|
|
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
The BBC have changed their iPlayer system.
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/F7331803?thread=6504678 "We've just upgrade BBC iPlayer. This means you can now get HD programmes and BBC iPlayer Desktop now replaces Download Manager." Although it suggests that you should remove the Download Manager to save disk space (after you have watched any programmes you have still waiting to be watched), I found that, when I tried to download Ashes to Ashes, it wouldn't even download until I first had actually removed Download Manager. I then found that the download speed is laughably slow. Sometimes it is barely dial-up speed. You will see that there are a lot of complaints further down the page (again BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. I find that, instead of the fairly constant speed which I used to get, my downloads now come in bursts which peak at 400kb/s, then drop to zero. I'm presently persevering with Ashes to Ashes, which I started at 8am, and still have about 2 hours to go. I have to admit that don't use iPlayer downloads very much, but they are handy if you have missed something or, in the case of Ashes-to-Ashes, carefully recorded it with subtitles for a your wife, and then accidentally deleted it! -- Ian |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 22 Apr, 11:39, Ian Jackson
wrote: The BBC have changed their iPlayer system. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/F7331803?thread=6504678 "We've just upgrade BBC iPlayer. This means you can now get HD programmes and BBC iPlayer Desktop now replaces Download Manager." Although it suggests that you should remove the Download Manager to save disk space (after you have watched any programmes you have still waiting to be watched), I found that, when I tried to download Ashes to Ashes, it wouldn't even download until I first had actually removed Download Manager. No such problem here. btw, in addition to iPlayer Desktop, there's also "more downloads Windows Media Player" which allows you to directly download the same file format that was previously available through the old download manager. It downloads quickly enough here. However, the new 1500kbps version (available to stream and through iPlayer desktop) is usually higher quality than the old download format. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
Ian Jackson wrote:
BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. Good, hope it gets canned. This all just a waste of money and effort. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 22 Apr, 15:15, Adrian C wrote:
Ian Jackson wrote: BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. Good, hope it gets canned. This all just a waste of money and effort. You think? It looks like part of the future of TV to me. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
On 22 Apr, 15:15, Adrian C wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. Good, hope it gets canned. This all just a waste of money and effort. You think? It looks like part of the future of TV to me. IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. Secondly, some of that income - and that earned of other *paid* streaming / download services - should be taxed by the goverment and used to fund means to bring down the 'digital divide'. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... 2Bdecided wrote: On 22 Apr, 15:15, Adrian C wrote: Ian Jackson wrote: BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. Good, hope it gets canned. This all just a waste of money and effort. You think? It looks like part of the future of TV to me. IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. Secondly, some of that income - and that earned of other *paid* streaming / download services - should be taxed by the goverment and used to fund means to bring down the 'digital divide'. -- Adrian C What would the benefit of bringing down the digital be? Any chargeable service within UK shores is already taxed via VAT and Corporation Tax. * * Unless it's a tax dodging trust like The Guardigan Media Group and others. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 22 Apr, 15:44, Adrian C wrote:
IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. If the BBC uses a paid/subscription model on what could become a primary delivery service, it's just undermining the licence fee via the back door. They may, one day, give up the licence fee (kicking and screaming) - but they're not going to slide towards this by charging for "extra" services. Not unless they're monumentally stupid (and in this area, they're far from stupid). Secondly, some of that income - and that earned of other *paid* streaming / download services - should be taxed by the goverment and used to fund means to bring down the 'digital divide'. You want to tax something to give ?poor? people broadband? It's an interesting idea. I think access to the internet is probably more important now than access to a library was a century ago - but I think we've moved on in our attitudes. I wasn't there (!), but I'm guessing the Victorians thought that giving libraries to the great unwashed - i.e. giving them access to knowledge - would raise them out of the gutter. Whereas I'm not sure there's a groundswell of opinion today that says "what these poor people really need is high speed internet access". If you're talking about having suitable cables running everywhere, I think nationwide broadband access should be provided in the same way as the nationwide postal services - the easier to cover areas subsidise the provision to the more difficult to cover areas (within limits). I don't like the idea of government or taxation getting involved beyond setting up a suitable regulatory framework to ensure the above works out. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
