BBC Have Broken GetIPlayer

Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?
The problem I now have is that i can still see lists of the main channels
but all the special sorted lists have gone away, including the audio
described one which was a list similar to exporer, a one line description of
each audio described show, which when pressed took you to the page and set
the ad flag as well so all you had to do is click the embedded flash object
and hit play button.


Now I do not know which items have ad in, say the bbc1 list, but say I
know, like dr who. I cannot find a simple checkbox on the page to set ad on,
its always off by default. Is there one there? There is a link but that
throws you off the page for the player to another page with lots of episodes
on it an still not obvious way to turn on ad.

They seriously need to have a simple way to turn this on and off on the page
itself.
Anyone know how to do this from the keyboard?
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Frederick" wrote in message
...
On 29/10/14 21:45, Java Jive wrote:

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail...er/006240.html

quote
The BBC have removed the programme data feeds used by get_iplayer, so
search and PVR functions no longer work. There is no programme
information to cache, and it was the cache that supported search and
PVR functions. There is no fix available at this time. You can still
download individual programmes via PID or URL.

http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/feeds
/quote

Yes, this is very annoying. Someone I know has a smart TV, and they
changed the way that works to, so now they can't get radio on it either.

SWIM tried to download some of The Code (That BBC4 Australian program
where there's that slightly weird guy who uses all those linux commands
in the first episode.) , using the url yesterday evening and it seems to
not work using get_iplayer now either.

Is there a HTML5 version of the iplayer website? I kind of relied on
get_iplayer so I didn't have to install proprietary flash.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:22:10 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
wrote:


I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
listen to them on a TV.

You don't AFAIK, but in some ways I rather wish there was one: it would
at least give those receiving the license fee some incentive to take more
notice of their listeners.

It hasn't been necessary for many years to buy a licence to listen to
radio, and I'm not even sure about the use of a TV receiver, since the
TV licence is for the reception of TV broadcasts and is not required
simply to own a TV set.

I suppose it boils down to what level of pedantry they apply to the
definition of a Freeview radio broadcast. Is it radio because it's
radio, regardless of the transport medium, or do they count it as a TV
broadcast that just happens to be sound only?

If it's the transport medium that determines the matter, rather than
the absence of pictures, then what's an internet "radio" broadcast?

Rod.

On 31/10/14 08:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?

According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired. Presumably the Nitro
project which was supposed to be the replacement was delayed, but the
money saved by cancelling the old contract had already been spent so it
couldn't be renewed.

Typical management incompetence, in other words.
--
Dave

In article , Adrian
wrote:
In message , Jim Lesurf
writes
Since my main content interests in the iplayer context tend to be
concerts on Radio 3 and various programmes on Radios 4/4extra I have my
doubts I'd prefer 'Netflix' myself. Personally, I'm happy to pay the
license fee just to have such things.


I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
listen to them on a TV.

My point was that although I *do* watch TV as well, I'd be quite happy to
pay the fee even if I didn't whilst the BBC produces the radio programs
that interest me. So far as I'm concerned the Proms broadcasts alone
justify the fee!

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , dave wrote:
On 31/10/14 08:03, Brian Gaff wrote:
Why is the question surely? What possible harm was this doing?

According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired.

Which raises questions like:

They presumably knew well in advance when this would expire. So what
advance notice did they give to warn those relying upon it so they could
make plans for the change?


Presumably the Nitro project which was supposed to be the replacement
was delayed, but the money saved by cancelling the old contract had
already been spent so it couldn't be renewed.

Typical management incompetence, in other words.

If so, its a classic problem I've seen many times.

Some years ago our local theatre decided they wanted a nice new building.

Error 1 was to demolish the old theater before work started on the new one.
This lead to the predicatable result. The contractors stopped work partway
though construction and demanded more money or they'd go bust and walk
away. Thus dramatically increasing the cost and the period before the new
building was finished and opened.

Error 2 was for the new building to be a grand and large one. So both the
building and running costs were high. Despite only having much the same
number of seats.

I and others predicted problem 1: The constuction delays and added costs
and their reason. We also predicted well before time the next problem. That
as soon as there was any kind of 'downturn' in the economy the new building
would become a financial anchor.

A year or so the theatre went bust and dark. It has now been 'rescued' by
being taken over by the local University on a long lease at trivial cost.
Time will tell if our next prediction will come true.

That as time passes the theatre will be used less and less for public
shows, plays, etc, and eventually become a University facility which the
public have forgotten. And we have no local theatre.

That may seem a negative prediction. But some of us have seen how the Uni
has treated other local projects. So remain wary. Time will tell...

WRT the BBC and get_iplayer. They clearly have no duty to help maintain it
as a program. Not their project or responsibility.

