Slashdot Mirror


BBC Radio Drops WMA For MPEG-DASH

gbjbaanb writes: The BBC has converted its legacy WMA (Windows Media Audio) streams to the "industry-wide and open source" MPEG-DASH format. While this has left some users of old devices unable to receive the broadcasts, the BBC claims the use of WMA was "prohibitively expensive to operate"when existing licence agreements ran out. The BBC says that they are working with "radio industry and manufacturers towards using just one standard."

65 comments

  1. Yay by Art3x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yay.

    1. Re:Yay by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yay? For what? Getting rid of one niche format for another? Why not good old fashioned MP3 which is playable anywhere on anything?

      The audiophiles can scream bloody murder into their USB tube powered DACs but the format wars have been over for quite awhile and MP3 WON, and not by a trivial amount but by a wholesale curbstomping. You take just about any consumer device made by anybody that has the ability to play audio, from an ultra cheapo 7in tablet or STB to a 5K+ TV set or expensive after market car stereo and what do they ALL play? MP3. No muss, no fuss, no hassle, it "just works".

      So unless this DASH format can be played everywhere that an MP3 can be played? Then I just don't see the point of replacing one niche for another.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Yay by jo_ham · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mpeg-DASH is a streaming technology that is codec-agnostic.

      You're talking about it as if it's the same as switching codec, but what you're really saying is akin to "I just don't see the point of using wifi when we have good old fashioned TCP/IP, so unless this "wifi" format can be used everywhere that TCP/IP can be used then I can't see the point of replacing one for another."

    3. Re:Yay by Sneftel · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're confused. MPEG-Dash is not a codec; it's a container format, and one which enables adaptive quality while streaming, just like WMA does/did.

      If you want your MP3/AAC, good news -- you can easily transcode it out of an MPEG-Dash stream.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    4. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not MP3?

      Because I have to pay an extra tax (already included in sale price) in Belgium for buying a device that supports mp3.

    5. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You take just about any consumer device made by anybody that has the ability to play audio, from an ultra cheapo 7in tablet or STB to a 5K+ TV set or expensive after market car stereo and what do they ALL play? uncompressed PCM audio. No muss, no fuss, no hassle, it "just works".

      FTFY.

      PCM (WAV and AIFF) is still king. Many more devices play raw PCM than play MP3.

    6. Re:Yay by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Why not good old fashioned MP3 which is playable anywhere on anything?

      I was going to say, "because not everyone has permission to use MP3," but then I realized I first played an MP3 about 19 years ago. The patents just can't have too much longer to go, assuming they haven't already expired.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    7. Re:Yay by Cloud+K · · Score: 1

      You're going to cheer for DASH like that?

      Louder.

    8. Re:Yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll celebrate when we can choose whether we want to pay for the left-wing propaganda constantly emanating from the BBC.

    9. Re:Yay by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Same here and now I feel old.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:Yay by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      There never really was a "format war" as far as codecs go. Or if there is a war, it's ongoing.

      In the 90s when music over the internet became a thing, MP3 was the only game in town. MP2 existed, but it was less efficient. At that time there was no such thing as "hardware support" so users were free to pick the most efficient format.

      By the early-mid 2000s, there were several formats beating MP3 in listening tests. Musepack, Vorbis, AAC. You don't see many of those "in the wild" now, but I certainly see more today than I did in 2005, putting them on a slow upward trajectory. Once disk space and bandwidth come down a couple ticks in price, there will be no reason not to go FLAC which will make lossy compression irrelevant as you can transcode to whatever you want/need.

    11. Re:Yay by extra88 · · Score: 1

      If you don't see, it's because you're not looking. iTunes is the #1 music download store, by far, and it's all AAC. Apple does not sell MP3s. Their streaming service, iTunes Radio, also uses AAC. Pandora also uses AAC, not MP3, for its streams.

    12. Re:Yay by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of iTunes, I actually use its AAC encoder on a regular basis. By "in the wild" I mean music that get distributed person-to-person, like on torrent sites. Where the uploader has a choice of formats to use. Not Apple's walled garden. My suspicion is that a good deal of AAC uploads you see on torrent sites do in fact originate from iTunes, and that we'd see a lot more of them if it weren't for things like Apple embedding your username in the file. I'm actually not sure if they still do that, but stuff like that hangs heavy on the memory.

  2. Bad format in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens if you choose a bad format in the first place...
    But now, wtf is mpeg-dash ??
    Why not mp3 or ogg ??

