing you to skip past them its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ). (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use favourites) Yes, that is the idea, you should be able to get a job at Sky now :-) Heh. :-) Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On Tuesday 23 October 2007 13:36, Brian Butterworth wrote: Without doubting that it's a good idea in principle... ... After all, what facilities would you need on a Sky box to do it? Sky+ box of course. * Second tuner that's usually idle Ah, and being used to provide the EPG, of course, as it is not cached in the box. Try recording two things at once and then using the EPG on a Sky+ box - you get a oh no you don't message. So, in short, you're saying that they can't change the way they can use the box? I don't buy that for a second. :-) The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like: * If not recording, * If not in EPG, * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk * A disk store (got that) Which can't be used by interactive services... sorry. Who said anything about this being an interactive service? * A means of storing capturing images from the transport stream (got that) In fact, you cannot do this. *I* can't you're right, but it runs software. Software can be changed. If Sky wanted to do it, they could. (eg, it changed when they added the Anytime service) * A means of resizing images (the interactive portion requires that) The images cannot be captured in the first place, so you may be able to blitter, but you have to do it by hand too... Not exactly difficult. I'd be very surprised if a Sky+ box couldn't be modified by Sky to do it. The advantage of doing it in the box I suppose is that it'd be able to pick up your favourites (if set) and what channels you're subscribed to. If Sky could do this, they would have already done it, it's been around since 1998... Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile. (nb, I'm not talking about a mosaic of small video clips, rather a mosaic of images, which is much more trivial, and is taken at a sensible point in time, potentially just as useful. Unless it hits an ad.) I'm not sure how useful... See - that's what I meant above when I said they might not have thought it worth while :-) On the subject of favourites, I just wish that the Sky box tracked (by didn't share) what channels you normally watch by frequency and then maintaine (but didn't share!) a menu sorted by least/most frequently used channel. (which gives you an approximation of your favourite channels for free) If you do that using the stats from a ring buffer (as well as an historical ordering), it tracks how your tastes change with time pretty much for free, keeping it relevant. (result from web caching UI window buffer placement caching) If the damn boxes would allow you to remove the channels you don't subscribe to from the EPG, we would be onto a starter... Not quite the same, but the grid view of favourites is pretty close. ie press tv guide, press blue button ? Favourites themselves would be irrelevent with a LFU-time option of listing channels, and it could also be ordered by the likelihood you are to want to watch the channel. You wouldn't see channels you're not sub'd to because you wouldn't watch them. However, Sky might not like that because it discourages you from knowing what you're missing - cf the interleaving of the Sky Movies HD1,Sky Movies SD1, Sky Movies HD2, Sky Movies SD2 channels. By forcing you to skip past them its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ). (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use favourites) Similarly if you could look at a grid of video and see that there was nothing worth watching on, it'd reduce channel hopping and accidental advertising somewhat. Again, not necessarily in a commercial operator's best interest. Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 23/10/2007, Michael Sparks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 23 October 2007 15:36, Brian Butterworth wrote: .. Have you ever even tried suggesting this to Sky? No, it's a random set of thoughts about something which is eminently doable if you completely control the hardware software platform, which Sky do. In fact that's only partly true. Sky bought in the OpenTV platform, so are restricted to what that will do. Also, Sky have made commitments to the OFT and Ofcom about access to the platform too, after they used it's restrictions to get money out of other broadcasters. One example, is that BBC's News Multiscreen and text service was available months before Sky News' service, but the BBC's service was delayed in testing until the Sky service had launched. The usage of the second tuner therefore becomes something like: * If not recording, * If not in EPG, * Periodically, scan channels, grab frames, dump to disk BSkyB say that you cannot. _Sky_ can change their own rules to make it so that _they_ can run an application on the system that does this. But the rules are there to make the most money for Sky, not to facilitate software development... Who said anything about this being an interactive service? You did when you mentioned having some buttons to press. Perhaps application - meaning not just watching the TV - would have been a better word.. Same difference on a machine I don't control. (A web service such as Gmail is both a service an application) I was referring to the OpenTV system, anything on the box that isn't just watching TV is an application in that content. Semantics, sorry. But the box uses an overlay to do the video, the contents of the video buffer are not available in OpenTV. It's not MY rules... If you control the platform, because its a closed system, you can do pretty much what you like. Like, for example, change the software. Unless of course Sky did something really (not-bright) like make it impossible *FOR THEM* to update the actual software on the system. (rather than just any open tv apps on the system). (Why dumb? Every piece of software has bugs and bug fixes are the most obvious reason to need to update the software) Yes, but as I said before, the OpenTV system does not provide programming access to the video overlay, so it is not possible to grab a screen from a channel. Also, if the tuner changes channel, it will have to be retuned back to give access back the programme carousel. Not necessarily - they might not simply have thought it worthwhile. I don't think Sky do worthwhile, they only do profitable. *shrug* When I said worthwhile I meant worthwhile to them. That means profitable, or as something which they think will be popular and help sell more subscriptions. (which boils down to the same thing) They have sold quite a few without this, I note. If it was worthwhile, then promo clips of the movies on Box Office and the movie channels would surely have been a priority? I dunno. Their business, not mine. They *do* do promo clips of movies though on the Anytime service on a Sky+ box. True. Anyway, you're convinced they can't do it. I maintain that _Sky_ could do this if they want to because at the end of the day software can be updated and changed (sans caveat above), and its not a particularly difficult thing to do. You can only have 20 favourites though. 