But if it is the case that a number of fee payers have come to regularly
rely on something like get_iplayer then the BBC do have some responsibility
to take that into account. Particularly if for some specific groups like
those with a sight problem, what they have ceased was important in helping
them access content. So if they've taken something away they do need to
provide something equivalent in terms of accessibility to content. Be
interesting to see what they come up with. I doubt that a 'solution' tied
to going via commercial gatekeepers would be equivalent. Particularly if it
means having to pay a third party rather than an openly/freely accessible
method.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

dave (for it is he) wrote:

According to the blog I referred to earlier, the hosting contract for
the parts of iPlayer including this feed expired.

The BBC have so much of their own internet infrastructure, including peering
with other ISPs, yet they outsource the hosting? That's a bit WTF-y by
itself, but the idea that the people who were hosting it refused to extend
the contract is unbelievable. Presumably the BBC didn't ask, or didn't want
to extend the hosting contract.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
10:09:06 up 4 days, 41 min, 5 users, load average: 0.39, 0.47, 0.44
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
from malice

Martin Gregorie (for it is he) wrote:

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:31:49 +0000, Adrian wrote:

I didn't think you needed a licence for radio programmes, unless you
listen to them on a TV.

You don't AFAIK, but in some ways I rather wish there was one: it would
at least give those receiving the license fee some incentive to take more
notice of their listeners.

I would happily pay for a radio-only license.

--
http://ale.cx/ (AIM:troffasky) )
10:11:48 up 4 days, 44 min, 5 users, load average: 0.88, 0.57, 0.48
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
from malice

On 30/10/14 19:02, Chris Davies wrote:
Folderol wrote:
dave wrote:
This one rather less so.
especially Comment 6:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/...ment_120679555

You're right. That's not just bad, it's downright arrogantly bad

It's a necesary position for the BBC. It cannot be seen publicly to
be supporting anything that could (easily) allow for programmes to be
stored outside the permitted 7/30 day period. Get_iplayer honours that
restriction, but as the programmes are broadcast - and therefore stored -
without DRM it's potentially a sticking point.

The BBC doesn't sanction the use of get_iplayer, but it hasn't so far
actively attempted to close it down[*].

For which we should be duly thankful. I think it's clear that it's
unreasonable to expect the BBC to build new systems that allow people to
hold on to downloaded content longer than the limits imposed in its own
iPlayer. So while the API will quite possibly be made available to
open-source developers I expect that it will only allow them to build
new interfaces to the same data that iPlayer delivers.


--
Bernard Peek


In search of cognoscenti (again)

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:48:47 +0000
Bernard Peek wrote:

On 30/10/14 19:02, Chris Davies wrote:
Folderol wrote:
dave wrote:
This one rather less so.
especially Comment 6:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/internet/...ment_120679555

You're right. That's not just bad, it's downright arrogantly bad

It's a necesary position for the BBC. It cannot be seen publicly to
be supporting anything that could (easily) allow for programmes to
be stored outside the permitted 7/30 day period. Get_iplayer
honours that restriction, but as the programmes are broadcast - and
therefore stored - without DRM it's potentially a sticking point.

The BBC doesn't sanction the use of get_iplayer, but it hasn't so
far actively attempted to close it down[*].

For which we should be duly thankful. I think it's clear that it's
unreasonable to expect the BBC to build new systems that allow people
to hold on to downloaded content longer than the limits imposed in
its own iPlayer. So while the API will quite possibly be made
available to open-source developers I expect that it will only allow
them to build new interfaces to the same data that iPlayer delivers.



What is unreasonable is that the iPlayer provided by the BBC doesn't
work for storing content, and if it does, then they 'fix' it soon
afterwards, so that it's useless again. The reason I use get_iplayer is
because I can never get their 'Desktop', or whatever it's called this
month, to work.

--
Davey.

On 31/10/14 10:59, Davey wrote:


For which we should be duly thankful. I think it's clear that it's
unreasonable to expect the BBC to build new systems that allow people
to hold on to downloaded content longer than the limits imposed in
its own iPlayer. So while the API will quite possibly be made
available to open-source developers I expect that it will only allow
them to build new interfaces to the same data that iPlayer delivers.



What is unreasonable is that the iPlayer provided by the BBC doesn't
work for storing content, and if it does, then they 'fix' it soon
afterwards, so that it's useless again. The reason I use get_iplayer is
because I can never get their 'Desktop', or whatever it's called this
month, to work.

I've never really had many problems with iPlayer but haven't used it
much since I found get_iplayer. I was always able to save downloaded
material for up to 30 days.



--
Bernard Peek


In search of cognoscenti (again)