On 22 Apr, 15:44, Adrian C wrote: IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. If the BBC uses a paid/subscription model on what could become a primary delivery service, it's just undermining the licence fee via the back door. A primary delivery service with negative contribution to the existing ISP funded distribution network? Nope, it ain't going to work. ISP's no doubt are seeking a traffic managed way out of this latest advancement. They may, one day, give up the licence fee (kicking and screaming) - but they're not going to slide towards this by charging for "extra" services. Not unless they're monumentally stupid (and in this area, they're far from stupid). The license fee is necessary. It stays IMO. Charging for extra services is what the commercial arm of the BBC 'BBC Worldwide' is for. Secondly, some of that income - and that earned of other *paid* streaming / download services - should be taxed by the goverment and used to fund means to bring down the 'digital divide'. You want to tax something to give ?poor? people broadband? No, in the name of the future economy of this country, it would be a good idea to have funds to make sure that people are not excluded through lack of education, willingness of others to help, and technical provision. It's an interesting idea. I think access to the internet is probably more important now than access to a library was a century ago - but I think we've moved on in our attitudes. I wasn't there (!), but I'm guessing the Victorians thought that giving libraries to the great unwashed - i.e. giving them access to knowledge - would raise them out of the gutter. It did :-) Whereas I'm not sure there's a groundswell of opinion today that says "what these poor people really need is high speed internet access". Google the term "digital exclusion". The issues are above just 'internet access speeds', and akin to social exclusion of communities. I don't like the idea of government or taxation getting involved beyond setting up a suitable regulatory framework to ensure the above works out. Well, it's work in progress at the moment by a lot of organisations, both government and commercial. Some of that could do with a bit more public exposure and interest, rather than the other distractions that mostly technical people get fixated on. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
Adrian C wrote:
IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. What's the improvement in my health got to do with it? (oh - heeled...) OK, it lets me watch the few HD programmes there are on my computer (which I also need for my job) without having to spend several grand on a fancy TV and a satellite unit. So it makes it cheaper for me... Andy |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
"Adrian C" wrote in message ... IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. People who've been to Lourdes have as much right to BBC programmes as anyone else. Bill |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
The audio listen again I player is very useful to me, though crappy real
player quality is hard to understand on anything containing music. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Adrian C" wrote in message ... Ian Jackson wrote: BBC iPlayer improvements It appears that the latest 'improvements' have definitely been a bit of a disaster. Good, hope it gets canned. This all just a waste of money and effort. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:44:12 +0100, Adrian C
wrote: IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. What about to people who are still in hospital? |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 23 Apr, 09:13, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
The audio listen again I player is very useful to me, though crappy real player quality is hard to understand on anything containing music. Brian, Haven't they made the flash based player "accessible" yet? Or have you stuck with the text-only version by default? The text only version retains the low quality Real Audio that has been dropped from the rest of the site. (Except, very occasionally, real audio appears for a programme where the aac encoding has crashed for some reason). The "new" on-demand audio through iPlayer via the default graphical / flash interface is excellent quality. It's not always "faultless" in an audiophile sense, but it's a world away from the crappy real audio. If they still haven got the accessibility tags right in the flash interface to make screen reader software work properly, get on to feedback or Peter White. The fact that they left accessibility tags as a thing to get right _after_ the previous release of iPlayer is disgraceful - if they're still not there, they want shooting. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 22 Apr, 17:51, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote: On 22 Apr, 15:44, Adrian C wrote: IMO the BBC should be collecting revenue for allowing downloading, not giving it away for free to the well healed. If the BBC uses a paid/subscription model on what could become a primary delivery service, it's just undermining the licence fee via the back door. A primary delivery service with negative contribution to the existing ISP funded distribution network? Nope, it ain't going to work. ISP's no doubt are seeking a traffic managed way out of this latest advancement. Some are. Those who have a clue see it as a business opportunity. They may, one day, give up the licence fee (kicking and screaming) - but they're not going to slide towards this by charging for "extra" services. Not unless they're monumentally stupid (and in this area, they're far from stupid). The license fee is necessary. It stays IMO. Charging for extra services is what the commercial arm of the BBC 'BBC Worldwide' is for. But don't you get it Adrian? Chances are this is no more an "extra service" than satellite broadcasting is an "extra service". Do you think the BBC should have been available only via a separate subscription on satellite, because "it's an extra service - everyone can already get them through an aerial?". If you do, then, well, it's a bit late to make that argument! If you don't, then what's the difference here? Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In message