    1. Re:Bad format in the first place by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Firstly, HTTP is the simplest form of internet delivery â" it is how the vast majority of web sites are delivered. Aligning audio and video delivery with this is much cheaper as it doesnâ(TM)t rely on proprietary streaming formats that require specialist delivery mechanisms. Instead we can make good use of much of the work that has been undertaken in optimising and caching the delivery of HTTP.

      .. apparently

    2. Re:Bad format in the first place by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      MP3 is a compression codec. OGG is a container format. MPEG-DASH is a standard for how to do bitrate-adaptive streaming over HTTP. They're all completely different things.

      MPEG-DASH is codec-agnostic, and does not require or imply any specific codec. However, since it's intended for audiovisual streaming (rather than just audio), and since it's done under the auspices of the MPEG, h.264/AAC are the obvious codec pair to choose. There is nothing stopping MPEG-DASH from being used to stream something like VP8/Vorbis or VP9/Opus... and in fact the WebM project has documentation detailing exactly that.

    3. Re:Bad format in the first place by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I had to google for more info on MPEG-DASH; kind of surprised to have never heard of it before on Slashdot before today.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Bad format in the first place by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      AAC is by far the best audio codec that I have come across .. a 64 kbps stream sounds like 128. Too bad its proprietary

    5. Re:Bad format in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try Opus @ 64Kbps compared to HE-AAC @ 64Kbps: http://www.opus-codec.org/comparison/

    6. Re:Bad format in the first place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much.

      It more or less comes down to a xml description file (.mpd) and a bunch of media file segments. On the whole it's quite simple, but the biggest issue is that it's a non-public ISO/IEC spec, so you have to pay them $200 to get it.

      I'm also not really convinced about the live mode, but it does work.

    7. Re: Bad format in the first place by Malc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm surprised you expect to hear about it here. Most people here seem to care about the codecs and whether they're free. DASH doesn't really care about codecs and really just defines how you create and use adaptive streams and is based on existing codecs/formats. It only standardised relatively recently and it's going to be big (but hopefully transparent), for example: http://www.dash-player.com/blo.... Expect to see it as a vendor neutral alternative to things like MS SmoothStreaming and even Apple's HLS, although the later requires you to have a player with your own decoders if you're sending more than a certain size to iOS devices.

      That said, most implementors are doing AVC or HEVC with AAC in a fragmented MP4 container. VOD content is probably one file per stream and live is multiple files fragments) per stream.

    8. Re:Bad format in the first place by ITMagic · · Score: 2

      Looking at Dashif.org, I notice the following:

      MPEG-DASH Highlighted Features
      Advertisements can be inserted as a period between periods or segment between segments in both on-demand and live cases.

      I'm a cynic, and I'm getting very suspicious about the suitability to this tech to the BBC.

    9. Re:Bad format in the first place by Alrescha · · Score: 2

      "AAC is by far the best audio codec that I have come across...Too bad its proprietary"

      Proprietary in what way? It's an ISO standard, among other things:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      A.

      --
      ...bringing you cynical quips since 1998
    10. Re:Bad format in the first place by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It's an iso standard, but what he means is that you need a licence to distribute an AAC encoder/decoder (unless you distribute it as source code I believe).

    11. Re:Bad format in the first place by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      The only good AAC encoders (Apple, Fraunhaufer, and debatably Nero) are proprietary. There are open-source encoders, but the quality is so poor that they aren't worth using.
      This doesn't even take into account licensing/patent issues, which I believe come into play as well.

  3. What? No more Women+Men Atheletics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dashes stopped being fun. WWA? MMA? That's just gay!

  4. What's * not * news by invictusvoyd · · Score: 2

    BBC claims the use of WMA was "prohibitively expensive to operate"when existing licence agreements ran out.

    ha ha ha ( said with a sarcastic tone )

    1. Re:What's * not * news by dhaen · · Score: 2

      Of note is that wma clients represent less than 5% of their audience, and presumably is a diminishing percentage. That's what makes replacing the equipment and licenses expensive.

    2. Re:What's * not * news by red+crab · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, one can't find any mention of licensing agreements in the two BBC blogs - they only say that " it (supporting WMA) requires special infrastructure to serve it and the industry is moving away from providing it as an option."

  5. Historical hang-up from an MS hire by mccalli · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Missing from most of the articles on this, including the ones on their web site, is that they used to employ a senior Microsoft media guy who, unsurprisingly, set about converting everything to Microsoft Media formats - Ashley Highfield. Here's a 2007 article with a section of the controversy

    BBC used to have one of the more progressive approaches to media with early mp3 streams, Dirac codec research...it then just stopped. Nice to see them get back towards the rest of the world - next step, please go HTML 5 video on the site as well and then we can avoid Flash.

