Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Roberts and receiving BBC via wifi/internet radio
505 views
Skip to first unread message
Jim Lesurf
Feb 18, 2016, 12:34:05 PM2/18/16
to
In article <50jbcbt03g7dj8m27...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> From what has been posted here by Jim I thought these problems no longer
> existed.
I wouldn't draw *that* conclusion from what I've posted/written on the
topic!
What I have repeatedly cautioned people about is that streaming systems
develop, and if you buy a 'closed commercial device' to access them you
risk finding that any change may:
1) Cause the device to stop receiving something you want.
2) Mean the makers 'orphan' the product and tell you that you'd need to buy
something else if you want what it can't now deliver.
The basic problem here is the closed and limited nature of such devices for
use in an area where things have evolved rapidly, and almost certainly will
continue to do so. Manufacturers of closed boxes who can't be bothered to
make allowances for developments may still expose their customers to (1)
and (2).
The point about the BBC moving to MPEG5/DASH, for example, is that it is an
openly defined standard *and* allowed them to make 320k aac streams (live
and on demand) available in the UK for all their radio stations. So it
represents and improvement *if* what you use to access can keep up.
Anyone making new boxes now (or looking to buy one) should look for it
accepting the DASH streams as these will also probably be the most 'future
proof' so far as the BBC Radio output is concerned.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> From what has been posted here by Jim I thought these problems no longer
> existed.
I wouldn't draw *that* conclusion from what I've posted/written on the
topic!
What I have repeatedly cautioned people about is that streaming systems
develop, and if you buy a 'closed commercial device' to access them you
risk finding that any change may:
1) Cause the device to stop receiving something you want.
2) Mean the makers 'orphan' the product and tell you that you'd need to buy
something else if you want what it can't now deliver.
The basic problem here is the closed and limited nature of such devices for
use in an area where things have evolved rapidly, and almost certainly will
continue to do so. Manufacturers of closed boxes who can't be bothered to
make allowances for developments may still expose their customers to (1)
and (2).
The point about the BBC moving to MPEG5/DASH, for example, is that it is an
openly defined standard *and* allowed them to make 320k aac streams (live
and on demand) available in the UK for all their radio stations. So it
represents and improvement *if* what you use to access can keep up.
Anyone making new boxes now (or looking to buy one) should look for it
accepting the DASH streams as these will also probably be the most 'future
proof' so far as the BBC Radio output is concerned.
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Max Demian
Feb 18, 2016, 5:53:18 PM2/18/16
to
The *point* is that transmission standards should be stable, if
necessary enforced by Trading Standards. Is an AM/FM radio a 'closed
box'? Is a record player?
--
Max Demian
Roderick Stewart
Feb 19, 2016, 3:18:28 AM2/19/16
to
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016 15:05:37 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
[Roberts Stream 93i]
>I bought this device in December 2015, ten months after the BBC changed its data
>format. There seems to me to be no excuse for continuing to sell a product that
>cannot perform the most basic function of internet radio - listening on demand.
>Poor show from Roberts in continuing to manufacture this, poor show from Amazon
>in selling it without making its limitations very clear. I will be returning
>mine immediately."
That depends on what you regard as "the most basic function of
internet radio". I'd have defined the most basic function of any radio
simply as the ability to receive broadcasts, an ability that this
radio definitely has. It can receive thousands, including the BBC.
I think it would be a shame if this radio were withdrawn from sale
because of only one special thing it can't do, and not even something
that everybody would want, because there's plenty it can do.
It can receive FM and DAB as well as internet radio, it can connect to
your local network by wireless or ethernet and play audio files from a
suitably configured computer on the network or from a plug-in USB
memory stick. It can play audio from an external source and/or output
it to headphones or a hi-fi system via standard 3.5mm jacks, and its
built-in loudspeakers sound very good for a radio of its size. This is
one of the most well-connected radios you can buy; some computers
don't even have ethernet these days. I'm sad for you that it
apparently won't do what you want, but I'm very pleased with mine.
Rod.
[Roberts Stream 93i]
>I bought this device in December 2015, ten months after the BBC changed its data
>format. There seems to me to be no excuse for continuing to sell a product that
>cannot perform the most basic function of internet radio - listening on demand.
>Poor show from Roberts in continuing to manufacture this, poor show from Amazon
>in selling it without making its limitations very clear. I will be returning
>mine immediately."
That depends on what you regard as "the most basic function of
internet radio". I'd have defined the most basic function of any radio
simply as the ability to receive broadcasts, an ability that this
radio definitely has. It can receive thousands, including the BBC.
I think it would be a shame if this radio were withdrawn from sale
because of only one special thing it can't do, and not even something
that everybody would want, because there's plenty it can do.
It can receive FM and DAB as well as internet radio, it can connect to
your local network by wireless or ethernet and play audio files from a
suitably configured computer on the network or from a plug-in USB
memory stick. It can play audio from an external source and/or output
it to headphones or a hi-fi system via standard 3.5mm jacks, and its
built-in loudspeakers sound very good for a radio of its size. This is
one of the most well-connected radios you can buy; some computers
don't even have ethernet these days. I'm sad for you that it
apparently won't do what you want, but I'm very pleased with mine.
Rod.
Roderick Stewart
Feb 19, 2016, 5:43:11 AM2/19/16
to
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:21:31 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
>the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
>a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
>most of the time.
If that's what worries you, then it will apply to *any* internet
radio, regardless of brand, so no need to pick on one (though I can
understand why you'd be concerned if you'd bought an expensive one).
It would seem counterproductive for any broadcaster to do something
that would make its broadcasts unobtainable on widely used existing
equipment, and I don't recall BBC radio ever doing this.
The only related incident I can think of is when DTTV (not strictly
the BBC but Freeview, which of course includes BBC) became unusable on
*some* receivers, but in that case it was actually the receivers that
had not been made according to the published standards. Are there
published standards for internet broadcasts? Are there published
standards for radio catchup services?
Rod.
>I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
>the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
>a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
>most of the time.
If that's what worries you, then it will apply to *any* internet
radio, regardless of brand, so no need to pick on one (though I can
understand why you'd be concerned if you'd bought an expensive one).
It would seem counterproductive for any broadcaster to do something
that would make its broadcasts unobtainable on widely used existing
equipment, and I don't recall BBC radio ever doing this.
The only related incident I can think of is when DTTV (not strictly
the BBC but Freeview, which of course includes BBC) became unusable on
*some* receivers, but in that case it was actually the receivers that
had not been made according to the published standards. Are there
published standards for internet broadcasts? Are there published
standards for radio catchup services?
Rod.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 19, 2016, 5:45:40 AM2/19/16
to
In article <0viccb5k67agrc3q7...@4ax.com>, Martin
And the methods the BBC have been using for net access haven't been "
transmission *standards* ".[1]
Broadcasters around the world haven't sat down in official bodies to lay
out the precise, fixed, standards they will adopt in common for internet
broadcasts, and have that written into national/international formal
agreements.
The situation now with net radio is akin the the very early days of
'wireless'. People are still developing both the methods and the
infrastructure, and often doing it in different ways.
Contrast this with DAB where the BBC get criticised for *adhering* to
formally agreed "transmission standards" rather than render existing radios
obsolete.
If you want the BBC to go on supporting all the ancient methods like WMA
over wet string, argue that they need the money to be able to do so. As it
is, they have been focussing their reducing resources on improved quality,
extended over more of their radio stations, and the ability to serve more
listeners at a time, whilst having to live with a smaller budget.
As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not the
shop, and often not the maker. They are the ones you paid when you bought
the radio. Up to them to fix any problems if they want to sell you such
radios. As it is, they make their income by feeding off what the BBC
provided.
AIUI the HTML5/MPEG-DASH approach should now become akin to a real
'standard' as it is openly defined and works well. That should let radio
makers adopt it and give it a long an useful life. Given that it was
defined *years* ago and adoped by the BBC maybe the makers should have
extracted their digits by now! If they want to use *proprietary* methods
like HLS, etc, maybe they need to face up to paying either the BBC or a
third party aggrigator to get that and stop buck-passing. They get the
money when you buy the radio.
Jim
[1] Except in the MicroSoft sense that presumes WMA a 'standard' because
it's what MicroSoft wanted everyone to use... and charge the BBC for.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> The point about the BBC moving to MPEG5/DASH, for example...
> >
> >The *point* is that transmission standards should be stable, if
> >necessary enforced by Trading Standards. Is an AM/FM radio a 'closed
> >box'? Is a record player?
> Exactly!
> >
> >> The point about the BBC moving to MPEG5/DASH, for example...
> >
> >The *point* is that transmission standards should be stable, if
> >necessary enforced by Trading Standards. Is an AM/FM radio a 'closed
> >box'? Is a record player?
And the methods the BBC have been using for net access haven't been "
transmission *standards* ".[1]
Broadcasters around the world haven't sat down in official bodies to lay
out the precise, fixed, standards they will adopt in common for internet
broadcasts, and have that written into national/international formal
agreements.
The situation now with net radio is akin the the very early days of
'wireless'. People are still developing both the methods and the
infrastructure, and often doing it in different ways.
Contrast this with DAB where the BBC get criticised for *adhering* to
formally agreed "transmission standards" rather than render existing radios
obsolete.
If you want the BBC to go on supporting all the ancient methods like WMA
over wet string, argue that they need the money to be able to do so. As it
is, they have been focussing their reducing resources on improved quality,
extended over more of their radio stations, and the ability to serve more
listeners at a time, whilst having to live with a smaller budget.
As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not the
shop, and often not the maker. They are the ones you paid when you bought
the radio. Up to them to fix any problems if they want to sell you such
radios. As it is, they make their income by feeding off what the BBC
provided.
AIUI the HTML5/MPEG-DASH approach should now become akin to a real
'standard' as it is openly defined and works well. That should let radio
makers adopt it and give it a long an useful life. Given that it was
defined *years* ago and adoped by the BBC maybe the makers should have
extracted their digits by now! If they want to use *proprietary* methods
like HLS, etc, maybe they need to face up to paying either the BBC or a
third party aggrigator to get that and stop buck-passing. They get the
money when you buy the radio.