, 2Bdecided writes On 22 Apr, 11:39, Ian Jackson wrote: The BBC have changed their iPlayer system. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbiplayer/F7331803?thread=6504678 "We've just upgrade BBC iPlayer. This means you can now get HD programmes and BBC iPlayer Desktop now replaces Download Manager." Although it suggests that you should remove the Download Manager to save disk space (after you have watched any programmes you have still waiting to be watched), I found that, when I tried to download Ashes to Ashes, it wouldn't even download until I first had actually removed Download Manager. No such problem here. btw, in addition to iPlayer Desktop, there's also "more downloads Windows Media Player" which allows you to directly download the same file format that was previously available through the old download manager. It downloads quickly enough here. However, the new 1500kbps version (available to stream and through iPlayer desktop) is usually higher quality than the old download format. Thanks for the tip (which is also referred to in the forum). Yes, the WMV version does download OK, and at a nice steady bitrate (essentially 1.5Mb/s, which is the maximum I get, living a bit out of town). I did get a couple of the HD programmes to download (albeit in bursts, and slowly). However, on replay, the video is more of a 'jerky' (©®™) than a movie, ie a series of stills. Presumably my PC simply isn't up to these new-fangled offerings! -- Ian |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
But don't you get it Adrian? Chances are this is no more an "extra service" than satellite broadcasting is an "extra service". Do you think the BBC should have been available only via a separate subscription on satellite, because "it's an extra service - everyone can already get them through an aerial?". If you do, then, well, it's a bit late to make that argument! If you don't, then what's the difference here? There is a difference between live broadcasting (which you pay and need the license for), and offering catchup / download services (which is currently outside the scope of the license). -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 23 Apr, 14:13, Adrian C wrote:
There is a difference between live broadcasting (which you pay and need the license for), and offering catchup / download services (which is currently outside the scope of the license). There is. And given the choice, which one do you think is "the future" - live, or on-demand? Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 23 Apr, 13:51, Ian Jackson
wrote: I did get a couple of the HD programmes to download (albeit in bursts, and slowly). However, on replay, the video is more of a 'jerky' (©®™) than a movie, ie a series of stills. Presumably my PC simply isn't up to these new-fangled offerings! It could be the inefficient adobe flash / air player - my PC can play equivalent HD files in VLC just fine (and VLC is hardly the most efficient player available) yet I get little more than a slideshow from HD flash. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
On 23 Apr, 14:13, Adrian C wrote: There is a difference between live broadcasting (which you pay and need the license for), and offering catchup / download services (which is currently outside the scope of the license). There is. And given the choice, which one do you think is "the future" - live, or on-demand? _Live_ is relevant to the majority of most people in the country. It is the service which the license fee is collected for. The license fee also funds the production of television programs which are played out to a waiting loyal audience of much greater mass than others who haphazardly choose from an on-demand EPG. Nope, On-demand is extras. BSkyB, Virgin, BT, Tiscali, iTunes - all charge for that or have funding coming from advertising. IMO, the BBC should do the same, or have an 'internet use' component added to the license, along the same lines as the introduction of Colour. Of course, that would be as welcome as a lead balloon to the promotion of their On-demand services, and 'promotion' is a word most comfortable in the commercial world. The BBC has a suitable commercial arm. It's where joint interests in UKTV, Virgin One and sales of programs to other organisations like ITV sit. iPlayer should be sited and funded there (advertising if need be). -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 23 Apr, 15:32, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote: On 23 Apr, 14:13, Adrian C wrote: There is a difference between live broadcasting (which you pay and need the license for), and offering catchup / download services (which is currently outside the scope of the license). There is. And given the choice, which one do you think is "the future" - live, or on-demand? _Live_ is relevant to the majority of most people in the country. It is the service which the license fee is collected for. The license fee also funds the production of television programs which are played out to a waiting loyal audience of much greater mass than others who haphazardly choose from an on-demand EPG. For now. How long before the situation is reversed? I'll give you a hint: there are already some programmes aimed at younger people which get more views in iPlayer than via broadcast. This has just started to happen with TV; it happened a year or more ago with radio. I think you've shown an irrational dislike of an "on-demand EPG" by suggesting it's users choose "haphazardly". If anything, the on-demand audience chooses its viewing very carefully and selectively - it's the live audience that is more likely to watch things "haphazardly" - e.g. just because it is on at a time when they are ready to watch TV, or after a programme that they chose to sit down and watch. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In message