    1. Re:Historical hang-up from an MS hire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I avoid Flash by using get_iplayer

      I'm not sure I'm looking foward to HTML5 for this, they'll want DRM to please the rightsholders for the content they buy in, and while there is a provision for DRM in the HTML5 spec, I don't know if it will actually be better than Flash.

  6. Opus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MPEG-DASH just allows the users to dynamically switch over to different chunks which are encoded at different bitrates. Not completely related to WMA...

    Why don't they just offer different streams at different bitrates? ...And Opus would be the best choice to switch over to :)

  7. Mozilla's Flash-killer 'Shumway' appears in FF.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mozilla's Flash-killer 'Shumway' appears in Firefox nightlies

    "Open source SWF player promises alternative to Adobe's endless security horror"

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

    16 Feb 2015 at 23:57, Simon Sharwood

    "In November 2012 the Mozilla Foundation announced âoeProject Shumwayâ, an effort to create a âoeweb-native runtime implementation of the SWF file format.â

    Two-and-a-bit years, and a colossal number of Flash bugs later, Shumway has achieved an important milestone by appearing in a Firefox nightly, a step that suggests it's getting closer to inclusion in the browser.

    Shumway's been available as a plugin for some time, and appears entirely capable of handling the SWF files.

    Few average users know of Shumway's existence, never mind seek it out. So the inclusion of the software in Firefox's nightlies will give it greater exposure. For now the code can only play certain videos hosted on Amazon.com, but developers intend to expand the list of sites from which Shumway will play SWF files.

    For now, Shumway-in-Firefox-nightlies works only on Windows Vista or later versions of Windows, and OSX. But expanded support is promised.

    When it arrives in a full version of Firefox, it will mean that about 15.1 per cent of all web surfing won't need Flash (based on W3counter market share data).

    Flash is a security nightmare that we recently suggested deserves to rot in an unmarked grave.

    Mozilla looks to be giving it a welcome shove in just that direction. ®"

    Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998â"2015

  8. get-iplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If you haven't heard of this little wonder yet, then search the web! All BBC streams can be recorded, video and audio and can be output in a number of different formats, including mp3, or if you like can be piped through a format converter of your choice.

    Due to Auntie Beeb's rampant xenophobia, those of you outside of the UK may have to use a proxy or VPN to spoof a UK IP address.

    Linux users can join in the fun by adding ppa:jon-hedgerows/get-iplayer to your sources, update, then install get-iplayer using your usual method, (I personally prefer apt). There are versions for Wind'ohs and Mac but i don't use either of those so you can employ your own search-fu for them.

    1. Re:get-iplayer by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Due to Auntie Beeb's rampant xenophobia, those of you outside of the UK may have to use a proxy or VPN to spoof a UK IP address.

      It's not xenophobia, you silly twit. The BBC is funded by UK licence payers, who have no obligation whatsoever to provide free content to people in other countries.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:get-iplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not xenophobia, you silly twit. The BBC is funded by UK licence payers, who have no obligation whatsoever to provide free content to people in other countries.

      Was this your first introduction to comedy? Are you really that oblivious? Your failure in this regard marks you as a very dangerous individual, one whom I am glad I will never meet

    3. Re:get-iplayer by afidel · · Score: 1

      And more importantly they sell the rights to their content outside the UK and those rights holders expect that their ownership is exclusive.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:get-iplayer by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the French will now finally pay up in order to listen to your glorious BBC.

    5. Re:get-iplayer by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      Remember the 'world wide' part in WWW.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    6. Re:get-iplayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Free content? I'm perfectly willing to pay for it.

      They won't take my money.

      They could simply remove the regional bollocks and let me stream it freely, and that would cost them less than their current solution. But they don't, because they have ambitions to sell that content, the content that UK license payers paid for, to companies owned by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, who will then sell it back to me as a gateway drug to using his services.

      How do you feel about funding a production studio for News International?

  9. Secretive and underhand by davidc · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was really badly publicized. We listen to BBC Radio 3 over the internet in the mornings; our house is situated in a dead zone for over-the-air signals, so we're pretty much stuck with streaming. One morning last week, with no warning, came a repetitive announcement saying that the BBC had discontinued WMA and to "contact your device manufacturer". Our radio is manufactured by Pure, and we have been using Radio 3's direct streaming URL because Radio 3 repeatedly drops off Pure's database for days on end and consequently becomes unavailable. The direct URL, on the other hand, has been very reliable up to now.