Jim
[1] Except in the MicroSoft sense that presumes WMA a 'standard' because
it's what MicroSoft wanted everyone to use... and charge the BBC for.
c...@isbd.net
Feb 19, 2016, 6:03:04 AM2/19/16
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
> commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
> aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not the
> shop, and often not the maker.
In law it *is* the shop who is responsible. If an internet radio
> As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
> commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
> aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not the
> shop, and often not the maker.
stops working within what the law regards as a 'reasonable' time from
the date of purchase then it's the retailer from whom you bought it
who has to sort it out. I guess they can just refund you though.
--
Chris Green
·
Adrian Caspersz
Feb 19, 2016, 6:03:11 AM2/19/16
to
On 19/02/16 09:21, Martin wrote:
> It can do a lot of things but not everything he expected it to be able to do.
> It does have a lot of good reviews from those who didn't specifically buy it for
> it's pod cast abilities.
difficult, I use darkice/icecast to distribute spotify to internet radio
devices here.
However, for podcasts.... erm...
Why not get an old laptop and speakers?
or use a tablet? or an old mobile phone?
Build it into a plush wooden cabinet with a small amp and speakers.
d.i.y. boombox stylee?
--
Adrian C
> It can do a lot of things but not everything he expected it to be able to do.
> It does have a lot of good reviews from those who didn't specifically buy it for
> it's pod cast abilities.
>
> I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
> the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
> a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
> most of the time.
With a raspberry pi somewhere you could make a streaming proxy... not
> I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
> the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
> a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
> most of the time.
difficult, I use darkice/icecast to distribute spotify to internet radio
devices here.
However, for podcasts.... erm...
Why not get an old laptop and speakers?
or use a tablet? or an old mobile phone?
Build it into a plush wooden cabinet with a small amp and speakers.
d.i.y. boombox stylee?
--
Adrian C
c...@isbd.net
Feb 19, 2016, 6:16:03 AM2/19/16
to
Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:21:31 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
> >the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
> >a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
> >most of the time.
>
> If that's what worries you, then it will apply to *any* internet
> radio, regardless of brand, so no need to pick on one (though I can
> understand why you'd be concerned if you'd bought an expensive one).
>
Use a Raspberry Pi or something similar, then it can be updated when
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:21:31 +0100, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I buy one
> >the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I will be left with
> >a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too far from Uk to receive FM
> >most of the time.
>
> If that's what worries you, then it will apply to *any* internet
> radio, regardless of brand, so no need to pick on one (though I can
> understand why you'd be concerned if you'd bought an expensive one).
>
things change. I use a little app called 'Radio Tray' on my dekstop
machine to listen to internet radio. It would work fine on a Pi.
--
Chris Green
·
charles
Feb 19, 2016, 6:27:11 AM2/19/16
to
In article <5hrdcbt2lnpl19akg...@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
The same thing happened when Ceefax started - in the 1970s. Some
manufacturers didn't appear to read the international specification but
simply made kit to receive what was being transmitted at the time. Quite
legitimate improvements were made to the service and these receivers failed.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
manufacturers didn't appear to read the international specification but
simply made kit to receive what was being transmitted at the time. Quite
legitimate improvements were made to the service and these receivers failed.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
Terry Casey
Feb 19, 2016, 8:19:42 AM2/19/16
to
In article <5554542d...@candehope.me.uk>, cha...@candehope.me.uk
says...
As you should well know, there were three versions of the unified
(BBC/IBA/BREMA) Teletext specification between March 1974 and September 1976
- all long before there was an international version, although there was
provision for different/multiple language decoders in the UK specification.
The final one of the three was simply entitled 'The Broadcast Teletext
Specification'.
The first decoder available was produced by Texas Instruments and called
TIfax. It was obviously designed before the added facilities in that
specification were decided (or design was so far advanced that adding them
was too problematical) but they never, ever failed!
It was an inherent feature of the specification that it was reverse
compatible with the original version which meant that the TIfax decoder
worked perfectly well EXCEPT that is was not capable of displaying the 'new'
features such as Double Height, Background Colour and Graphics Hold.
The only set I know of that used the TIfax decoder was the Rank Arena AC6333.
The Philips/Mullard chip set virtually scooped the pool when it was
introduced and TI's involvement in Teletext faded away ...
--
Terry
says...
>
> The same thing happened when Ceefax started - in the 1970s. Some
> manufacturers didn't appear to read the international specification but
> simply made kit to receive what was being transmitted at the time. Quite
> legitimate improvements were made to the service and these receivers failed.
I think you are being a bit harsh there, Charles, as well as inaccurate.
> The same thing happened when Ceefax started - in the 1970s. Some
> manufacturers didn't appear to read the international specification but
> simply made kit to receive what was being transmitted at the time. Quite
> legitimate improvements were made to the service and these receivers failed.
As you should well know, there were three versions of the unified
(BBC/IBA/BREMA) Teletext specification between March 1974 and September 1976
- all long before there was an international version, although there was
provision for different/multiple language decoders in the UK specification.
The final one of the three was simply entitled 'The Broadcast Teletext
Specification'.
The first decoder available was produced by Texas Instruments and called
TIfax. It was obviously designed before the added facilities in that
specification were decided (or design was so far advanced that adding them
was too problematical) but they never, ever failed!
It was an inherent feature of the specification that it was reverse
compatible with the original version which meant that the TIfax decoder
worked perfectly well EXCEPT that is was not capable of displaying the 'new'
features such as Double Height, Background Colour and Graphics Hold.
The only set I know of that used the TIfax decoder was the Rank Arena AC6333.
The Philips/Mullard chip set virtually scooped the pool when it was
introduced and TI's involvement in Teletext faded away ...
--
Terry
charles
Feb 19, 2016, 8:49:28 AM2/19/16
to
In article <MPG.313126c02...@news.eternal-september.org>, Terry
There were decoders which only detected 2 lines of text, sets that didn't
have adequate flyback suppression, so the extra lines showed behind the
picture, some that couldn't cope with multiple magazines in the same
broadcast stream; and other problems I can't remember at a 40 year interval.
have adequate flyback suppression, so the extra lines showed behind the
picture, some that couldn't cope with multiple magazines in the same
broadcast stream; and other problems I can't remember at a 40 year interval.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 19, 2016, 9:28:44 AM2/19/16
to
In article <famdcbhd0gvs4mt1m...@4ax.com>, Martin
some kind where *you* can change or update the software. The bottom line is
that it doesn't matter who you want to blame *until* a court case settles
it, or there is legislation that finally covers such issues.
Jim
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I
> buy one the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I
> will be left with a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too
> far from Uk to receive FM most of the time.
Then *don't* buy a closed commercial box for the task. Use a computer of
> I am not particularly worried about pod cast, but I am worried that if I
> buy one the BBC will change the way they transmit internet again and I
> will be left with a box that can't receive BBC internet radio. I am too
> far from Uk to receive FM most of the time.
some kind where *you* can change or update the software. The bottom line is
that it doesn't matter who you want to blame *until* a court case settles
it, or there is legislation that finally covers such issues.
Jim
Jim Lesurf
Feb 19, 2016, 9:28:44 AM2/19/16
to
the courts to determine who would be 'responsible'.
The key issue here is that the shop/retailer doesn't control or pay for any
service 'support' for the radio. The *manufacturers* tend to do that and
the shop takes it as given. So the problem is caused by people who the
retail customer has no 'contract' with to support the radio forevermore.
I've been writing about this key problem with closed boxes for years,
trying to warn people about it. But it won't be solved without either new
primary legislation of a court case that can then become established
precident for all later similar cases.
Until then, don't buy such a radio unless you're prepared to accept the
risk, and face a retailer who tells you its not their problem.
Jim
c...@isbd.net
Feb 19, 2016, 11:16:03 AM2/19/16
to
pamela <inv...@nospam.com> wrote:
> If you bought a VHS video recorder just as it was getting
> superceded then surely that's your fault.
>
> I can't see that a court ruling would be in favour of the buyer.
I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work.
They can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
The only question is whether the courts would expect a 'reasonable'
person to think that some facility on the radio should work. I'd
think that something specified in the list of things that the radio is
supposed to do for you would be something that has to work. If it
doesn't work you return the radio to the retailer and get a refund.
The retailer *cannot* say "it's out of my control".
The only defence would be that it's unreasonable for the user to
expect the facility to work for however long they've had the radio
since they bought it.
--
Chris Green
·
> superceded then surely that's your fault.
>
> I can't see that a court ruling would be in favour of the buyer.
I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work.
They can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
The only question is whether the courts would expect a 'reasonable'
person to think that some facility on the radio should work. I'd
think that something specified in the list of things that the radio is
supposed to do for you would be something that has to work. If it
doesn't work you return the radio to the retailer and get a refund.
The retailer *cannot* say "it's out of my control".
The only defence would be that it's unreasonable for the user to
expect the facility to work for however long they've had the radio
since they bought it.
--
Chris Green
·
Jim Lesurf
Feb 19, 2016, 11:46:13 AM2/19/16
to
In article <6h0ecblst65kr24qt...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> The BBC could kill DAB radio sales by changing too DAB+ like the Dutch
> did. This would be consistent with changing the Internet standard the
> BBC uses.
Shame you've totally missed the points I made. Seems clear you are
determined to blame the BBC.
[snip whinges about the BBC]
> >
> >As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
> >commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
> >aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not
> >the shop, and often not the maker. They are the ones you paid when you
> >bought the radio. Up to them to fix any problems if they want to sell
> >you such radios. As it is, they make their income by feeding off what
> >the BBC provided.
> The public pay for the BBC. The BBC isn't a private commercial company.
... and don't make or sell internet radio sets.
To get beyond that you'd have to understand what I've repeatedly explained.
Failing that you'll just have to whinge.