, 2Bdecided writes On 23 Apr, 13:51, Ian Jackson wrote: I did get a couple of the HD programmes to download (albeit in bursts, and slowly). However, on replay, the video is more of a 'jerky' (©®™) than a movie, ie a series of stills. Presumably my PC simply isn't up to these new-fangled offerings! It could be the inefficient adobe flash / air player - my PC can play equivalent HD files in VLC just fine (and VLC is hardly the most efficient player available) yet I get little more than a slideshow from HD flash. The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files. I've just done a quick test watching Wainwright's Walks on BBC4. The standard version is definitely a bit jerky (but still reasonably watchable). Surprisingly, the HD version is essentially jerk-free. Also, the HD version was almost dead in sync with what I was watching on TV (that is until there was a momentary glitch, after which it was running about one second behind). Apart from that, the actual picture quality of the two streams was similar (not particularly outstanding on my 1280 x 1024 LCD monitor). As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card (donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on a TV set (and preferably in true analogue). -- Ian |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 23 Apr, 21:29, Ian Jackson
wrote: The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files. IME WMV plays best in Windows Media Player anyway. I believe there's nothing in place that would stop the truly determined user from acquiring whichever version they want, keeping it for as long as they want, and playing it on whatever compatible software they want. As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card (donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on a TV set (and preferably in true analogue). The short answer to that is that I agree, quality wise. Though 14x9 analogue (cropped from a 16x9 master) isn't much use on a widescreen TV. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In message
, 2Bdecided writes On 23 Apr, 21:29, Ian Jackson wrote: The problem is that you have to use the BBC's Desktop Player for the HD downloads and WMP for the old stuff (or so I understand it). Because of the DRM, my other players won't play the WMV files. IME WMV plays best in Windows Media Player anyway. I believe there's nothing in place that would stop the truly determined user from acquiring whichever version they want, keeping it for as long as they want, and playing it on whatever compatible software they want. As I said, this PC isn't really up to good video. It's only got a 1.6GHz processor, and 1.25GB of RAM. I'm also using a hand-me-down video card (donated by my son). I still reckon that the only way to watch TV is on a TV set (and preferably in true analogue). The short answer to that is that I agree, quality wise. Though 14x9 analogue (cropped from a 16x9 master) isn't much use on a widescreen TV. I forgot to add 'and definitely CRT' to my list of 'the only way'! -- Ian |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
For now. How long before the situation is reversed? When that happens, the terms of BBC's license will have been changed to include on-demand use and the majority of folks will be able to navigate an EPG, without current technofear issues - and given access to it across a commonly available digital platform. I'll give you a hint: there are already some programmes aimed at younger people which get more views in iPlayer than via broadcast. Because most of the content of those BBC3 programmes are not child / child with parent watching / family or schedule friendly, and don't have a loyal live following - just haphazard interest after discussions have gone around the office or school playground. This has just started to happen with TV; it happened a year or more ago with radio. I think you've shown an irrational dislike of an "on-demand EPG" by suggesting it's users choose "haphazardly". If anything, the on-demand audience chooses its viewing very carefully and selectively. Some do, some don't. I've got TiVo and yes, I'm a selective viewer. I never watch anything live. But, the On-demand viewing could easily be the greatest extension of the 'channel hopping' habit that prays on those with a slightly limited attention span. Why should broadcasters and advertisers pile money into that? Where is the loyal payback for their effort? Might as well give up and let these folks find youtube ... It's a bit similar to how people are buying music today. Cherry picking the 'good' tracks from albums and ignoring the rest. Soon the name of the artist, the theme of the writings and the interest in the back catalogue are forgotten. Disposable. I've become a 'Spotify' subscriber addict in the last few days. Although I do buy a lot of CDs and will continue to do so (The hifi equipment appreciates the playback quality of CD compared to streaming), the death bell for HMV record shops and for that matter chart radio is surely ringing louder than ever before. At least Spotify have an income stream for doing this service on-line on-demand. And so do the other on-demand bodies out there. The BBC? 'tis madness. :-| -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 24 Apr, 15:03, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote: For now. How long before the situation is reversed? When that happens, the terms of BBC's license will have been changed to include on-demand use and the majority of folks will be able to navigate an EPG, without current technofear issues - and given access to it across a commonly available digital platform. I think that's likely - but you don't get from there to here without having iPlayer now. If you don't have iPlayer now, it won't stop ITV, CH4, five, Sky etc doing it - it just leaves the BBC on the outside. How does that benefit the BBC? I've got TiVo and yes, I'm a selective viewer. I never watch anything live. That makes the rest of your argument look quite selfish. You've solved the "problem" of live TV using a technology that's no longer available. Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't want the BBC to help them. But, the On-demand viewing could easily be the greatest extension of the 'channel hopping' habit that prays on those with a slightly limited attention span. Why should broadcasters and advertisers pile money into that? Where is the loyal payback for their effort? Might as well give up and let these folks find youtube ... The percentage of programmes watched until the end on iPlayer is surprisingly high. (Well it surprised me, but not enough to remember what it was!). Most of these programmes are 30-60 minutes long. That doesn't indicate an attention deficit to me. And if the whole country did develop a ten second attention span, that's where the advertisers and broadcasters would have to go - or die. I don't think that's really happening though. It's a bit similar to how people are buying music today. Cherry picking the 'good' tracks from albums and ignoring the rest. Soon the name of the artist, the theme of the writings and the interest in the back catalogue are forgotten. Disposable. Completely different topic, but the GBs of music people carry around on their iPods harldy suggest that the back catalogue is forgotten - there isn't _that_ much new music! The BBC? 'tis madness. :-| They are securing their place in the future. It'll happen with or without them - they are being very smart by placing themselves at the forefront. They want brand recognition above almost all else. iPlayer helps that. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't want the BBC to help them. The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to this. Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to broadband, or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone. It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons it's beyond them. They are securing their place in the future. It'll happen with or without them - they are being very smart by placing themselves at the forefront. They want brand recognition above almost all else. So do it from their commercial platform. iPlayer helps that. We'll have to see. With technology, sometimes the horse that runs first is not the one that remains in the running. My TiVo for instance :-( -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 24 Apr, 20:52, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote: Other people are solving it a different way, and you don't want the BBC to help them. The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to this. Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to broadband, or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone. It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons it's beyond them. I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same reason? ("No" is the correct answer to that one!). Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same reason? No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV). -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 26 Apr, 11:15, Adrian C wrote:
2Bdecided wrote: I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same reason? No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV). So you _don't_ object to the BBC promoting and delivering services that (some) people can't afford (at that time)? You merely object to them delivering a non-live service? Do/did you object to their other pre-iPlayer on-demand programming, e.g. listen again, the catch-up VOD provided via HomeChoice/Tiscali, NTL etc ? I'm not having a go at you - your argument has some merit - I'm just not convinced it's 100% rational. Also, I'm fairly sure that making such services outside of the core remit of the BBC will not help the BBC one bit. Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
2Bdecided wrote:
On 26 Apr, 11:15, Adrian C wrote: 2Bdecided wrote: I guess the BBC should have kept out of colour TV and HD for the same reason? No, because that was an improvement to their _live_ broadcasting, and covered under the license (extended as in the case of colour TV). So you _don't_ object to the BBC promoting and delivering services that (some) people can't afford (at that time)? No I don't. You merely object to them delivering a non-live service? Yup. The iPlayer is "extras". Outside the remit of the license. Do/did you object to their other pre-iPlayer on-demand programming, e.g. listen again, the catch-up VOD provided via HomeChoice/Tiscali, NTL etc ? No. Those services are properly funded by the users (or advertising), and there surely must be a commercial agreement between Tiscali/Virgin and the BBC for doing it. I'm not having a go at you - your argument has some merit - I'm just not convinced it's 100% rational. s'OK, I'm spinning on a roundabout :-) I think my point is clear in this thread. It's to do with the BBC wasting money collected from license payers, doing risky things that the majority never quite gave them the permission to do. Also, I'm fairly sure that making such services outside of the core remit of the BBC will not help the BBC one bit. Agreed. The iplayer service should be commercially operated because of that, and then some money should make it back ... Or, included in an extended license. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In article , Adrian C
writes The current 'well heeled' are in an ample position to add funds to this. Like buying a PVR, or installing a computer and signing up to broadband, or taking up a contract on a capable mobile phone. It's the people who can not sort this _now_ that are disadvantaged, and are reminded of it every time the BBC self-promotes "catch it on iPlayer" knowing that they are paying for this and for various reasons it's beyond them. So what's new? When the BBC was founded only a few "well heeled" people could afford radios. I wasn't around at the time, but I recall my grandmother telling me about having to go to a neighbour's house to listen to the BBC news. When the BBC started broadcasting TV only a few "well healed" people could afford TV sets. Again, I wasn't around, but I recall my mother telling me about the party at a neighbour's house to view the coronation on TV. When the BBC went colour, only a few "well heeled" could afford a colour TV. I recall my father telling me not to mention we had one to anyone at school, lest the message reached my uncle before he came to visit. (This uncle had been going on for several months about how fantastic the rather de-tuned colour was on his new set, so my dad intended some low key one-upmanship) You are clearly from the cheap Nicam update, digital decoder box generation, where the costs to upgrade to the latest BBC offerings are negligible, without any clue as to what restriction to "well heeled" people actually means. However, I do not believe for an instant that the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well heeled". Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess, and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential items in the latest definition of the poverty line. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