50. Since when? Once again this falls back to the problem with televisions being shared devices, unlike a PC or mobile phone which is personal. Auto favourites is fine, but they only work on a personal basis. No, not with LFU, it'd still make a difference. (If you wanted to be fancy you could have it tempered by the LFU counts for each hour). Least frequently used policies in web caches work particularly well for example, even where the groups of people are very disparate groups. I imagine that might be true, do you have some more research on this one? By forcing you to skip past them its a constant reminder that you *don't* have Sky HD (if you don't :) ). (favourites do enable that, but I've no idea how many people use favourites) Yes, that is the idea, you should be able to get a job at Sky now :-) Heh. :-) I don't know anyone who thinks it is sensible for the non-Sky HD boxes to report the non-HD channels... Michael. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Christopher Woods wrote: Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no channels at each hundred's -00 (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too). There's some tricky architectural and copyright issues associated with that idea - it's a bit trickier than having the buttons available on the remotes. Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use. There might well be issues related to rights-clearing the service for rebroadcasting each channel in miniature, too, especially if it gave people access to picture from channels they weren't subscribed to. And then there's the requirement for satellite space to carry the service, which wouldn't necessarily be suitable for conventional advertising. Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box makes it too expensive). Grr. No idea on this one, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the same situation as you. You might want to consider a subscription-free Freesat PVR, when they launch. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 22/10/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher Woods wrote: Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no channels at each hundred's -00 (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too). There's some tricky architectural and copyright issues associated with that idea - it's a bit trickier than having the buttons available on the remotes. Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use. There might well be issues related to rights-clearing the service for rebroadcasting each channel in miniature, too, especially if it gave people access to picture from channels they weren't subscribed to. And then there's the requirement for satellite space to carry the service, which wouldn't necessarily be suitable for conventional advertising. And as all channels are on loads of different transponders, it would be impossible to do the service using the box, it would take several seconds even just to do freeze frames, if were even possible to grab these and store them in the box... Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box makes it too expensive). Grr. No idea on this one, but I'm sure there are lots of people in the same situation as you. You might want to consider a subscription-free Freesat PVR, when they launch. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On Monday 22 October 2007 11:14, Steve Jolly wrote: Sky don't necessarily have access to the channels that form part of their platform other than by pointing a dish at the satellite constellation and decoding them like a consumer, which wouldn't necessarily be reliable enough for broadcast critical use You could probably do this though: 1 Have a list of channels, with tuner details 2 Pass the tuner details into something that can loop through the tuner details and tune in 3 Set that going and have it spit out frames 4 Have something connected to that that detects shot changes 5 Take the first a an image after a shot change, and turn that into a thumbnail for that channel. 6 Continue looping through the channels Using that it'd be relatively easy for someone to create a simple web page (eg 6*8) which points at this, meaning you can get an updating view of what's being broadcast right at that moment but without it being actually watchable (if you see what I mean). I suspect (but don't know) that that may actually be OK under _fair dealing_ aspect of copyright because you wouldn't be storing or making available an archive of the pictures, just a snapshot of what is on right now. (I'm not a lawyer, if someone put this on the net I'd suggest triple checking that first :-) I'm pretty certain for personal use this would be OK though - after all locally it'd be not *too* much different from picture in picture or something some DVB software already does (sans shot change/web page)). The above looks _relatively_ simple to do using Kamaelia. 1 Would be just read from a file and pumped into a Kamaelia.Util.Chooser.Chooser 2 Would be Kamaelia.Chassis.Carousel.Carousel component creating Kamaelia.Device.DVB.Tuner.Tuner components. How you get it to spit out frames is up to you. (can think of a few ways, the easiest being shelling out to a unix frames). You'd need something to check that the frames coming out are valid, since I've noticed that some DVB cards get their knickers in a twist. 