> >
> >[1] Except in the MicroSoft sense that presumes WMA a 'standard'
> >because it's what MicroSoft wanted everyone to use... and charge the
> >BBC for.
> and because tens of millions use WMA everyday. WMA is a de facto
> standard, otherwise why did the BBC use it initially.
And things moved on and the WMA became a tiny fraction of the accesses.
> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that they
> couldn't afford?
Ask MicroSoft.
Jim
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 10:13:19 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <0viccb5k67agrc3q7...@4ax.com>, Martin
> ><m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Contrast this with DAB where the BBC get criticised for *adhering* to
> >formally agreed "transmission standards" rather than render existing
> >radios obsolete.
> DAB not DAB+
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >In article <0viccb5k67agrc3q7...@4ax.com>, Martin
> ><m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Contrast this with DAB where the BBC get criticised for *adhering* to
> >formally agreed "transmission standards" rather than render existing
> >radios obsolete.
> The BBC could kill DAB radio sales by changing too DAB+ like the Dutch
> did. This would be consistent with changing the Internet standard the
> BBC uses.
Shame you've totally missed the points I made. Seems clear you are
determined to blame the BBC.
[snip whinges about the BBC]
> >
> >As has been said before on many occasions. When you buy a closed box
> >commercial 'net radio' that is generally supported by a commerical
> >aggrigator or service supplier who is a 'third party'. Not the BBC, not
> >the shop, and often not the maker. They are the ones you paid when you
> >bought the radio. Up to them to fix any problems if they want to sell
> >you such radios. As it is, they make their income by feeding off what
> >the BBC provided.
... and don't make or sell internet radio sets.
To get beyond that you'd have to understand what I've repeatedly explained.
Failing that you'll just have to whinge.
> >
> >[1] Except in the MicroSoft sense that presumes WMA a 'standard'
> >because it's what MicroSoft wanted everyone to use... and charge the
> >BBC for.
> standard, otherwise why did the BBC use it initially.
And things moved on and the WMA became a tiny fraction of the accesses.
> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that they
> couldn't afford?
Ask MicroSoft.
Jim
Max Demian
Feb 19, 2016, 2:29:19 PM2/19/16
to
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016 15:21:26 GMT, pamela <inv...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 12:24 19 Feb 2016, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> On 12:24 19 Feb 2016, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > I've been writing about this key problem with closed boxes for
> > years, trying to warn people about it. But it won't be solved
> > without either new primary legislation of a court case that can
> > then become established precident for all later similar cases.
> >
> > Until then, don't buy such a radio unless you're prepared to
> > accept the risk, and face a retailer who tells you its not their
> > problem.
> > years, trying to warn people about it. But it won't be solved
> > without either new primary legislation of a court case that can
> > then become established precident for all later similar cases.
> >
> > Until then, don't buy such a radio unless you're prepared to
> > accept the risk, and face a retailer who tells you its not their
> > problem.
> If you bought a VHS video recorder just as it was getting
> superceded then surely that's your fault.
VHS recorders superceded? What do you mean? They still work just the
> superceded then surely that's your fault.
same. You can even record 'modern' TV with one by hooking it up to
the appropriate STB.
--
Max Demian
Jim Lesurf
Feb 20, 2016, 4:34:28 AM2/20/16
to
In article <lmrjpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
> shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work. They
> can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a device
> I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
> shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work. They
> can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So they can find
out if they want. From their POV that might be more productive than moaning
about it on usenet... if they are right.
However I suspect the problem is the definition of 'work'.
If the description says it accepts, say, WMA, then I'd guess the
retailer/maker would respond, "It will still do that. Not my problem if you
can't find the specific WMA stream you *want*. The radio isn't at fault, it
is as described."
> The only question is whether the courts would expect a 'reasonable'
> person to think that some facility on the radio should work. I'd think
> that something specified in the list of things that the radio is
> supposed to do for you would be something that has to work. If it
> doesn't work you return the radio to the retailer and get a refund. The
> retailer *cannot* say "it's out of my control".
that "can" isn't a synonym for "should". Nor does it mean they are right or
wrong.
> The only defence would be that it's unreasonable for the user to expect
> the facility to work for however long they've had the radio since they
> bought it.
if Trading Standards or the CA will take it up. I'd love to see what
happens.
FWIW Personally I'd love to see such a case against the retailer (or
manufacturer) succeed. But I suspect you'd not have a snowball's
chance in hell of succeeding in a case against the BBC for ceasing
to provide, say WMA, forevermore.
Terry Casey
Feb 20, 2016, 9:00:28 AM2/20/16
to
In article <5554613b...@candehope.me.uk>, cha...@candehope.me.uk
says...
The Stock Exchange had a 22 channel cable TV system for displaying Market
prices but there were demands from members for more information (only about
800 of the most popular stocks were covered) and also for colour.
When Ceefax was first announced I was given the task of following its
development closely, with a view to adding Teletext to the existing system.
The first decoder commercially available was the TIfax decoder I previously
mentioned and this definitely worked on all 16 specified data lines because
we ran a series of tests on our network using a VG Data Bridge which included
a test page which was generated if the incoming signal failed.
I modified this so that it bridged Ceefax, magazine 1, on two lines and also
generated the test page on the other 14 lines using magazine 7. Both
magazines were transmitted correctly.
As for flyback blanking, that is not decoder related as it is a function of
the TV only. The majority of our receivers were based on ITT VC100 and VC200
chassis. The older VC100 displayed several data lines on the retrace whereas
the VC200 worked perfectly.
It sounds as if the problems you recall were caused by people installing
prototype decoders in old sets.
There seemed to be a surprising number of these because as soon as the Stock
Exchange's interest became widespread a number of companies with such devices
contacted us, hoping to sell us their highly priced product.
Why, I don't know, as I don't recall any of them claiming any use for their
product that couldn't be met by a mass produced decoder!
One by one they would come along with their product - always lots of TTL on
beautifully produced PCBs. But why would you, with Philips already announcing
custom designed LSI chips?
After their presentation extolling the virtues of their product it was always
left to me to ask a few questions. It usually only took one: "Will your
decoder handle data on all of the 16 lines defined by the 'Broadcast Teletext
Specification'?"
Amazingly, most of them didn't!
The Stock Exchange system did go ahead but, with improved communications
becoming increasingly available, member firms were starting to move a
significant part of their support functions away from the City and well
beyond the limit of the cable network so the system was developed as a
Viewdata system - with a few extra bells and whistles.
It was known as TOPIC - Teletext Output Price Information Computer.
--
Terry
says...
>
> In article <MPG.313126c02...@news.eternal-september.org>, Terry
> Casey <k.t...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The first decoder available was produced by Texas Instruments and called
> > TIfax. It was obviously designed before the added facilities in that
> > specification were decided (or design was so far advanced that adding
> > them was too problematical) but they never, ever failed!
>
> In article <MPG.313126c02...@news.eternal-september.org>, Terry
> Casey <k.t...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The first decoder available was produced by Texas Instruments and called
> > TIfax. It was obviously designed before the added facilities in that
> > specification were decided (or design was so far advanced that adding
> > them was too problematical) but they never, ever failed!
>
> > The Philips/Mullard chip set virtually scooped the pool when it was
> > introduced and TI's involvement in Teletext faded away ...
>
> There were decoders which only detected 2 lines of text, sets that didn't
> have adequate flyback suppression, so the extra lines showed behind the
> picture, some that couldn't cope with multiple magazines in the same
> broadcast stream; and other problems I can't remember at a 40 year interval.
I would be interested to know what these decoders were!
> > introduced and TI's involvement in Teletext faded away ...
>
> There were decoders which only detected 2 lines of text, sets that didn't
> have adequate flyback suppression, so the extra lines showed behind the
> picture, some that couldn't cope with multiple magazines in the same
> broadcast stream; and other problems I can't remember at a 40 year interval.
The Stock Exchange had a 22 channel cable TV system for displaying Market
prices but there were demands from members for more information (only about
800 of the most popular stocks were covered) and also for colour.
When Ceefax was first announced I was given the task of following its
development closely, with a view to adding Teletext to the existing system.
The first decoder commercially available was the TIfax decoder I previously
mentioned and this definitely worked on all 16 specified data lines because
we ran a series of tests on our network using a VG Data Bridge which included
a test page which was generated if the incoming signal failed.
I modified this so that it bridged Ceefax, magazine 1, on two lines and also
generated the test page on the other 14 lines using magazine 7. Both
magazines were transmitted correctly.
As for flyback blanking, that is not decoder related as it is a function of
the TV only. The majority of our receivers were based on ITT VC100 and VC200
chassis. The older VC100 displayed several data lines on the retrace whereas
the VC200 worked perfectly.
It sounds as if the problems you recall were caused by people installing
prototype decoders in old sets.
There seemed to be a surprising number of these because as soon as the Stock
Exchange's interest became widespread a number of companies with such devices
contacted us, hoping to sell us their highly priced product.
Why, I don't know, as I don't recall any of them claiming any use for their
product that couldn't be met by a mass produced decoder!
One by one they would come along with their product - always lots of TTL on
beautifully produced PCBs. But why would you, with Philips already announcing
custom designed LSI chips?
After their presentation extolling the virtues of their product it was always
left to me to ask a few questions. It usually only took one: "Will your
decoder handle data on all of the 16 lines defined by the 'Broadcast Teletext
Specification'?"
Amazingly, most of them didn't!
The Stock Exchange system did go ahead but, with improved communications
becoming increasingly available, member firms were starting to move a
significant part of their support functions away from the City and well
beyond the limit of the cable network so the system was developed as a
Viewdata system - with a few extra bells and whistles.
It was known as TOPIC - Teletext Output Price Information Computer.
--
Terry
c...@isbd.net
Feb 20, 2016, 9:16:03 AM2/20/16
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <lmrjpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
>
> > I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
> > shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work. They
> > can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
>
> If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a device
> and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So they can find
> out if they want. From their POV that might be more productive than moaning
> about it on usenet... if they are right.