You are clearly from the cheap Nicam update, digital decoder box
generation, where the costs to upgrade to the latest BBC offerings are negligible, without any clue as to what restriction to "well heeled" people actually means. However, I do not believe for an instant that the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well heeled". Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess, and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential items in the latest definition of the poverty line. Yeabut the problem now is not with the BBC its the net infrastructure which is now the transmission medium .. not the TV transmitter.... -- Tony Sayer |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
Mike Henry wrote:
You made the effort not to use the American spelling of "colour" above; please could you try not to use the American spelling of "licence" too? :-) So the "listen again" service which had every radio programme from the previous week available on the website which you didn't object to, is different to the iPlayer... how? Only the UI is different. OK, tripped up on the "listen again" mentioned there, which is of course is another BBC funded service. Indeed in the past questions have been asked about how much the BBC funds it's entire presence on the internet in terms of website hosted and specially commisioned material - and there is an answer here for that. For those that access Auntie's pages from outside the UK, there are advertisments to view. For those, inside the UK, it's paid out the licence fee. A bit of money here, a bit of money there. I'm OK with that. iPlayer is totally running from licence fee. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
However, I do not believe for an instant that the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well heeled". I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less costly equipment. All included in the licence. My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license, where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some unavoidable restrictions. Gen up on digital divide. OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and otherwise, to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable monthly download limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone. I chose the language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said "broadband enabled"? These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the running and development costs of iPlayer if they use it. Not saddle all licence payers with it, and provide it all free so that even non-licence payers can benefit. Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess, I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are loads more directly not using on-line services at all... and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential items in the latest definition of the poverty line. The digital divide and the poverty line do have some relation, but are not the same thing. -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
On 29 Apr, 12:47, Adrian C wrote:
Kennedy McEwen wrote: * *However, I do not believe for an instant that the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well heeled". I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less costly equipment. All included in the licence. My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license, where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some unavoidable restrictions. Your obsession with "live" is bizarre. So it was OK to provide a colour service which was expensive, because poor people could still watch in black and white - but it's not OK to provide a catch up service, despite the fact that the same programmes are available live that week? There's no rationality to this argument at all. Gen up on digital divide. Actually, our main home computer was a gift - a cast-off. It does iPlayer just fine. Our plusnet internet access is £120 a year. 2GB monthly cap, £1 extra per GB after that. Yes, there are people who can't afford that - but not being able to watch iPlayer is presumably the least of their worries! OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and otherwise, to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable monthly download limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone. I chose the language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said "broadband enabled"? That's the majority now, isn't it? These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the running and development costs of iPlayer if they use it. They can probably afford to pay more for HD - more for the BBC itself as a subscription service. Should they? Not saddle all licence payers with it, and provide it all free so that even non-licence payers can benefit. But your argument is contradictory - you worry about the digital divide, but then demand that there should be an _extra_ change to access one of the most popular uses for broadband internet access. Surely this can only worsen the divide, if you start a trend of charging extra for popular broadband services! I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are loads more directly not using on-line services at all... I must be far too middle class - I know several of people without internet access, and they could all easily afford it.They choose not to. There are other things in life! Cheers, David. |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In article , Adrian C
