'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

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.

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

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.

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

"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.

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.

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

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

"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