3 Is just an instantiation, of this. 4 Plug in the ShotChange detection component in: Kamaelia.Video.DetectShotChanges.DetectShotChanges 5 Pass that through convert, again via UnixProcess For fun you could also spit out the EIT (what's on now) information, using: Kamaelia.Device.DVB.EIT.EITPacketParser And use that to associate with the picture. Add on a nice front end, and that could be quite a nice pretty front end. Could probably get 25 -30 screens visible quite nicely/quickly that way. (Though it'd probably look nicer with 15 - 20) Probably make quite a nice simple, quick project for someone to do. After all its just a matter of passing the data flow from one component to the next. Not particularly different from doing a mashup, just using TV/DVB content rather than web. (Though easy to skip betwen the 3 domains of TV, file system web) http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Components would be a good starting point, as would the code for Macro - http://tinyurl.com/2j9kvw . I'm actually half tempted to do this, but couldn't do the encrypted channels on Sky - which is a pity since a lot of what I watch is on Sky 1/2, movies, SciFi, etc. Regards, Michael. -- ( http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home ) (Have filled in some context since I'm aware others would miss the context :-) - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Sparks Sent: 22 October 2007 14:01 snip I'm actually half tempted to do this, but couldn't do the encrypted channels on Sky - which is a pity since a lot of what I watch is on Sky 1/2, movies, SciFi, etc. Regards, Michael. Blimey, you took my idea to the next level! I'd love to do that... Except I haven't got half the brains to do so :D Wish I did though, my knowledge lies elsewhere presently. :( Going back to mosaics, I'm fairly sure Sky could do it because don't they have monitor (or at least have the ability to monitor) every channel being broadcast at any time from their NOC? The way it's done on CanalSat is the mosaic's presented as a full-frame live video stream, and all the rendering's done at their end (so in effect you just get a regular TV channel) except when you load the channel up, it loads the interactive element - a small red square which frames the channel currently selected (starting at the top left) - and plays the audio for the related channel (often in lower quality, so it sounds like substreams). If you preview a channel you're not subscribed to for more than around 30 seconds, the audio cuts out and (if memory serves) a small banner appears prompting you to subscribe to view the channel (not interrupting the interactive experience though, I think it comes up overlaid inside the currently-selected-video box). As all the P-in-P rendering is done at their end, you just page through the video screens - 4x4 boxes per page, so I guess you're choosing more video substreams every time you page back and forth. It's a really neat way of doing things, and I was very impressed with it. Astra have their own Astra-branded mosaics of their own channels (both radio and video on several mosaics) so I'm not sure whether it's an Astra or a CanalSat thing, but either way it's pretty cool. And if CanalSat can do it, surely it can't be *that* tough to negotiate similar rights for a similar UK device? If anything I'd regard the ability to see an (albeit tiny) video window of a channel you don't subscribe to as a potential incentive to upgrade your package, especially if there's something on you'd like to watch but can't! Of course, as we all know, broadcast rights is a minefield, I can only approach this from the logical common-sense point of view, but it still seems like a good idea. /thinking aloud - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Going back to mosaics, I'm fairly sure Sky could do it because don't they have monitor (or at least have the ability to monitor) every channel being broadcast at any time from their NOC? The way it's done on CanalSat is the mosaic's presented as a full-frame live video stream, and all the ...but can't! Of course, as we all know, broadcast rights is a minefield, I can only approach this from the logical common-sense point of view, but it still seems like a good idea. Ahh its done at the head end, I was wondering how else you'd do video previews across several mux's! Now I think about it, I do remember someone doing something along these lines at my college a few years ago on a local DVB-C system. I don't know why Sky would be so against it, after all there are some services on Sky which use a similar principle for full screen video. NHS direct for instance is based on a number of quad-split video feeds which are then enlarged by the set-top box at the user end. Perhaps its changed now but it was still being done like that in January. - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Here's a thought... On Sky, and on cable too (right?) there's no channels at each hundred's -00 (100, 200, 300 etc). Why not do some interactive service which shows realtime mosaics, just like like CanalSatellite and Astra do in Europe? That'd be smashing. I've emailed Sky about that in the past and like hell did they take any notice :D but I think that'd be a genuinely useful feature, far simple than flicking through an EPG - just skimread the screen to see if you recognise anything on, or if you see something you might find interesting? arrow button across to it and there we go. The buttons are already there on the Sky remotes (and most if not all Freeview remotes, too). Another annoyance for me with Sky is that when you're on the Now Next banner, you can go up and down to view different channels, but you can only see what's on next when you're actually *on* the channel. CanalSatellite, right from the outset, let you see now and next epg info for the channel you're on AND any channel you flick to on the Now Next banner (so you didn't have to change channel to see what would be shown next on another, if you catch my drift). I emailed Sky about that too, no response. Anyway, back to my original thought - does anybody think that Sky will EVER offer the + functionality for free or a one-off payment? It'd kill me to finally get Sky in my own place and not have Sky+, especially as I had to put up with my Dad's resistance against getting Sky+ in our house when I was younger (he still doesn't have it, says installation and box makes it too expensive). Grr. _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Butterworth Sent: 19 October 2007 13:18 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee On 19/10/2007, Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Bowden wrote: There's no technical reason - it's just the business model. Sky+ has been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn. The idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people. And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings. With a Sky+ they are already there. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not Freesat-from-Sky) launches. * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html Indeed it will. Will Ofcom have to control the channel numbers - they took away telephone number allocation away from BT. It would make so much sense for the same numbers to be used for the same channels on different platforms. It's like a weird mental sudoku to remember channel numbers and TV captions and listing magazines are confusing! Also, it would remove a pointless secondary market in the numbers. S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv http://www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 19/10/2007, Christopher Woods [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you want to get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite entitled to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE to pay £10 a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether you're on one of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer, and you then get tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge. Apparently it's a legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read: absorbed, I suppose) the £10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly don't charge anybody for it, why can't they offer it free (and charge more for the box)? http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051248 I wrote... BSkyB subscribers will no longer have to pay to retain the personal video recorder facilities from 1 July 2007. If you have stopped subscribing and wish your Sky+ box to be restored to full function you simply have to subscribe to the lowest level Sky package. Alternatively, ex-subscribers will now be allowed to use the device with the Freesat channels, but this will retain the £10 charge. In effect you can now pay £15 per month for 2 mixes and have Sky+ (was £25) or pay £10 per month for just the Freesat channels. Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on here who have some decent Sky knowledge :) -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Andrew Bowden wrote: There's no technical reason - it's just the business model. Sky+ has been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn. The idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people. And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings. With a Sky+ they are already there. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the entirely subscription-free Freesat service (the BBC/ITV initiative*, not Freesat-from-Sky) launches. * http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/27_04_2007.html S - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
There's no technical reason - it's just the business model. Sky+ has been used to try and keep you subscribing - to reduce their churn. The idea that your PVR is about to stop working when you stop subscribing no doubt panics people. And of course TiVo did the same - £10 a month for listings as well, although in that case they did actually have to provide the listings. With a Sky+ they are already there. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christopher Woods Sent: 19 October 2007 09:41 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee Thinking about Sky's power over us, my housemate told me that if you want to get Freesat (or their £75 one-off offer which gives you six months of knowledge mixes and then after that, just freesat) then you're quite entitled to do so, no problems. But, if you want to get a Sky+ box, you HAVE to pay £10 a month for the timeshifting functionality regardless of whether you're on one of their packages or whether you're just a Freesat customer, and you then get tied into a 12 month contract just for the £10pm charge. Apparently it's a legal thing... But why? If they've dropped (read: absorbed, I suppose) the £10pcm cost for the timeshifting and outwardly don't charge anybody for it, why can't they offer it free (and charge more for the box)? Just thought I'd ask seeming that there's more than a few people on here who have some decent Sky knowledge :)
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 18/10/2007, James Cridland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/11/07, Brian Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But Sky are in a powerful position because they run the conditional access system AND the EPG on satellite, which puts them in a very powerful position... Sky's EPG is run by a separate company, albeit wholly Sky-owned. It is prohibited by law from charging different sums to different people for the same thing, and also prohibited by law from favouring one broadcaster over another within the EPG. Sky-owned channels have no higher precedence than non-Sky channels; and the rules for EPG placement are laid down by Ofcom. Sky don't allocate EPG numbers until right before a channel launch (much to my irritation in a previous life), but that's related to the onerous rules they run under. Similarly, Freesat, Freeview, and the Virgin Media EPG are all governed by similar rules. It's easy to point to Sky as being the big boogieman; but no, Sky aren't as powerful as you might think. No? http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/broadcastnowArticle.aspx?intStoryID=171575 //j -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee? Anyone want tostart one? On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in the world. The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment. Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and should not compete in the market place. Gordo -- 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/ - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