>
It very rarely gets to court, if you're insistent enough the retailer
> In article <lmrjpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
>
> > I really don't see that there's any real issue to debate. The
> > shop/retailer *is* legally responsible if something doesn't work. They
> > can't shift the responsibility anywhere else.
>
> If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a device
> and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So they can find
> out if they want. From their POV that might be more productive than moaning
> about it on usenet... if they are right.
>
gives in and refunds.
--
Chris Green
·
Adrian Caspersz
Feb 20, 2016, 9:22:35 AM2/20/16
to
On 20/02/16 14:00, Terry Casey wrote:
<snip>
A long time ago I came across this eurocard version of the BBC
Microcomputer. After a bit of hacking about even managed to get it to
boot and spit out RGB video!
Reuters APM Board
http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Reuters.html
Acorn did produce some wierd stuff in vertical markets ...
--
Adrian C
<snip>
> The Stock Exchange system did go ahead but, with improved communications
> becoming increasingly available, member firms were starting to move a
> significant part of their support functions away from the City and well
> beyond the limit of the cable network so the system was developed as a
> Viewdata system - with a few extra bells and whistles.
>
> It was known as TOPIC - Teletext Output Price Information Computer.
>
TOPIC rings a (small) bell here,
> becoming increasingly available, member firms were starting to move a
> significant part of their support functions away from the City and well
> beyond the limit of the cable network so the system was developed as a
> Viewdata system - with a few extra bells and whistles.
>
> It was known as TOPIC - Teletext Output Price Information Computer.
>
A long time ago I came across this eurocard version of the BBC
Microcomputer. After a bit of hacking about even managed to get it to
boot and spit out RGB video!
Reuters APM Board
http://chrisacorns.computinghistory.org.uk/Computers/Reuters.html
Acorn did produce some wierd stuff in vertical markets ...
--
Adrian C
charles
Feb 20, 2016, 9:33:41 AM2/20/16
to
In article <MPG.313281c3f...@news.eternal-september.org>, Terry
One was a teletext adaptor quite widely marketed - that was the "only two
lines of text". I supect it used it;s own decoder. I agree that flyback
blanking is not per se a teletext problem, but the set which I am thinking
about was a very up-market brand and which did have a ceefax decoder and
should have been properly designed to cope with extra data lines in the
field interval. In a conversation with that company's UK engineering boss,
he said "Between you me and thn gatehouse, that was a right abortion of a
set.".
[Snip]
lines of text". I supect it used it;s own decoder. I agree that flyback
blanking is not per se a teletext problem, but the set which I am thinking
about was a very up-market brand and which did have a ceefax decoder and
should have been properly designed to cope with extra data lines in the
field interval. In a conversation with that company's UK engineering boss,
he said "Between you me and thn gatehouse, that was a right abortion of a
set.".
[Snip]
Jim Lesurf
Feb 20, 2016, 11:37:16 AM2/20/16
to
In article <4j8mpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> >
> > If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a
> > device and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So
> > they can find out if they want. From their POV that might be more
> > productive than moaning about it on usenet... if they are right.
> >
> It very rarely gets to court, if you're insistent enough the retailer
> gives in and refunds.
..or the buyer gives up.
> >
> > If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a
> > device and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So
> > they can find out if they want. From their POV that might be more
> > productive than moaning about it on usenet... if they are right.
> >
> It very rarely gets to court, if you're insistent enough the retailer
> gives in and refunds.
Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to court
or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the retailer
doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up to support the
'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third party 'service
aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't even know. Thus
effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods rights for consumers.
I've never known of a case being judged by a court. If someone can point
us at the details of a court decision specific to this problem, please
give a reference we can check.
Potential buyers beware.
c...@isbd.net
Feb 20, 2016, 12:16:03 PM2/20/16
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to court
> or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the retailer
> doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up to support the
> 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third party 'service
> aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't even know. Thus
> effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods rights for consumers.
>
There is *no* defence for the retailer. Whoever is 'responsible' in
>
> Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to court
> or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the retailer
> doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up to support the
> 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third party 'service
> aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't even know. Thus
> effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods rights for consumers.
>
the technical sense makes no differene. As regards the contract
between the consumer and the retailer the retailer *is* responsible.
The legislation is absolutely clear. It may not be fair on the
retailer but that's the way it is.
--
Chris Green
·
Indy Jess John
Feb 20, 2016, 5:54:11 PM2/20/16
to
On 20/02/2016 19:17, pamela wrote:
> Isn't the number of lines going to be a problem for a VHS recorder
> attached to a modern telly?
No. I have an analogue only VHS recorder that gives a decent picture
when connected via a SCART lead.
Jim
> attached to a modern telly?
No. I have an analogue only VHS recorder that gives a decent picture
when connected via a SCART lead.
Jim
Jim Lesurf
Feb 21, 2016, 4:58:41 AM2/21/16
to
In article <egjmpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to
> > court or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the
> > retailer doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up
> > to support the 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third
> > party 'service aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't
> > even know. Thus effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods
> > rights for consumers.
> >
> There is *no* defence for the retailer.
Which will remain irrelevant - if true - until judged upon by a court or
> Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to
> > court or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the
> > retailer doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up
> > to support the 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third
> > party 'service aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't
> > even know. Thus effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods
> > rights for consumers.
> >
> There is *no* defence for the retailer.
dealt with specifically in legislation. At the moment if the set can
receive the formats it says it can, and was described as such, its not
established to be the retailer's problem if a broadcaster ceases streaming
that format.
> Whoever is 'responsible' in the technical sense makes no differene. As
> regards the contract between the consumer and the retailer the retailer
> *is* responsible.
> The legislation is absolutely clear.
wrt stream formats.
> It may not be fair on the retailer but that's the way it is.
affected their money back.
Sorry of you don't like the situation. But it isn't of my doing, and
arguing about it here won't change it.
c...@isbd.net
Feb 21, 2016, 5:48:04 AM2/21/16
to
Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <egjmpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to
> > > court or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the
> > > retailer doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up
> > > to support the 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third
> > > party 'service aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't
> > > even know. Thus effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods
> > > rights for consumers.
> > >
> > There is *no* defence for the retailer.
>
> Which will remain irrelevant - if true - until judged upon by a court or
> dealt with specifically in legislation.
Doesn't need a precedent, the law is far too specific, the retailer
> In article <egjmpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> > Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to
> > > court or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the
> > > retailer doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up
> > > to support the 'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third
> > > party 'service aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't
> > > even know. Thus effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods
> > > rights for consumers.
> > >
> > There is *no* defence for the retailer.
>
> Which will remain irrelevant - if true - until judged upon by a court or
> dealt with specifically in legislation.
*is* responsible.
The only question would be whether the description (as a 'reasonable'
person would understand it) says that such-and-such a facility is
available.
--
Chris Green
·
Peter Duncanson
Feb 21, 2016, 9:27:34 AM2/21/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 12:46:09 +0000, Martin P <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:20:30 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
Highly unlikely.
My knowledge of internet radio is very limited.
Is there a national or international set of standards, industry or
independent, requiring sets to be upgradeable to cope with changes in
audio protocols?
Or is is just a disorganised free-for-all?
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
>On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:20:30 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4j8mpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a
>>> > device and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So
>>> > they can find out if they want. From their POV that might be more
>>> > productive than moaning about it on usenet... if they are right.
>>> >
>>> It very rarely gets to court, if you're insistent enough the retailer
>>> gives in and refunds.
>>
>>
>>..or the buyer gives up.
>>
>>Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to court
>>or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the retailer
>>doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up to support the
>>'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third party 'service
>>aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't even know. Thus
>>effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods rights for consumers.
>>
>>I've never known of a case being judged by a court. If someone can point
>>us at the details of a court decision specific to this problem, please
>>give a reference we can check.
>>
>>Potential buyers beware.
>
>Hopefully the new BBC Charter will control this sort of thing.
>>> >
>>> > If you're right a case would promply succeed. Anyone who has such a
>>> > device and agrees with Martin can take it to court if they wish. So
>>> > they can find out if they want. From their POV that might be more
>>> > productive than moaning about it on usenet... if they are right.
>>> >
>>> It very rarely gets to court, if you're insistent enough the retailer
>>> gives in and refunds.
>>
>>
>>..or the buyer gives up.
>>
>>Either way, this matter won't be legally resolved until cases come to court
>>or there is clear legislation. The basic problem is that the retailer
>>doesn't pay for or control any arrangements the maker set up to support the
>>'net radio' functioning. This often includes a third party 'service
>>aggrigator' whose identity the retailer and buyer won't even know. Thus
>>effectively out of scope of the usual sale-of-goods rights for consumers.
>>
>>I've never known of a case being judged by a court. If someone can point
>>us at the details of a court decision specific to this problem, please
>>give a reference we can check.
>>
>>Potential buyers beware.
>
Highly unlikely.
My knowledge of internet radio is very limited.
Is there a national or international set of standards, industry or
independent, requiring sets to be upgradeable to cope with changes in
audio protocols?
Or is is just a disorganised free-for-all?
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
michael adams
Feb 21, 2016, 9:54:07 AM2/21/16
to
<c...@isbd.net> wrote in message news:egjmpc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu...
Are you suggesting that all those former viewers of BBC3 who are without internet
access are entitled to take their TV sets back to the retailer and demand a refund
on the basis that the set no longer recieves BBC3 ?
michael adams
...
>
> --
> Chris Green
> ·
Jim Lesurf
Feb 21, 2016, 10:00:03 AM2/21/16
to
In article <30hopc-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> > > There is *no* defence for the retailer.
> >
> > Which will remain irrelevant - if true - until judged upon by a court
> > or dealt with specifically in legislation.
> Doesn't need a precedent, the law is far too specific, the retailer *is*
> responsible.
OSAF. You keep stating your belief as if that made it fact.
> > > There is *no* defence for the retailer.