    The BBC say that they make MP3 streams available for all their channels. I couldn't find one anywhere on any of their websites, so I wrote to them and asked them what it was. Here's what they told me: "We are currently only sharing links to our new streams with aggregators and device manufacturers. We are not currently making the links for the new Shoutcast and HLS streams publicly available. Whilst it was previously our policy to share these we found that we could not assure quality this way.". So not only have they discontinued the old streams, they are deliberately hiding the new ones! This is nonsense. The BBC apparently doesn't want anyone to actually listen to their broadcasts! (I did eventually find a viable MP3 feed from radiofeeds.co.uk).

    Now we get to bit rate... It was much ballyhooed a year or so ago that BBC Radio 3 was broadcasting the highest quality classical music available because they supplied a 256 kbps stream. It now seems that the maximum available is 128 kbps. Fine for portable radios, but I really don't think this is step in the right direction.

    1. Re:Secretive and underhand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You appear to live in the USA. You refer to buying $16.99 USB sticks in recent posts, and you have an e-mail address ending @salk.edu

      If so, you'd be doing *very* well to get the BBC's DAB signal from La Jolla, CA...

    2. Re:Secretive and underhand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "other formats" page on radiofeeds lists a 320kbps stereo stream for BBC radio 3

    3. Re:Secretive and underhand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so, you'd be doing *very* well to get the BBC's DAB signal from La Jolla, CA...

      He did say it was a dead spot ;P

      Anyway, you'd do well to actually check date stamps when reading a user's post history, that thumb drive post was from 2010, he may well have moved since then.

  10. XiaaLive by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

    This is why BBC Radio 5 Live stopped working using the XiaaLive Android app? Is there a new URL I can use?

    1. Re:XiaaLive by nick1austin · · Score: 1

      It's a bit of a mouthful but try this: http://a.files.bbci.co.uk/medi...

    2. Re:XiaaLive by nick1austin · · Score: 1

      a.files.bbci.co.uk/media/live/manifesto/audio/simulcast/hls/uk/sbr_low/ak/bbc_radio_five_live.m3u8

    3. Re:XiaaLive by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 1

      Thanks but that didn't work. I don't live in the UK - maybe that makes a difference?

  11. Re:Mozilla's Flash-killer 'Shumway' appears in FF. by skids · · Score: 2

    Flash is a security nightmare that we recently suggested deserves to rot in an unmarked grave.

    No, you'd better mark that grave prominently. Don't want anyone to unearth it again by accident.

  12. They are getting rid of Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The problem is not that they are getting rid of wma. The problem is they have dropped acc from Shoutcast and plan to turn off Shoutcast altogether in the next year or so. Since Shoutcast is supported by all Internet radios, and dash is supported by no Internet radios (please let me know if I'm wrong) it means that BBC radio is getting out of the business of streaming to Internet radios, starting by dropping support for Listen Again now, and eventually dropping all support. Too bad. I'd happily buy a radio that supports the new protocol, but they don't seem to exist.

  13. Patent royalties are incompatible with free SW by tepples · · Score: 2

    Too bad [AAC is] proprietary

    Proprietary in what way? It's an ISO standard

    Probably "proprietary" as the antonym of "free software". ISO standards can be encumbered by patents, and these patents can be licensed under either royalty-free or uniform-royalty terms. AAC and other MPEG codecs tend to carry a uniform royalty, and free software cannot implement any process with a nonzero royalty. Opus, on the other hand, is royalty-free.

  14. Shoutcast by clonehappy · · Score: 1

    It seems like many internet radio providers are dropping Shoutcast support, usually quietly/silently, and expecting you to use a proprietary app or DRM-based player to access their content. They may as well shoot themselves in the foot.

    Dropping Shoutcast support today is akin to commercial radio stations dropping AM in favor of FM back in the 1960's (note: they didn't, some simulcasted but eventually dropped FM until it really took off in the late 70's/early 80's when the penetration of receivers reached critical mass).

    Sure, there are players and radios that support newer formats, but every player and tons of applications support Shoutcast. Unless, and I know this is a huge stretch, the big media conglomerates don't want to compete on an open directory of stations that lets anyone with a computer and internet connection become a "broadcaster", and are trying to kill it off by removing their content from it?

    Nah, couldn't possibly be that...

    1. Re:Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC aren't dropping Shoutcast, I think they are dropping their AAC Shoutcast streams and introducing MP3 Shoutcast streams. The second links refers to new MP3 Shoutcast streams, there wasn't any specific reference to AAC Shoutcast streams there, but I think I read that detail elsewhere.

