Slashdot Mirror
BBC to Trial Worldwide Multicast Streaming?
An anonymous reader writes "There are tantalizing hints, via The Inquirer, and other tech news sites, that the BBC may extend its multicast streaming services to non-UK citizens, for material where rights allows. There's details about how ISPs may peer to join the multicast trial network on an official BBC page." We previously covered the BBC's multicast streaming of the Olympics, unfortunately not available in the U.S.
"non U.K. citizens" .. so they check yo passport/citizenship papers in addition to your geographical location?
Damn that totally sucks.
Wish we had one world.
What is to stop someone from using a proxy from the UK? If porn can't stop proxies, what makes BBC think they can? LOL.
With BBC Sport providing more than 1,200 hours of coverage on the web, you can make sure you do not miss out on your favourite events from the world's biggest sporting extravaganza.
I am just tossing out this thought. Most countries sign a "cease hostilities" agreement paper for the duration of the olympics. How about if corporations also validated the purity of what the olypics are and not limit coverage by advertising or broadcasting rights. 1200 hours is alot. If NBC thinks basketball will have a large viewing audiance, then black that out. But why black out everything from the internet?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Oh, it makes sense all right. What it does not make is a good argument for even *having* an internet.
Ten years ago, we'd have all shit ourselves to get streaming video from overseas or the ability to send it overseas. Now, we have so much corporate nonsense in the pipes that almost all meaningful content is restricted by this kind of crap.
Yes, I know, I'm being unrealistic to what's going on in the Real World. But, then again, wasn't the Internet supposed to change the Real World?
Instead, the World is now changing the Net. And not for the better.
sig not found
I'm really tired of people like you telling others what is and is not quality programming. I happen to enjoy watching many programs on the History Channel, TLC, Discovery, ESPN, AMC, Bravo (well, actually NBC aired "The West Wing", Bravo just plays old episodes I missed), and NESN (gotta watch the Red Sox) and believe they are quality programs. HBO occasionally produces some excellent movies though I have to rent or purchase them since I don't get HBO or the other movie channels. I wound up buying "Band of Brothers" after seeing teh first episode on The History Channel. You might not like these programs but that does not mean they are not quality programs.
Do I see a pattern here?
Streaming internet video,
---not available in the US.
Free-to-Air DVB satellite
---not available in the US
Cheap Broadband
---not available in the US
DMCA chip free inkjet cartridges
---not available in the US
Region code free DVD players
---not available in the US
Looks like Asia and Europe are quickly becoming the new lands of the free. Funny how all we hear about in the US is how oppressive it is outside our heavily guarded borders.
In the UK, you don't have to have annoying ads breaking up your programming. Imagine watching Star Trek, Farscape, The Simpsons, Buffy, Angel, The Office, sports or even just the news without any commercial breaks whatsoever. The BBC lets you do that.
The average hour of American TV has almost 20 minutes of advertising. If you watch just 1 hour of TC a day, that's over 2 hours of ads per week. Now, the TV licence here in the UK costs me about 2 pounds a week, which is around $3 US. Wouldn't you pay $3 for 2 extra hours of your life back?
Whichever way you look at it, the BBC is excellent value for money. Six TV channels, about a dozen national radio stations, arguably the world's best newsgathering organisation, one of the best websites on the web, etc.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The age of the internet did blow all this out of the water with its ability to deliver information to anyone that wanted it nomatter where they are. What we are seeing now is content owners trying to reign in this free for all to get the value that they want out of their content, the value that they are "used" to getting.
As always they try to do this after we the consumers have become used to getting what we want, when we want it, from who we want, from where we want. Of course these different ways of doing things are going to clash, from the consumers believing they are being ripped off and from the content owners thinking they are not getting the value out of their content that they deserve.
The internet paradox goes something like this: In the beginning it was more or less all useful information but you couldn't find it because there were no search engines, no spiders. Of course we all wanted it to grow, because it would bring such things. Now there's dramatically more useful information and tons of search engines but you still can't find it because there's so much crap around, because it grew.
So basically, the basic facts of the internet have not changed - you have to know where to look in order to find things. It's the way we look that's different, and instead of bouncing from site to site we tease and cajole search engines until they produce the desired result. Actually the most effective strategy seems to be somewhere in between the two; I find a site that almost has what I want, pick up some new search terms that will help me, and run another search; lather, rinse, repeat.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In the age of the internet dividing rights up based on geographical regions makes little sense (if any).
In the age of the great Brusselian monolith devouring [formerly] free and independent states, I know it ain't exactly the fashionable point to make, but that BBC thang is [at least ostensibly] owned by [and operated for the pleasure of] the tax-paying British citizenry.
If they don't want us to see it, well, they're the ones paying fer it.
For centuries Americans have laughed at "backwards" Europeans, so bogged down in the trap of monarchy that they couldn't even keep up with American innovations. Halfway along, Americans invented the corporation, an innovation as convenient in managing people in our economy as it is constraining. Are Americans doomed to watch Europeans move past us, working past our corporatism, building on its successes for new heights of human achievement, as we surpassed our monarchial predecessors?
--
make install -not war
Wrong Suprnova. suprnova.org is the real (free) one. The perils of websquatters when what your doing in the first place is (probably, somewhere) illegal.
Hi,
/ de fault.stm
You can get Newsnight, broadcast every week day. It's a very different take on world news than you will get from CNN/Fox/ABC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight
During the 9-11 attacks the BBC managed to keep a live video stream running the whole time, and keep their news site up. The only other news site I saw that stayed up was slashdot.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
In the age of the internet dividing rights up based on geographical regions makes little sense (if any).
Umm, do you know who pays for the BBC? The British taxpayer, that's who. Nothing it ever free, someone always pays somewhere. Why do you think that the overtaxed Brits should pay for your media?
Broadcast rights seem to be about nothing except controlling which sports people can watch. How does that benefit anyone?
You see... due to the unique way the BBC is funded (In other words rip off everyone in the UK who owns anything with a tuner in it) this means that us licence paying Brits are paying for this (Admittedly cool) technology to be provided to everyone. Screw that... you want access to it abroad? Pay. As far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't have access to anything the BBC does until you've entered your TV licence number (Yeah, I know that's not feasible). Grrr! Sorry, I know this is a rant, but this is the company that will happily jail people AND fine them heavily for not having a licence.
The money, of course goes into massive director wages as usual and providing "dubious" programming for the masses (and now, not just for the UK masses).
The BBC are not as benevolent as people like to make out.
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/us/annual_review /2003/index.shtml
The BBC World service competes with other international broadcasters (e.g. Voice of America) and not with domestic broadcasters overseas. The whole World Service budget wouldn't pay for the cost of rights to broadcast live TV coverage of the Olympics globally.
Presumably US broadcasters have paid for broadcast rights in the US. If the service is crap well, that capitalism for you -- maybe US residents should donate money to public service broadcasters to provide a better service in future.