There probably is. And no. I would sell my house and all my possessions to help the BBC. Cheers, Rich. On 10/12/07, dantes inferno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee? Anyone want tostart one? On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in the world. The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment. Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and should not compete in the market place. Gordo -- 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/ - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Like democracy, the licence fee is the least worst way of having a BBC. Other opinions are available. On 12/10/2007, Richard Lockwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There probably is. And no. I would sell my house and all my possessions to help the BBC. Cheers, Rich. On 10/12/07, dantes inferno [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is there a campaign anywhere to abolish the license fee? Anyone want tostart one? On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in the world. The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment. Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and should not compete in the market place. Gordo -- 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/ - 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/ -- SilverDisc Ltd is registered in England no. 2798073 Registered address: 4 Swallow Court, Kettering, Northamptonshire, NN15 6XX -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content? J On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary that makes profits, in much the same way. BBC - not for profit corporation. BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit. Gordo At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: [...] Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has been important for us and them. [...] And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could not be justified, could it? Gordo - 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/ -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary that makes profits, in much the same way. BBC - not for profit corporation. BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit. Gordo At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: [...] Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has been important for us and them. [...] And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could not be justified, could it? no, iirc that investment came from World Serivice (funded by Grant In Aid from the Foriegn Office), since international news was under the perview of World Service rather than BBC Worldwide. The Foreign Office refused to continue this arrangement cos it prefered World Service to focus on BBC Arabic TV / Farsi - hence the adverts on BBC.com debate. - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, this is true. And a charity can have wholly owned subsidiary that makes profits, in much the same way. BBC - not for profit corporation. BBC Worldwide - a global company that makes a profit. Gordo At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: [...] Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has been important for us and them. [...] And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). And somebody paid for the server farm in New York for BBC News Online, and I don't think it was the licence fee, since that could not be justified, could it? It could be easily justified as there are many licence fee payers who visit the US in the course of a year. Gordo - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content? J Both are just as bad? Gordo -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content? J Both are just as bad? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 11/10/2007, Jason Cartwright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). In a way it's always been true. The sellers of radios and televisions down the years and the manufacturers have always been a gatekeeper in that sense. But there is a difference with Google (you don't NEED Google to use BBC online content, it just helps). But Sky are in a powerful position because they run the conditional access system AND the EPG on satellite, which puts them in a very powerful position... J On 11/10/2007, Gordon Joly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 10:25 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: And what bugs me is when companies Microsoft (and the rest) deal with the BBC (e.g. when the BBC included a BBC channel in the release of IE4) and not the commercial arm (BBC Worldwide). How is that deal any different than using Sky as a route to market for free-at-point-of-consumption public service content? J Both are just as bad? Gordo -- Think Feynman/ http://pobox.com/~gordo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]/// -- Jason Cartwright Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing [EMAIL PROTECTED] +44(0)2070313161 -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
At 17:12 +0100 11/10/07, Jason Cartwright wrote: Well, like it or not big corps are often the gatekeepers sat between the audience masses and content owners. That doesn't seem to be changing (*cough* Google). J And there you have the case in point. Auntie, for better or worse, is the best we have. Radio, television, and now Internet. BBC Worldservice is a world brand, because of the quality and the veracity of the content. It never had to sell itself, it just was on the only voice of authority and truth that reason so many nations in the world. The masses can have the mass media. I want quality. At the moment for me that means Radio 4. I don't do telly at the moment. Public service broadcasting (the BBC, Channel 4 etc) cannot and should not compete in the market place. Gordo -- 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/
RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