> >
> > Which will remain irrelevant - if true - until judged upon by a court
> > or dealt with specifically in legislation.
> Doesn't need a precedent, the law is far too specific, the retailer *is*
> responsible.
If the description when sold was simply that "it can received formats A, B,
and C", then the future ending of anyone actually continuing streaming,
say, format A, would not violate the description given at the point of
sale. Particularly if only *some* ceased doing so, whilst others still use
the format.
So far as I know, retailers haven't been routinely refunding the money and
taking back affected net radios on the above specific basis. If you have
evidence that they have, please give us references we can check.
As it stands all we have is your OSAF. No court judgements or numbers and
details for refunds on this specific basis so far as I know.
I'd be happy if this *was* settled, but I've not seen any sign of it. All
I've seen over the years is various dissatisfied closed-device buyers when
said device was "orphaned" who *didn't* get a refund. *If* your belief is
correct, lets see the details of the cases and the results that show they
succeded on the above basis.
Telling people they *are* covered may not help as it can lead lambs to the
slaughter.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 21, 2016, 11:52:20 AM2/21/16
to
In article <m0cjcbtlkr4objjkj...@4ax.com>, Martin P
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> The problem is that the BBC changed the standard without sufficient
> warning long after the switch over. The radio will decode thousands of
> other Internet radio stations. The radio is not sold as a BBC Internet
> radio receiver.
As has been explained, it wasn't a "standard", regardless of if you want to
accept that or not.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> The problem is that the BBC changed the standard without sufficient
> warning long after the switch over. The radio will decode thousands of
> other Internet radio stations. The radio is not sold as a BBC Internet
> radio receiver.
As has been explained, it wasn't a "standard", regardless of if you want to
accept that or not.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 21, 2016, 11:52:21 AM2/21/16
to
In article <imdjcbdqhml30cnlg...@4ax.com>, Martin P
People I talk to at the BBC involved in Audio Factory, etc.
> For a while nobody could access BBC internet radio, because the BBC not
> only changed the standard it also withdrew the software it had provided
> for listening to BBC Internet radio.
You keep on misusing the word "standard". :-)
> >
> >
> >> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that they
> >> couldn't afford?
> >
> >Ask MicroSoft.
> I asked you because you claimed the BBC couldn't afford the WMA licence.
Actually, my point was that they decided the cost didn't justify the amount
of use/demand, and their budget was better spend on the improvements in
terms of audio quality and scalable access, etc.
> You appear to have inside knowledge on the subject. Do you have a
> commercial relationship with the BBC?
Nope. I just talk to some of those at the BBC who work in relevant
technical areas. If you don't like what they've said, I'm afraid that's not
my problem. If you think they are telling lies, again, that's your belief,
not mine.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >And things moved on and the WMA became a tiny fraction of the accesses.
> and your source of this information is?
> >
> >And things moved on and the WMA became a tiny fraction of the accesses.
People I talk to at the BBC involved in Audio Factory, etc.
> For a while nobody could access BBC internet radio, because the BBC not
> only changed the standard it also withdrew the software it had provided
> for listening to BBC Internet radio.
You keep on misusing the word "standard". :-)
> >
> >
> >> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that they
> >> couldn't afford?
> >
> >Ask MicroSoft.
Actually, my point was that they decided the cost didn't justify the amount
of use/demand, and their budget was better spend on the improvements in
terms of audio quality and scalable access, etc.
> You appear to have inside knowledge on the subject. Do you have a
> commercial relationship with the BBC?
Nope. I just talk to some of those at the BBC who work in relevant
technical areas. If you don't like what they've said, I'm afraid that's not
my problem. If you think they are telling lies, again, that's your belief,
not mine.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 21, 2016, 11:52:21 AM2/21/16
to
In article <65ijcb9nm4avsh5i2...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
trying to get Martin to understand - *there has been no established and
agreed "standard". *
People have simply worked on developing being able to serve and stream more
and more stations in higher quality to more and more listeners/viewers.
(And in my view the Radio side get the short end of the resources compared
with TV.)
What they *have* been trying to do is get to a point that might *become* an
agreed "standard". Part of that was trying to get away from commercial
close-source methods like Flash and use the best codec they could.
The plan from the start with Audio Factory was to move to aac (320k best)
for all stations, conveyed via MPEG-DASH. They couldn't do that quickly as
others involved hadn't actually implimented the agreed HTML5/MPEG-DASH.
Now we *do* have MPEG-DASH 320k for all the stations it may well *become*
*a* standard for the BBC to adopt. Although that leaves open what other
streaming broadcasters may want to do. I don't know if any *industry* level
agreements are being thrashed out.
So - as yet - so far as I know, there is no "standard". But at least we may
now be able to see a set of parameters that might end up being adopted as
one.
Until then, the best advice is to use an 'open box' to receive so you
can update it to keep up.
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> Highly unlikely.
> My knowledge of internet radio is very limited.
> Is there a national or international set of standards, industry or
> independent, requiring sets to be upgradeable to cope with changes in
> audio protocols?
> Or is is just a disorganised free-for-all?
It has simply been developing in an ad hoc manner until recently. As I keeo
> Highly unlikely.
> My knowledge of internet radio is very limited.
> Is there a national or international set of standards, industry or
> independent, requiring sets to be upgradeable to cope with changes in
> audio protocols?
> Or is is just a disorganised free-for-all?
trying to get Martin to understand - *there has been no established and
agreed "standard". *
People have simply worked on developing being able to serve and stream more
and more stations in higher quality to more and more listeners/viewers.
(And in my view the Radio side get the short end of the resources compared
with TV.)
What they *have* been trying to do is get to a point that might *become* an
agreed "standard". Part of that was trying to get away from commercial
close-source methods like Flash and use the best codec they could.
The plan from the start with Audio Factory was to move to aac (320k best)
for all stations, conveyed via MPEG-DASH. They couldn't do that quickly as
others involved hadn't actually implimented the agreed HTML5/MPEG-DASH.
Now we *do* have MPEG-DASH 320k for all the stations it may well *become*
*a* standard for the BBC to adopt. Although that leaves open what other
streaming broadcasters may want to do. I don't know if any *industry* level
agreements are being thrashed out.
So - as yet - so far as I know, there is no "standard". But at least we may
now be able to see a set of parameters that might end up being adopted as
one.
Until then, the best advice is to use an 'open box' to receive so you
can update it to keep up.
Peter Duncanson
Feb 21, 2016, 12:02:37 PM2/21/16
to
Roderick Stewart
Feb 22, 2016, 4:03:45 AM2/22/16
to
On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:28:56 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that the BBC changed the standard without sufficient
>> warning long after the switch over. The radio will decode thousands of
>> other Internet radio stations. The radio is not sold as a BBC Internet
>> radio receiver.
>
>As has been explained, it wasn't a "standard", regardless of if you want to
>accept that or not.
And it *can* receive BBC broadcasts. I've got one, and it works just
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that the BBC changed the standard without sufficient
>> warning long after the switch over. The radio will decode thousands of
>> other Internet radio stations. The radio is not sold as a BBC Internet
>> radio receiver.
>
>As has been explained, it wasn't a "standard", regardless of if you want to
>accept that or not.
as well on BBC stations as anything else.
I gather from points raised here that the only thing it can't do is
play "catch-up" services. These are a recent and unusual feature of a
radio set and may not be important (or even known) to everybody.
Rod.
Paul D Smith
Feb 22, 2016, 4:47:33 AM2/22/16
to
...snip...
Catch-up radio aka podcasts (or any other number of similar brandings [1])
has been a big advertising push from the BBC for a very long time and was
one of the reasons I bought my Roberts WM202. My wife happens to be a yank
so regularly listens to US programming either 'live' or via podcasts and
none of the other broadcasters have been affected.
My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope of
the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a large
percentage of the people who actually use this service and unlike, say, the
switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box' that is going to fix
this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs to retain their old
services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
[1] No need to explain the difference between podcast/catch-up etc because
the 'average listener' has no idea.
I gather from points raised here that the only thing it can't do is
play "catch-up" services. These are a recent and unusual feature of a
radio set and may not be important (or even known) to everybody.
+++++++++
play "catch-up" services. These are a recent and unusual feature of a
radio set and may not be important (or even known) to everybody.
Catch-up radio aka podcasts (or any other number of similar brandings [1])
has been a big advertising push from the BBC for a very long time and was
one of the reasons I bought my Roberts WM202. My wife happens to be a yank
so regularly listens to US programming either 'live' or via podcasts and
none of the other broadcasters have been affected.
My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope of
the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a large
percentage of the people who actually use this service and unlike, say, the
switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box' that is going to fix
this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs to retain their old
services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
[1] No need to explain the difference between podcast/catch-up etc because
the 'average listener' has no idea.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 22, 2016, 8:05:36 AM2/22/16
to
In article <naela1$59m$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul D Smith
'net radios' did so via a service aggrigator. This third party would
'translate' or alter what was presented to suit the radios.
One result was that the BBC couldn't always find out how people listened
via such third parties - who were hired by the *set makers* to ensure the
'net radio' users could access the BBC material. The BBC weren't told
because the details were commercially sensitive.
When AF was being arranged the BBC did have talks with such companies to
ensure they were informed and timescales clarified. After that, it was up
to them to either sort it out or flag problems.
Given that, it seems reasonable to think that net radio users should look
to the third parties paid to 'connect' them to the BBC when they get a
problem. Follow the money.
As it was, the BBC delayed for much longer than they'd wanted before
finally getting to the end-aim state of using DASH as the preferred *open
standard* method. Unlike all the earlier *closed* methods which meant they
had to keep paying companies and not be able to see in detail what they
were doing.
The only way they could have avoided this would have been to remain
'captive' to the commercial companies and run with lower overall quality
and capacity at a higher cost. It would also have meant a continuation of
situations like the one with Flash where the key source code was *not* the
BBC's, and when run is believed to have sent info on use to the USA.
