'BBC iPlayer Improvements' - Downloads now almost unusable

Are they doing it with audio description as yet?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
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

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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