But the BBC is a corporation, and not a company? It has no need to make profits, for example. Gordo BBC Worldwide Ltd is a part of the BBC which needs to make profits. The profits go back into the BBC corporation to help pay for all the things the corporation wants to do. http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/bbcworldwide/worldwidestories/pressrele ases/2007/06_june/annual_review_2006_07.shtml Kevin. -- 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/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 10/8/07, Gavin Montague [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct. The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC wasn't relevant to them as developers. As consumers, yes, but as developers, no. Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't relevant to them as developers? Yes, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but I'm also genuinely (if possibly naively) wondering about these questions. Is it just part of the way everyone in the UK feels the BBC should be more relevant to their individual needs because they pay for it directly (rather than indirectly) and developers are no different? Or is there a reason why the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than all other UK media organisations do? Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting to be an internet startup. -- http://www.gyford.com/ - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Gyford Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:01 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee On 10/8/07, Gavin Montague [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct. The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC wasn't relevant to them as developers. As consumers, yes, but as developers, no. Why *should* the BBC be relevant to them as developers? Were they also complaining about all the other large media organisations that weren't relevant to them as developers? Yes, I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but I'm also genuinely (if possibly naively) wondering about these questions. Is it just part of the way everyone in the UK feels the BBC should be more relevant to their individual needs because they pay for it directly (rather than indirectly) and developers are no different? Or is there a reason why the BBC should be providing tools for developers to do stuff more than all other UK media organisations do? Part of me wonders whether the BBC should get on with making good content, telling stories, (whether on- or offline) and stop attempting to be an internet startup. I think that's part of the answer: the content. As the national broadcaster of record, the BBC has the largest pool of content available in this country (and probably many others). In some sense this content 'belongs' to us, even if only as a component of shared culture or cultures. Part of the BBC's responsibility is to make that content available to those it belongs to. If that includes tools for developers to access and aggregate that content to be able to re-present it, then that is what they should provide. The BBC is, for better or worse, in this country subject to different rules and constraints to other broadcasters (though Channel 4 shares - or at least should share - some of the same ethos) because of its place in national culture and its public funding. * To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://www.hull.ac.uk/legal/email_disclaimer.html *
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
So yes once again there are some good points in the thread. We have been knocking on peoples doors about more feeds and api's and I do believe once we have the API gateway system in place, you guys will finally see more of them. Also look out for more diverse API's because the API gateway should protect almost any kind of API we want to make public. Oh and don't get me started on the API will be the Accessibility of Web 2.0 thread. :) Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has been important for us and them. Not only because of the big events like Hackday (who else would put on such an event?) but because we can collaborate in a way that no one else would ever dare. For example we're still in talks with some large companies and a couple of government agencies about making there API's available under our licence. Who else would they trust with there data? The sponsorship of events is always going to be tricky, but we tend to sponsor small grassroots events. D.construct is bigger that ever before and we were one of the original sponsors back 3 years ago when it was just a small one day conference. This year we again sponsored D.construct and paid for the Food and Venue of the after party at Audio (Yahoo paid for the drinks [1]). I even got up on stage and said this to the huge crowd of developers. And _everyone_ agrees that the after party at Audio this year was the best ever. On the sponsorship front, we are also going to start supporting even smaller grassroot events by giving each event organiser a chance to put forward themselves for sponsorship. This means your local Ruby, Python, SVG, XSL group could afford that venue room which has been out of the question. Least we forget the University work we have been doing to increase the profile of development in the UK economy. We're not going to change the face of education but with partners from the Angel funding and Venture sectors, we will see more respect for developers in the future. And this is just the start... We do believe in this sector and the BBC is in it for the long term. We haven't always been as transparent as we could have been, for example the Backstage Wild West servers we announced at Hackday have been up and running for months now. But that's changing... We aim to be a lot more transparent and as the number of participators (developers, designers, bloggers, hackers, etc, etc) grows, we will stay relevant and facilitate there deeper relationship with the BBC. Take care, Ian Forrester [1] Great picture Murray from Yahoo with the drinks bill, notice the Backstage Lanyard btw - http://www.flickr.com/photos/cubicgarden/1356473775/ Matthew Cashmore wrote: There are some really fair points here... Firstly I think the BBC is a lot more relevant to developers than most other broadcasters - I think backstage is testament to that - but I also don't think that we've necessarily made ourselves as relevant as we could. I think we've all been disappointed by the lack of new APIs and feeds that we've released over the last 12 months - no excuses - this is because we've been focusing on being part of the community, being at the conferences and talking to people about what they want.. .this has perhaps left us with a little less internal work than we may have