In my opinion: Once DASH is established there can be a reversal of previous
behaviour. In the past the BBC ended up having to pay companies to be able
to use Flash, WMA, etc, etc. Sometimes involving code the BBC could not
fully check. In future the prospect becomes the BBC being able to say to
closed box makers, "Our normal method is HTML5/MPEG-DASH based. If your
devices want something else its up to you to pay for it and make the
arrangements."
That would make areas of responsibility clearer, save the BBC money, and
let users decide which approach they prefer.
<paul_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope
> of the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a
> large percentage of the people who actually use this service and
> unlike, say, the switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box'
> that is going to fix this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs
> to retain their old services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
One problem the BBC have had is that many of the users of closed commercial
> My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope
> of the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a
> large percentage of the people who actually use this service and
> unlike, say, the switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box'
> that is going to fix this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs
> to retain their old services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
'net radios' did so via a service aggrigator. This third party would
'translate' or alter what was presented to suit the radios.
One result was that the BBC couldn't always find out how people listened
via such third parties - who were hired by the *set makers* to ensure the
'net radio' users could access the BBC material. The BBC weren't told
because the details were commercially sensitive.
When AF was being arranged the BBC did have talks with such companies to
ensure they were informed and timescales clarified. After that, it was up
to them to either sort it out or flag problems.
Given that, it seems reasonable to think that net radio users should look
to the third parties paid to 'connect' them to the BBC when they get a
problem. Follow the money.
As it was, the BBC delayed for much longer than they'd wanted before
finally getting to the end-aim state of using DASH as the preferred *open
standard* method. Unlike all the earlier *closed* methods which meant they
had to keep paying companies and not be able to see in detail what they
were doing.
The only way they could have avoided this would have been to remain
'captive' to the commercial companies and run with lower overall quality
and capacity at a higher cost. It would also have meant a continuation of
situations like the one with Flash where the key source code was *not* the
BBC's, and when run is believed to have sent info on use to the USA.
In my opinion: Once DASH is established there can be a reversal of previous
behaviour. In the past the BBC ended up having to pay companies to be able
to use Flash, WMA, etc, etc. Sometimes involving code the BBC could not
fully check. In future the prospect becomes the BBC being able to say to
closed box makers, "Our normal method is HTML5/MPEG-DASH based. If your
devices want something else its up to you to pay for it and make the
arrangements."
That would make areas of responsibility clearer, save the BBC money, and
let users decide which approach they prefer.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 22, 2016, 10:11:31 AM2/22/16
to
In article <l2tlcbl0qgkr713n9...@4ax.com>, Martin P
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
That depends on what semantic games you want to play with your definition
of "standards". :-)
No doubt MicroSoft regarded WMA as a "standard". But a commercial company
deciding something like that and trying to impose it on everyone else in
perpetuity to rake in income and control is very different from the
approach required for a non-commercial body like the BBC.
They would define "standards" on a basis like having a conference or
multi-agency set of bodies come to some formal agreement. This hasn't
happened in the past for the kind of streaming involved here as things have
been developing too much. During that, many companies were trying to
force-feed their own proprietary methods onto everyone as the "standard"...
which time bypasses. Broadcasters were experimenting and trying to find
ways to improve quality and ability to deliver to higher numbers of
requests for programme streams.
> If the BBC expect their public to use their products, the BBC needs to
> have some sort of standard in order for the public to use their products
Again, interesting semantics to use he loaded term, "products", here. cf
above. :-)
Sorry that you seem incapable of accepting what has been repeatedly
explained to you.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that
> >> >> they couldn't afford?
> >> >
> >> >Ask MicroSoft.
> >
> >> I asked you because you claimed the BBC couldn't afford the WMA
> >> licence.
> >
> >Actually, my point was that they decided the cost didn't justify the
> >amount of use/demand, and their budget was better spend on the
> >improvements in terms of audio quality and scalable access, etc.
> They decided to buy an off the shelf product and used the WMA license as
> an excuse?
No idea what you mean here. The Audio Factory is a BBC development, in part
based on their Video Factory experience. So far as I know, they stopped WMA
for the reasons I've already given more than once.
> There was an article in The Guardian about a year ago, the article
> combined with the readers comments has all the details.
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
> So have the BBC moved DASH or will owners of internet receiving radios
> find out the hard way?
Again, no idea what you mean by "have the BBC moved DASH" here. But if you
meant to type "moved *to* DASH"...
The BBC have now been using DASH for some months, for all their radio
stations. As an open standard any manufacturer or software developer can
make use of it if they wish. Since it is based on fairly basic net serving
methods it is more easily distributed than methods like RTMP.
I *guess* that the BBC hope it will become an established "standard". But
that's not for them to dictate. It would require discussions and agreements
by relevant organisations and committees covering a range of broadcasters,
etc.
So as I said before, DASH may well become the "standard". But until now
there really hasn't been one for streaming in the same sense that FM or AM
in the broadcast bands were "standards".
Quite simply, large commercial box makers *must* have known this as it
would have been clear to them that things were evolving if they were
watching what was happening. So my feeling is that it would be for some of
them to explain why they seem to have been caught out. My personal
suspicion is that it suits them to "orphan" old units so they can flog
newer ones. Saves them costs and increases their income. Some makers may
have been caught out because they relied on someone like an aggrigator who
didn't warn them. Alas a lot of that may be commercially confidential so we
may never know.
> Is there an official BBC website which defines for the public and radio
> makers BBC's plans for Internet radio and where they are on their time
> line.
I have no idea at present if they've produced a page they'd call "an
official BBC website <sic>" on this topic. Beyond that you'd have to trawl
their blogs, etc, as I did some time ago to find some details.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 15:33:23 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> For a while nobody could access BBC internet radio, because the BBC
> >> not only changed the standard it also withdrew the software it had
> >> provided for listening to BBC Internet radio.
> >
> >You keep on misusing the word "standard". :-)
> Most companies have standards.
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> For a while nobody could access BBC internet radio, because the BBC
> >> not only changed the standard it also withdrew the software it had
> >> provided for listening to BBC Internet radio.
> >
> >You keep on misusing the word "standard". :-)
That depends on what semantic games you want to play with your definition
of "standards". :-)
No doubt MicroSoft regarded WMA as a "standard". But a commercial company
deciding something like that and trying to impose it on everyone else in
perpetuity to rake in income and control is very different from the
approach required for a non-commercial body like the BBC.
They would define "standards" on a basis like having a conference or
multi-agency set of bodies come to some formal agreement. This hasn't
happened in the past for the kind of streaming involved here as things have
been developing too much. During that, many companies were trying to
force-feed their own proprietary methods onto everyone as the "standard"...
which time bypasses. Broadcasters were experimenting and trying to find
ways to improve quality and ability to deliver to higher numbers of
requests for programme streams.
> If the BBC expect their public to use their products, the BBC needs to
> have some sort of standard in order for the public to use their products
Again, interesting semantics to use he loaded term, "products", here. cf
above. :-)
Sorry that you seem incapable of accepting what has been repeatedly
explained to you.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> How much was the licence that the BBC suddenly discovered that
> >> >> they couldn't afford?
> >> >
> >> >Ask MicroSoft.
> >
> >> I asked you because you claimed the BBC couldn't afford the WMA
> >> licence.
> >
> >Actually, my point was that they decided the cost didn't justify the
> >amount of use/demand, and their budget was better spend on the
> >improvements in terms of audio quality and scalable access, etc.
> an excuse?
No idea what you mean here. The Audio Factory is a BBC development, in part
based on their Video Factory experience. So far as I know, they stopped WMA
for the reasons I've already given more than once.
> There was an article in The Guardian about a year ago, the article
> combined with the readers comments has all the details.
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
> So have the BBC moved DASH or will owners of internet receiving radios
> find out the hard way?
Again, no idea what you mean by "have the BBC moved DASH" here. But if you
meant to type "moved *to* DASH"...
The BBC have now been using DASH for some months, for all their radio
stations. As an open standard any manufacturer or software developer can
make use of it if they wish. Since it is based on fairly basic net serving
methods it is more easily distributed than methods like RTMP.
I *guess* that the BBC hope it will become an established "standard". But
that's not for them to dictate. It would require discussions and agreements
by relevant organisations and committees covering a range of broadcasters,
etc.
So as I said before, DASH may well become the "standard". But until now
there really hasn't been one for streaming in the same sense that FM or AM
in the broadcast bands were "standards".
Quite simply, large commercial box makers *must* have known this as it
would have been clear to them that things were evolving if they were
watching what was happening. So my feeling is that it would be for some of
them to explain why they seem to have been caught out. My personal
suspicion is that it suits them to "orphan" old units so they can flog
newer ones. Saves them costs and increases their income. Some makers may
have been caught out because they relied on someone like an aggrigator who
didn't warn them. Alas a lot of that may be commercially confidential so we
may never know.
> Is there an official BBC website which defines for the public and radio
> makers BBC's plans for Internet radio and where they are on their time
> line.
I have no idea at present if they've produced a page they'd call "an
official BBC website <sic>" on this topic. Beyond that you'd have to trawl
their blogs, etc, as I did some time ago to find some details.
Paul D Smith
Feb 22, 2016, 12:07:56 PM2/22/16
to
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message news:5555da2...@audiomisc.co.uk...
In article <naela1$59m$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul D Smith
<paul_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope
> of the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a
> large percentage of the people who actually use this service and
> unlike, say, the switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box'
> that is going to fix this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs
> to retain their old services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
One problem the BBC have had is that many of the users of closed commercial
'net radios' did so via a service aggrigator. This third party would
'translate' or alter what was presented to suit the radios.
One result was that the BBC couldn't always find out how people listened
via such third parties - who were hired by the *set makers* to ensure the
'net radio' users could access the BBC material. The BBC weren't told
because the details were commercially sensitive.
+++++++
Interesting - who were these aggregators? I know that chipset manufacturers
provide portals through which the links were provided but AFAIK these were
almost always straight to the original source.