writes Kennedy McEwen wrote: However, I do not believe for an instant that the BBC's iPlayer services are beyond the resources of any but the "well heeled". I've no problems with the divisions of _live_ broadcasting that necessitate some folks spending extra to access those formats. The BBC at least provides an output that is accessible with considerably less costly equipment. All included in the licence. Well I think it is questionable whether the alternative equipment is less costly - especially if the cost of access broadband by computer is amortised over all of the other value opportunities that it provides, which even the cheapest TV and digital box do not. My beef is with the non live broadcast area outside of the license, where just to get on the platform to enjoy it there are some unavoidable restrictions. But the BBC have always provided services outside of the license which required additional platform costs to access. I recall as a kid listening to the likes of Johnny Walker and DLT on BBC Radio 1 being quite jealous of the people who could access their phone-in opportunities - wow, imagine being able to win prizes, talk to celebrities and even send messages to your mates, live on national radio! It wasn't the 2d cost of the phone call that I couldn't afford. Living in a fairly remote village, the Post Office wanted to charge an arm and a leg to install a local exchange and line to the house before we could have a telephone, so we didn't and neither did anyone else in the village. It wasn't until I was a teenager when enough people in the village had requested phone installations that The Post Office deemed it to be worthwhile laying the miles of cables out to an exchange there and hence enabling home phones for all of the interested households. Gen up on digital divide. Technology divides are nothing new, as my own experience of the 60's related above demonstrates, and have little relation to wealth. Indeed, recluses with limited or no connectivity with the outside world are actually sought after by the well heeled. OK, "well heeled" in my rant is someone able, financially and otherwise, to have a suitable broadband connection with a usable monthly download limit, working computer or video capable mobile phone. I chose the language "well heeled" perhaps wrongly, should I have said "broadband enabled"? These folk are in a adequate position to contribute extra to the running and development costs of iPlayer if they use it. By your own admission, "well heeled" is irrelevant - just because someone is broadband enabled does not mean they are in any position to "contribute extra". As explained earlier, they may not be wealthy at all but have made a decision to invest in broadband connectivity as a means to access many types of facilities. Whilst chav land may have Sky dishes stuck on the front of every dwelling, it doesn't mean that any chavs are "well heeled" or that no residents of chav land have broadband connectivity. Having one or the other doesn't make any of the residents of chav land better able to "contribute extra" although they may well be in a better position to do so than some that you would consider "well heeled". Compared to any previous improvement in services, the iPlayer and related technology must rate as one of the lowest access costs in the BBC's history, not least because all that is required is a facility that many considerably less than "well healed" households already possess, I wish that were true for all. I know there are a few folks still on dial-up, some rely on their work PCs for internet use, and there are loads more directly not using on-line services at all... So basically your complaint is with the telecom companies who have failed to roll out broadband capability across 100% of the population, to every farmhouse shed in the remotest Welsh valleys or low population island in the Utter Hebrides. That argument, whilst valid in itself, has nothing to do with the BBC or their provision of iPlayer on a platform which is currently accessible by the majority and the government have made a commitment to make accessible to all. and which only narrowly missed being included in the list of essential items in the latest definition of the poverty line. The digital divide and the poverty line do have some relation, but are not the same thing. Exactly, hence your term "well heeled" was misguided as, it appears, was the subject of your complaint. It isn't the BBC's problem, who have chosen a platform that is available to the vast majority of the population to host its iPlayer services without additional cost. Your gripe is with the telecom companies who have not provided the infrastructure to 100% of the population. That is a completely different issue, and access to BBC facilities is a negligibly small part of that whole budget argument. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Your gripe is with the telecom companies who have not provided the infrastructure to 100% of the population. Nope, it's decisions that contribute to a person not being able to take part on the internet and receive content that they should. These decisions are not only financial, or the fact that a service suitable can't be brought to the door. There are others - technofear is, and will be in the future, a considerable problem in the society we live in. iPlayer available, even relevant, to the vast majority - er, no. That is a completely different issue, and access to BBC facilities is a negligibly small part of that whole budget argument. Never mind, my roundabout has slowed to a halt. I'm getting off... -- Adrian C |
'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable
In article , Adrian C
writes it's decisions that contribute to a person not being able to take part on the internet and receive content that they should. These decisions are not only financial, or the fact that a service suitable can't be brought to the door. There are others - technofear is, and will be in the future, a considerable problem in the society we live in. iPlayer available, even relevant, to the vast majority - er, no. Technofear has been an issue with every generation since the industrial revolution and the Luddite movement. That is no reason to prevent the iPlayer being available to the net equipped majority and no reason to demand additional payment from them. -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com