otherwise done... But... What it has achieved is a much bigger buy-in to what we want to do - we've essentially been running around inside the beeb shouting - developers are cool! Work with them. Now we have to concentrate on making that stuff actually available to you - part of that is the new website, part of that is the new totally developer focused list, and part of that is us spending more of our time making these things actually available and working. Giving you the tools to really get inside the beeb and it's systems. To that end we've been working really hard on getting an API gateway online - that's nearly complete - we've been working really hard on making sure that when an API goes live it's properly documented etc... All of these things take time, and I'll be the first to admit that releasing new feeds and APIs has therefore taken a knock. I asked the developer list last week what feeds and APIs they want to see - that is now my number one priority - actually making that stuff available. Ian is furiously typing away right now about the importance of working with the rest of the industry and encouraging developer growth within the UK... Coming soon to an email client near you. m On 9/10/07 11:47, Phil Gyford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/9/07, Gavin Montague [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No one I spoke to said that Channel 4 wasn't relevant to them as developers. However, Channel 4 hadn't shelled out to sponsor a web development conference. Fair enough - I wasn't aware of the sponsorship thing. I'm inclined to think they should stop producing cruft like Strictly Come Dancing
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
At 14:09 +0100 9/10/07, Mr I Forrester wrote: [...] Our partnerships with other large companies like Yahoo and Google has been important for us and them. [...] But the BBC is a corporation, and not a company? It has no need to make profits, for example. Gordo -- 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/
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of the night. I can't help but feel I saw the evidence of this at dconstruct07. Of all the sponsors I talked to, I think the BBC were the only one without anything to push. I spoke to Adobe people about AIR; Magdex people who were sniffing for new talent; Yahoo people who were demoing the Flickr API... The BBC were giving away t-shirts and, um, that was about it. Oh, and key lanyards too*. I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single online project where I could say there, the BBC are leading the way.. At the risk of showing my ignorance; perhaps a web section of the BBC should be split off with a different mandate. G * Auntie also paid for the bar afterwards, I think. ;-) Gavin Montague Web Development Design http://www.leftbrained.co.uk 07940705445 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Leftbrained is a limited company registered in Edinburgh. Registered number: SC324218. Registered office: 3.1 17 Nairn St, Glasgow, G3 8SE. On 3 Oct 2007, at 02:56, Mr I Forrester wrote: http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/ bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single online project where I could say there, the BBC are leading the way.. At the risk of showing my ignorance; perhaps a web section of the BBC should be split off with a different mandate. tum tee tum http://www.openmedianetwork.org.uk/anewapproach/default.htm - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
I don't mean to sound snide, but I'd struggle to point to a single online project where I could say there, the BBC are leading the way.. Actually the BBC once did a promo advert with John Cleese mimicing the Life of Brian's what have the romans ever given us. (its got space invaders in the background). It was a while ago mind. the licence fee was £58. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UWdqzfzDO20 Ok. I'll have a go... - the leading pre-school website, certainly in the UK if not the world. - millions of hours of radio listening on demand every month and more than any other website in the world. - probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK - the UK's leading mobile service. - nearly 13 years of BBC News online, drm free podcasts (first in UK), 90% of teenagers using a BBC online revision service every year cont'd p94..yawn yawn. please shut up BBC fanboy...sorry staffer we're not bad at that thing called interactive telly either. (does that count ?) (Tom - stop being cheeky. You've only been gone a few weeks.) Jem
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
On 08/10/2007, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was with you up until this point: - probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK But that's probably just because I can't stand Radio 1... Personally I think a much more valuable contribution to society, and somewhere where the Beeb is defiantly leading the way amongst traditional broadcasters is the BBC archivehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/login2.shtmlOK, it's still a trial but one of the best things that the BBC is offering at the moment. Along with Radio 4 and BBC online as a whole it's well worth the licence fee. The TV sure isn't, but that's not a problem exclusive to the Beeb. Vijay.
RE: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
indeed, 'pioneering' is in the eye of the beholder... (i'm thinking: radio 4, pioneering?!?!?!?!) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of vijay chopra Sent: Mon 10/8/2007 9:14 PM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee On 08/10/2007, Jeremy Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was with you up until this point: - probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK But that's probably just because I can't stand Radio 1... Personally I think a much more valuable contribution to society, and somewhere where the Beeb is defiantly leading the way amongst traditional broadcasters is the BBC archivehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/trial/login2.shtmlOK, it's still a trial but one of the best things that the BBC is offering at the moment. Along with Radio 4 and BBC online as a whole it's well worth the licence fee. The TV sure isn't, but that's not a problem exclusive to the Beeb. Vijay.