The only aggregators I know of were provided specifically to handle the
'<insert broadcaster here> changed format and now we can't listen' problem.
Prior to the Beebs change, all the radios I've come across could listen
directly to the Beeb's feed which means that the Beeb could have used unique
IP destination (subject to a little discount for DHCP, which actually
changes very little these days with routers on 24-7) to figure out who was
out there. I would also not be surprised to find that the protocol included
an initial handshake indicating the make of radio/chipset.
In article <naela1$59m$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul D Smith
<paul_d...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My view is actually it's the BBC's fault for not understanding the scope
> of the problem. Whilst they see a small number of listeners, it's a
> large percentage of the people who actually use this service and
> unlike, say, the switch the digital TV, there's no £20 'set top box'
> that is going to fix this. That alone says to me that the BBC needs
> to retain their old services for a lot longer than they anticipated.
One problem the BBC have had is that many of the users of closed commercial
'net radios' did so via a service aggrigator. This third party would
'translate' or alter what was presented to suit the radios.
One result was that the BBC couldn't always find out how people listened
via such third parties - who were hired by the *set makers* to ensure the
'net radio' users could access the BBC material. The BBC weren't told
because the details were commercially sensitive.
Interesting - who were these aggregators? I know that chipset manufacturers
provide portals through which the links were provided but AFAIK these were
almost always straight to the original source.
The only aggregators I know of were provided specifically to handle the
'<insert broadcaster here> changed format and now we can't listen' problem.
Prior to the Beebs change, all the radios I've come across could listen
directly to the Beeb's feed which means that the Beeb could have used unique
IP destination (subject to a little discount for DHCP, which actually
changes very little these days with routers on 24-7) to figure out who was
out there. I would also not be surprised to find that the protocol included
an initial handshake indicating the make of radio/chipset.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 23, 2016, 8:55:47 AM2/23/16
to
In article <jhcocbtdjig9lafoe...@4ax.com>, Martin P
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> DASH is being transmitted?
Nope. Some other methods are also being used. See the page at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/AudioFactory/AudioFactory.html
that I wrote some time ago to explain this in some technical detail.
HDS/HLS are still being used for some specific target audiences. (And can
still work via Flash plugin.) But I suspect those platforms will migrate to
DASH at some point.
> >
> >Quite simply, large commercial box makers *must* have known this as it
> >would have been clear to them that things were evolving if they were
> >watching what was happening.
> >So my feeling is that it would be for some of them to explain why they
> >seem to have been caught out. My personal suspicion is that it suits
> >them to "orphan" old units so they can flog newer ones.
> It has the opposite effect. Nobody who spent hundreds of pounds on an
> Internet radio that was obsolete after two years rushes out and buys
> another one. I for one won't be buying an Internet radio although until
> a week ago I had intended to buy one.
That's a perfectly sensible decision. But my view is that large companies
may tend to regard their customers as dumb ducks who are unable to choose
an open alternative, and so will be faced with "take it or leave it". The
maker may feel that having some people buy a new closed box when their old
one 'dies' is more profitable than having almost no further sales because
most people keep using a working radio for decades. May mean more turnover
than fixing the problem with the original kit.
Bear in mind that most people will have no clue at all how the 'magic box'
works, and will be conditioned my modern marketing, etc, to expect to
replace things every few years anyway.
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
[big snip]
It does get tedious having to keep trying to explain the same things to you
over and over. So I suggest you go and look at the usenet archives for the
relevant responses back then. We went round the loop at the time. But the
key point was that the BBC *did* have talks with net radio suppliers, etc,
and gave them months to get things sorted out.
> >
> >I have no idea at present if they've produced a page they'd call "an
> >official BBC website <sic>"
> Nobody suggested that the page is called that except you. I take your
> answer to mean DON'T KNOW" or NO!
Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "they'd call". :-)
But to make it clear: Nope, I have no idea if they have a "website" <sic?>
that you'd recognise as what you describe.
> >on this topic. Beyond that you'd have to trawl their blogs, etc, as I
> >did some time ago to find some details.
> You can't really expect every potential buyer of a radio that can
> receive Internet Radio to trawl the BBC blogs in order to find out
> whether a radio is compatible with what that BBC is currently providing.
Nope. Up to them have that discussion with the retailer at the point of
sale. That's who they're buying the closed box from. With devices that
output audio it also sort of makes sense to try one in the shop to see if
it sound OK or makes noises that grate on your nerves! Checking this should
tell you if it can get the BBC or not.
I realise the problem here is that people now tend to buy over the net and
have no idea often what they are getting. But as I keep pointing out,the
law hasn't yet really caught up with some of the consequences here. I agree
we are overdue for this area to be sorted out. But 'taint happened yit.
TBH I do wonder how long it will take for you to realise that you're
wasting your time complaining *here* and blaming the BBC for a situation
where your only real contract will be with the retailer of the set. All
I can do is point out that this contract leaves you in a legal hole that
still needs filling. I've already explained this, but if you can't
accept it, that's not really my problem. I don't *like* the way people
find their closed boxes orphaned, but at present that's how it is!
So all I can do is warn, and suggest open box approaches. Don't fall
down the same hole again.
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:45:20 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Again, no idea what you mean by "have the BBC moved DASH" here. But if
> >you meant to type "moved *to* DASH"...
> >
> >The BBC have now been using DASH for some months, for all their radio
> >stations. As an open standard any manufacturer or software developer
> >can make use of it if they wish. Since it is based on fairly basic net
> >serving methods it is more easily distributed than methods like RTMP.
> So any Internet radio that can receive BBC Internet is using DASH? Only
> <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Again, no idea what you mean by "have the BBC moved DASH" here. But if
> >you meant to type "moved *to* DASH"...
> >
> >The BBC have now been using DASH for some months, for all their radio
> >stations. As an open standard any manufacturer or software developer
> >can make use of it if they wish. Since it is based on fairly basic net
> >serving methods it is more easily distributed than methods like RTMP.
> DASH is being transmitted?
Nope. Some other methods are also being used. See the page at
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/BBC/AudioFactory/AudioFactory.html
that I wrote some time ago to explain this in some technical detail.
HDS/HLS are still being used for some specific target audiences. (And can
still work via Flash plugin.) But I suspect those platforms will migrate to
DASH at some point.
> >
> >Quite simply, large commercial box makers *must* have known this as it
> >would have been clear to them that things were evolving if they were
> >watching what was happening.
> >So my feeling is that it would be for some of them to explain why they
> >seem to have been caught out. My personal suspicion is that it suits
> >them to "orphan" old units so they can flog newer ones.
> Internet radio that was obsolete after two years rushes out and buys
> another one. I for one won't be buying an Internet radio although until
> a week ago I had intended to buy one.
That's a perfectly sensible decision. But my view is that large companies
may tend to regard their customers as dumb ducks who are unable to choose
an open alternative, and so will be faced with "take it or leave it". The
maker may feel that having some people buy a new closed box when their old
one 'dies' is more profitable than having almost no further sales because
most people keep using a working radio for decades. May mean more turnover
than fixing the problem with the original kit.
Bear in mind that most people will have no clue at all how the 'magic box'
works, and will be conditioned my modern marketing, etc, to expect to
replace things every few years anyway.
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
[big snip]
It does get tedious having to keep trying to explain the same things to you
over and over. So I suggest you go and look at the usenet archives for the
relevant responses back then. We went round the loop at the time. But the
key point was that the BBC *did* have talks with net radio suppliers, etc,
and gave them months to get things sorted out.
> >
> >I have no idea at present if they've produced a page they'd call "an
> >official BBC website <sic>"
> answer to mean DON'T KNOW" or NO!
Perhaps you don't understand the phrase "they'd call". :-)
But to make it clear: Nope, I have no idea if they have a "website" <sic?>
that you'd recognise as what you describe.
> >on this topic. Beyond that you'd have to trawl their blogs, etc, as I
> >did some time ago to find some details.
> receive Internet Radio to trawl the BBC blogs in order to find out
> whether a radio is compatible with what that BBC is currently providing.
Nope. Up to them have that discussion with the retailer at the point of
sale. That's who they're buying the closed box from. With devices that
output audio it also sort of makes sense to try one in the shop to see if
it sound OK or makes noises that grate on your nerves! Checking this should
tell you if it can get the BBC or not.
I realise the problem here is that people now tend to buy over the net and
have no idea often what they are getting. But as I keep pointing out,the
law hasn't yet really caught up with some of the consequences here. I agree
we are overdue for this area to be sorted out. But 'taint happened yit.
TBH I do wonder how long it will take for you to realise that you're
wasting your time complaining *here* and blaming the BBC for a situation
where your only real contract will be with the retailer of the set. All
I can do is point out that this contract leaves you in a legal hole that
still needs filling. I've already explained this, but if you can't
accept it, that's not really my problem. I don't *like* the way people
find their closed boxes orphaned, but at present that's how it is!
So all I can do is warn, and suggest open box approaches. Don't fall
down the same hole again.
Bill Burns
Feb 23, 2016, 2:49:03 PM2/23/16
to
On 2/23/2016 6:53 AM, Martin P wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
> "Last month, the BBC introduced Audio Factory, a new system for streaming its
> radio stations over the internet. The change silenced a lot of internet radios
> and hi-fi streamers. Worse, a lot of internet radio manufacturers were caught
> out as well. These included big names such as Sonos, Linn, Naim, Cambridge,
> Roberts and Logitech, including Squeezebox."
The Squeezebox community patched the software almost immediately after
the BBC made the somewhat unannounced changes, and the BBC live streams,
as well as Listen Again, have been working ever since.
There's also a recent test version plugin which works with the new DASH
streams:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104672
As a bonus, this allows skipping back to the beginning if you tune in to
a live stream after the start of a programme.
