In article , Michael
Chare mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote:
On 11/04/2015 18:30, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article ,


AIUI The BBC's problem there is that they often don't know who the
'end users' of the various 'net radios' or 'connected devices' *are*.
And various makes/models don't even tell the BBC what *they* are,
either! The BBC just see a request come in via a third party. So they
have been faced with trying to find the makers and the commercial
third parties who tend to act as a stream clearing/redirection house
for many of those makers.


Yes you did make that point on the web page. The BBC made minimal effort
to inform end users,

Both on the webpage and here I've pointed out that the BBC often don't know
who the end users of the connected device/net radios *are*. And the people
who are in control of closed boxes are the makers and their third party
support people. Who the BBC spent time trying to find and inform.

Unless the users can 'root' or crack the closed boxes, all they could do if
the BBC did warn them is to ask the same makers, etc.

Personally, I feel that such closed boxes *should* be rootable, and indeed,
that a requirement for their sale should be that details to enable this
*have* to be made public by the maker if the maker fails to 'keep up' with
changes. But the laws are made by those who have the vested interests to
block such ideas. So I fear many buyers may simply be told "Sorry your old
radio no longer works, but we'll happily sell you a new one!" - unless the
device is pretty new or the maker particularly considerate. So some will
deal with problems, but not all.



Afraid they can't force the makers to make changes. All they can do is
say the services *will* change and offer details to help the makers
transit. They started talking to those they could contact from January
*2014*. And hope those makers would make the necessary changes in time.


They can't force manufacturers to change, but why does the the BBC have
to cut the existing services and start broadcasting in new formats?

Simple. Money. The plain basic fact of the matter is that the BBC has been,
and continues to be, cut. Whilst the demand for the online streams rises.
And also while the desire for all the stations to give a similar level of
(high quality) bitrate, codec, and accessibility also rises.

No one has told me explicitly, but the new system looks to me to be less
costly for the BBC to run than the old one.So the aim is to deliver better
quality, more consistency across stations, and be cheaper to run.

From what I've been told it seems quite clear to me that the BBC simply
couldn't afford to run the new system in parallel with the old one for an
open-ended period. And they had contractual deadlines for ceasing to use
some of the old things and codecs unless they forked out more cash.

And they couldn't simply wait until all makers/third parties enabled their
closed boxes to handle the newer methods because some might never bother,
and others couldn't be identified. Delaying might mean being stuck for a
very long time.

So it was either stumble on with an ever-more-complicated system that
didn't treat all stations alike, or change to a system that would deliver
better results for more stations and be easily expandable at a controlled
cost.

They were going to have to do this sometime, and they started telling the
people who'd need to adapt (makers and service supporters) back in Jan
2014. It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to do that about a *year* before
the changes with impact started to occur.



The Audio Factory change has been handled in a very high handed
manner. No thought for the end user,

See the above. *Some* kinds of end user they can identify and deal
with directly. That, for example, is why they're using HDS for web
browsers at present because they established that Flash accepts it.
But other end users they weren't contact or deal with directly. Net
radios tend to rely on a third (commercial) party to get the streams
and send them to the end user. So the BBC was trying to contact makers
and third parties those makers paid.


The Net Radios that I have allow URLs to be directly entered into Vtuner
or Frontier websites.

So if you have any problems, you should contact them or the device
maker(s). They're the ones you've paid to manage/convey the BBC streams for
you.


and they even refuse to publish some of the URLs.

The IRP owners pressure the BBC to keep the 'final' URLs obfuscated.
It's a tug-of-war between the IPR costs / permissions and making the
services available. Here 'pressure' translates into either a higher
cost to broadcast, or a refusal to sell the BBC rights to do so to at
all. I know that people at the BBC would like the streams to be as
widely and easily accessible as possible. But they have to negotiate
the rights to broadcast with people who want to limit this for their
own non-BBC reasons. And these days a lot of what the BBC broadcasts
is made by media companies, not by the BBC 'direct labour'.


What are IRP and IPR. I suppose IRP could be people like Vtuner.
(Internet Radio Providers?)

Sorry IRP was a typo...

Intellectual Property Rights. A lot of what the BBC broadcasts is made by
commercial companies and the BBC buy the permissions to use it. The more
'use', the higher the price, and the agreement will have terms specifying
what is permitted - and forbidden.

If you look at the TV iplayer recently you'll see its routine for some
items like USA films *not* to be avaliable 'on demand'. That's almost
certainly because the non-UK companies who own the rights to them won't
allow it witout a much bigger payment. That translates into a hard decision
by a cash-cut BBC.

Old UK films (e.g. The Magic Box) often are on demand because their IRP
owners don't think they can make much from an outwith-UK market, or much
from DVD sales in the UK.

Do they spend more per item to allow 'on demand'. or sacrifice that to have
the money to pay to broadcast more/better other items?

Consider also questions like: Will the IPR holders of pop/rock music want
more per play when R1/2 go all-320kbps aac than before?

The details of the agreements will generally be confidential. But you don't
need to be a genius to work out what goes on from the effects it has. And
from the sheer cynical greed in commercial 'media' companies.

This is also why outwith the UK people can only (officially) get lower
bitrates. Because the IRP owners want to sell permissions in other
countries for broadcasts there which would be undercut by 320kbps BBC
streams being available everywhere.

And TBH I doubt the current BBC systems could support world use at the same
levels as the UK! That would require more cost for the BBC to operate. The
new system is scalable, but the costs would rise.

Its also worth remembering that the internet and computing continue to
evolve and develop rapidly. 5-6 years is a *long* time in computing and
things change. That's why I decided long ago that 'net radios' were to be
avoided as - a sure as day follows night - such closed boxes would be
orphaned or handicapped within a few years and you'd have to buy a new one
or pay for some change. Net radio is *not* radio in the same sense as when
you get traditional broadcasts. In effect it's a form of cut-down computer.

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