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Ok. I'll have a go... - the leading pre-school website, certainly in the UK if not the world. - millions of hours of radio listening on demand every month and more than any other website in the world. - probably the most pioneering (Radio 1) media brand online in the UK - the UK's leading mobile service. - nearly 13 years of BBC News online, drm free podcasts (first in UK), 90% of teenagers using a BBC online revision service every year cont'd p94..yawn yawn. please shut up BBC fanboy...sorry staffer That's me told ;-) Fair play, Jem, I should have thought of the podcasts seeing as how half of them are in my iTunes. However, I'll stand by my bitch/point about the beeb at dconstruct. The general consensus amongst the people I spoke to was that the BBC wasn't relevant to them as developers. As consumers, yes, but as developers, no. I agree that my first statement was a bit inflammatory, inaccurate and not really what I meant to write. I should have said online service in the sense that, say, googlemaps, the Flickr API or Twitter are services. Going back to your list above - and I'm honestly not trying to troll - what is there that I can do with those resources as a developer? What access is there to that archive or online revision service other than via the latest-news feeds or screen-scraping? Gavin ps - I'm really, honestly not trolling, I swear! ;-) we're not bad at that thing called interactive telly either. (does that count ?) (Tom - stop being cheeky. You've only been gone a few weeks.) Jem - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Wasn't exactly what I was asking but there you go. I actually asked if Matt had noticed a natural cycle of communities starting, dying, reviving, peaking, dying... It was also in challenge to Matt saying he'd never seen a community die earlier in the talk. I'm not a keen metafilter person so prefered to hear what Derek Powazek had to say later to the same question. Because in his book design for communities he talks about this cycle in the last chapter as natural - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Jhvfh6thHS8C#reviews_anchor I'm surprised Bobbie hasn't said anything about my blog post yet, I know he's aware of it ;) Cheers Ian Brian Butterworth wrote: Ian Forrester from BBC Backstage asks how dying communities can revive themselves. (Wonder why?) http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/03/future_of_web_apps_metafiltercom.html Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv http://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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Thanks for finding this Ian. Got me thinking too. Jase said: Auntie likes to have few, big, expensive, milestone projects to burn the cash in a predictable manner, whereas the more flexible internet industry takes a gamble on many small, inexpensive, iterative projects. Please fail very quickly - so that you can try again - And Tom Coates (is this* the article you reference Ian? If not, could you dig it out please?): what makes me so surprised when people outside the organisation talk about how scared they are of the huge moves that the BBC can make on the internet, because the truth is that for the most part - with a bunch of limited exceptions - these changes just don't seem to be really happening. The industry should be more furious about the lack of progress at the organisation than the speed of it True dat. To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was called the wireless back then. His shows were some of the most innovative radio around. His process was iterative, he basically stayed in the studio all week noodling around to see what he thought worked and then delivered his show at the end of that week and let the audience see if that worked. One week development cycles out of which grew many larger and longer running fixtures of his show. Kenny had a vision - he was left alone to see it through. But due to the weekly cycles nothing grew so big or so involved that it couldn't have the plug pulled on it if he or his stakeholders so decided**. As a result, I suspect, little damage was done when it went wrong. And that, to my 1970s self, made the BBC great - it was THE place of innovation in content and technique. * http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/07/whos_afraid_of_ashley_highfie ld/ ** my source is the excellent but somewhat rose-tinted and sentimental audio documentary 'Kenny Everett at the Beeb' voiced by Barry Cryer: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kenny-Everett-Beeb-Presented-Collection/dp/05635 57117/ref=sr_1_22/203-0986040-9263968?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1191394985sr= 8-22 so I'm aware that this is open to question/ debate. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mr I Forrester Sent: 03 October 2007 02:57 To: BBC Backstage Subject: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of the night. http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_is nt_happening - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Thanks for posting this here Ian, I was too chicken. My blog is going nuts with hits from the BBC proxies :-) J On 10/3/07, Mr I Forrester [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of the night. http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was called the wireless back then. Now that is an interesting analogy. I wonder what software developed in a method such as John Peel used would be like? *Wanders off into silly ideas of thousands of programmers sending in their snippets of code and the great man playing with lots of them in a room to see which he liked and how they might fit together into a crazy mix of styles and languages*
Re: [backstage] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
To give away my age, I remember listening to Kenny Everett on what was called the wireless back then. Now that is an interesting analogy. I wonder what software developed in a method such as John Peel used would be like? *Wanders off into silly ideas of thousands of programmers sending in their snippets of code and the great man playing with lots of them in a room to see which he liked and how they might fit together into a crazy mix of styles and languages* And running on the wrong speed processors... Cheers, Rich. - 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] Thoughts from a previous BBC employee
Well it was worth linking to, I felt Jason Cartwright wrote: Thanks for posting this here Ian, I was too chicken. My blog is going nuts with hits from the BBC proxies :-) J On 10/3/07, *Mr I Forrester* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a similar vein to Tom Coates post a long time ago. Someone who loves the BBC but also hates some of the decisions it makes. Had me up most of the night. http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening http://www.jasoncartwright.com/blog/entry/2007/9/bbc.co.uk_2.0_why_it_isnt_happening - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk http://backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html 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/