Finally, another new plugin allows the low-cost Google Chromecast to be
used as a Squeezebox player, feeding either powered speakers or an A/V
system:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104614
BillB
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/askjack/2015/mar/05/new-internet-radio-listen-bbc-stations
> "Last month, the BBC introduced Audio Factory, a new system for streaming its
> radio stations over the internet. The change silenced a lot of internet radios
> and hi-fi streamers. Worse, a lot of internet radio manufacturers were caught
> out as well. These included big names such as Sonos, Linn, Naim, Cambridge,
> Roberts and Logitech, including Squeezebox."
The Squeezebox community patched the software almost immediately after
the BBC made the somewhat unannounced changes, and the BBC live streams,
as well as Listen Again, have been working ever since.
There's also a recent test version plugin which works with the new DASH
streams:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104672
As a bonus, this allows skipping back to the beginning if you tune in to
a live stream after the start of a programme.
Finally, another new plugin allows the low-cost Google Chromecast to be
used as a Squeezebox player, feeding either powered speakers or an A/V
system:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=104614
BillB
Johnny B Good
Feb 23, 2016, 5:59:20 PM2/23/16
to
On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 13:45:20 +0000, Jim Lesurf wrote:
====snip====
> Some makers may
> have been caught out because they relied on someone like an aggrigator
> who didn't warn them. Alas a lot of that may be commercially
> confidential so we may never know.
I've been following this thread for quite a while. However, I have to
wince every time you mention the word "aggrigator". It's a misspelling
that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance. The
correct spelling is "aggregator" (despite Pan's ignorance of this being a
correct spelling - I've just had to add it to its 'dictionary').
I'd greatly appreciate it if you could use the correct spelling in any
future postings thank you very much. :-)
--
Johnny B Good
====snip====
> Some makers may
> have been caught out because they relied on someone like an aggrigator
> who didn't warn them. Alas a lot of that may be commercially
> confidential so we may never know.
wince every time you mention the word "aggrigator". It's a misspelling
that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance. The
correct spelling is "aggregator" (despite Pan's ignorance of this being a
correct spelling - I've just had to add it to its 'dictionary').
I'd greatly appreciate it if you could use the correct spelling in any
future postings thank you very much. :-)
--
Johnny B Good
Bill Wright
Feb 24, 2016, 2:31:46 AM2/24/16
to
After the American Civil War there was a shortage of horses in the
southern states. The rich alluvial plains were being brought into
cultivation and there was a great need for ploughmen and horses.
Unfortunately many horses had been trained to fall over sideways
whenever they heard gunfire, and once on the ground were too lazy to get
up.
Eventually the Mississippi farmers realised that they had a workforce on
their doorstep: the alligators. They found that these creatures could be
trained to pull a plough. The creatures were given the name of
'agrigator', from the Latin word for field and the Greek word for huge
scary thing that bites.
Bill
Jim Lesurf
Feb 24, 2016, 6:04:26 AM2/24/16
to
In article <8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4>, Johnny B Good
couldn't find the word on the spullchuker I use.
<johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I've been following this thread for quite a while. However, I have to
> wince every time you mention the word "aggrigator". It's a misspelling
> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance. The
> correct spelling is "aggregator" (despite Pan's ignorance of this being
> a correct spelling - I've just had to add it to its 'dictionary').
> I'd greatly appreciate it if you could use the correct spelling in any
> future postings thank you very much. :-)
I'll try to remember. Alas I've always been poor at spelling and also
> I've been following this thread for quite a while. However, I have to
> wince every time you mention the word "aggrigator". It's a misspelling
> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance. The
> correct spelling is "aggregator" (despite Pan's ignorance of this being
> a correct spelling - I've just had to add it to its 'dictionary').
> I'd greatly appreciate it if you could use the correct spelling in any
> future postings thank you very much. :-)
couldn't find the word on the spullchuker I use.
Jim Lesurf
Feb 24, 2016, 6:04:26 AM2/24/16
to
In article <najm91$1on7$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
it. That's why I ended up using the spelling I choose. :-)
<wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
> The correct spelling is 'agrigator'. It's a made-up word of course.
> After the American Civil War there was a shortage of horses in the
> southern states.
I kept hearing the phrase "See you later, agrigator" in my mind when typing
> The correct spelling is 'agrigator'. It's a made-up word of course.
> After the American Civil War there was a shortage of horses in the
> southern states.
it. That's why I ended up using the spelling I choose. :-)
michael adams
Feb 24, 2016, 3:51:15 PM2/24/16
to
"Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
.
> It's a misspelling
> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
> Johnny B Good
> It's a misspelling
> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
Is there any chance that you could spell your posting handle correctly ?
It's Johnny B Goode not Good
Deriving from the fact that Chuck Berry was born at 2520 Goode Avenue
in St. Louis
HTH
michael adams
...
Bill Wright
Feb 24, 2016, 4:08:20 PM2/24/16
to
On 24/02/2016 20:51, michael adams wrote:
> "Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
> .
>> It's a misspelling
>> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
>
>> Johnny B Good
>
> Is there any chance that you could spell your posting handle correctly ?
What do you mean correctly? He can spell it how he likes if it's his nom
> "Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
> .
>> It's a misspelling
>> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
>
>> Johnny B Good
>
> Is there any chance that you could spell your posting handle correctly ?
de plume.
>
> It's Johnny B Goode not Good
>
> Deriving from the fact that Chuck Berry was born at 2520 Goode Avenue
> in St. Louis
>
> HTH
>
>
>
> michael adams
plant. His job was to inflate each prophylactic to test it. if the
product proved airtight he would shout 'Johnny be good!' to the next man
along the line, whose job it was to put the little silver paper wrapper
on the good ones and throw the others in the bin.
Nothing whatsoever to to with the gentleman born in St Louis.
Bill
michael adams
Feb 24, 2016, 4:45:24 PM2/24/16
to
"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:nal641$jt7$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 24/02/2016 20:51, michael adams wrote:
>> "Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
>> .
>>> It's a misspelling
>>> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
>>
>>> Johnny B Good
>>
>> Is there any chance that you could spell your posting handle correctly ?
>
> What do you mean correctly? He can spell it how he likes if it's his nom de plume.
As far as I'm concerned, it's a misspelling, that just grates more and more
>> "Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
>> .
>>> It's a misspelling
>>> that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance.
>>
>>> Johnny B Good
>>
>> Is there any chance that you could spell your posting handle correctly ?
>
> What do you mean correctly? He can spell it how he likes if it's his nom de plume.
each time I see every new instance.
michael adams
...
Bill Wright
Feb 25, 2016, 3:43:36 PM2/25/16
to
On 24/02/2016 21:45, michael adams wrote:
>> What do you mean correctly? He can spell it how he likes if it's his nom de plume.
>
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's a misspelling, that just grates more and more
> each time I see every new instance.
My grand daughter, if confronted by such a statement, would say "Get a
>> What do you mean correctly? He can spell it how he likes if it's his nom de plume.
>
>
> As far as I'm concerned, it's a misspelling, that just grates more and more
> each time I see every new instance.
life!"
Bill
michael adams
Feb 25, 2016, 4:31:33 PM2/25/16
to
news:nanp1l$pht$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
The post I was responding to was this -
"Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
> However, I have to wince every time you mention the word "aggrigator". It's a
> misspelling that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance
Although of course, having decided to stick your nose in, without having
actually read the thread, you've completely missed the point.
That if "anyone should get a life", in this instance its
"Johnny B Good"
The Johnny B. Goode reposte, was my little joke in response to Good's
spelling flame.
Maybe if you showed this thread to this grand-daughter of yours,
she could maybe explain it all to you. Or there again, if it
runs in families, maybe not.
michael adams
...
"Johnny B Good" <johnny...@invalid.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:8v5zy.1354473$TN6.5...@fx34.am4...
> misspelling that just grates more and more each time I see every new instance
Although of course, having decided to stick your nose in, without having
actually read the thread, you've completely missed the point.
That if "anyone should get a life", in this instance its
"Johnny B Good"
The Johnny B. Goode reposte, was my little joke in response to Good's
spelling flame.
Maybe if you showed this thread to this grand-daughter of yours,
she could maybe explain it all to you. Or there again, if it
runs in families, maybe not.
michael adams
...
Bill Wright
Feb 26, 2016, 12:27:14 AM2/26/16
to
On 25/02/2016 21:31, michael adams wrote:
> Although of course, having decided to stick your nose in, without having
> actually read the thread, you've completely missed the point.
>
> That if "anyone should get a life", in this instance its
> "Johnny B Good"
>
> The Johnny B. Goode reposte, was my little joke in response to Good's
> spelling flame.
>
> Maybe if you showed this thread to this grand-daughter of yours,
> she could maybe explain it all to you. Or there again, if it
> runs in families, maybe not.
Calm down dear, it's only a newsgroup!
> Although of course, having decided to stick your nose in, without having
> actually read the thread, you've completely missed the point.
>
> That if "anyone should get a life", in this instance its
> "Johnny B Good"
>
> The Johnny B. Goode reposte, was my little joke in response to Good's
> spelling flame.
>
> Maybe if you showed this thread to this grand-daughter of yours,
> she could maybe explain it all to you. Or there again, if it
> runs in families, maybe not.
Bill
michael adams
Feb 26, 2016, 5:12:09 AM2/26/16
to
news:naonnb$lg$1...@gioia.aioe.org...
So which other member of your family came up with that little gem
then ?
As it obviously can't have been that little geezer who
poisoned himself eating steak tartare* a few days running
a year or two back; after eating poisoned shellfish the year
before that. As he's dead.
michael adams
* And to be fair to Michael Winner he didn't "gorge" himself
on it. He was relatively slim at the time and with food
poisoning you don't need to eat a lot. So not fat, just a bit
of a twat.
then ?
As it obviously can't have been that little geezer who
poisoned himself eating steak tartare* a few days running
a year or two back; after eating poisoned shellfish the year
before that. As he's dead.
michael adams
* And to be fair to Michael Winner he didn't "gorge" himself
on it. He was relatively slim at the time and with food
poisoning you don't need to eat a lot. So not fat, just a bit
of a twat.
0 new messages