    2. Re: Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the comments to his blog post, Jim Simmons clarifies this some: "Although we cannot promise to support Shoutcast for more than the next 1-2 years, we will monitor the user numbers and quality of service and make any decisions around its future based on the data. There is no planned switch off date for the Shoutcast mp3 live streams at this time."

      To me that sounds like they really want to get rid of Shoutcast.

    3. Re: Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd interpret that as they don't want to waste money supporting infrastructure that is hardly used. If it is sufficiently used it will stay.

      You may be right that they want to get rid of it, but that is speculating on their personal feelings about it, and doesn't necessarily reflect what they'll do with it.

  15. Why automatically change bitrate by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why don't they just offer different streams at different bitrates?

    Because the user doesn't know in advance which bitrate to choose. For one thing, non-technical users don't know what a bitrate is. For another, the throughput and latency of a particular user's connection to the Internet change over time, and interrupting the stream when the connection quality declines causes a poor user experience.

  16. The details by TheSync · · Score: 2

    Based on this post, it looks like the BBC radio audio stream is encoded at a constant rate of 320 kbps using AAC-LC, delivered in the MPEG DASH container, and implemented in HTML5 using Media Source Extensions (MSE).

    It is not clear to me if the BBC radio audio is being carried in MPEG DASH as MPEG-4 file format fragments or as an MPEG-2 Transport Stream, but I would suspect for audio-only it is MPEG-4 file format fragments.

  17. Why no commentaries on R5 Live Sport? by grahammm · · Score: 1

    The BBC story and blog states that many R5 Live Sports commentaries are 'blanked out' because it is available worldwide and the BBC do not have the world rights. As it is radio, the sound consists mainly of the commentators talking, and these are BBC commentators so in effect the BBC is saying that they do not own the copyright in the words spoken by their employees (intended for broadcast) as part of their employment. Or to put it simply, the BBC own the copyright to the commentaries made by their commentators - so they also have the right to broadcast (whether by radio or IP) wherever they choose. So this is a fatuous argument.

    1. Re:Why no commentaries on R5 Live Sport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It probably isn't that simple, I think sports organisations control rights of who can broadcast specific events, so while the BBC may own the copyright to the commentary, they don't have the right to broadcast that wherever they want. If it was as simple as you suggest, I'm sure they would just broadcast it all internationally.

    2. Re:Why no commentaries on R5 Live Sport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In any case, why can't they control availability in a more granular manner. Obviously in an ideal world there would just be one stream for everyone, but if you're going to mess about with who has rights over what and let the whims of intellectual property dictate how things are going to work, then surely you have to accept the necessity of providing separate streams for different regions as a natural consequence.

      Also, whatever happened to multicasting? I remember years ago the BBC were trialling the possibility of using multicast for their radio streams, but it seems to have died a death.

  18. Next step.... by MacColossus · · Score: 1

    Now BBC.co.uk and bbc.com need to drop Flash video for HTML5.

    1. Re:Next step.... by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they're working on it. They were unhappy with the inability to adequately (from the broadcast rights perspective) protect their content unless they used Flash.

      Since Netflix also had this problem until recently, the issue has been solved and I'm sure we'll see the HTML5 player in the not-too-distant future.

    2. Re:Next step.... by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      For computers that don't have a H264 hardware decoder (or lack the driver), HTML5 video is even more CPU hungry than flash. So it's a bit early to make that transition I think (or offer both). Why not drop flash in 2017 when Adobe will fully orphan it on linux, then hopefully Firefox will have improved some more in speed. I will then worry about installing a HTML video blocker extension or something to open the video in an external player, till then I'll be happy running the flash player that only quadruples the CPU requirements for playing a video rather than octupling them.

    3. Re:Next step.... by JohnStock · · Score: 1

      Whoo a bit too early? Hasn't H264 decoding been available for years in GPUs?

  19. Prohibitively expensive! Licenses R a nut-kick by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    Prohibitively expensive> Not for (one of) the most monopolistic and richest companies in the USA. Thank you BBC for telling MS to shove their license up it. BTW who is ready to pay a yearly license for win10? I'd rather use win98SE with all those cracked free programs remember how great they were? And how those "free programs" made MS a predominant computer OS. Then they had to make WINXP DRM crappy and nothing you had or bought like musical keyboards from creative worked. That is unless you bought the proper CDs for $250 to learn you really couldn't use them. Forget about "trial versions." Applications for audio and MIDI compiling and other things? But at least we were 'productive' right? Bullshit.