×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the fear-factor dept.

Media 373

bus_stopper copies and pastes: "The BBC is quietly preparing a challenge to Microsoft and other companies jostling to reap revenues from video streams. It is developing code-decode (codec) software called Dirac in an open-source project aimed at providing a royalty-free way to distribute video. The sums at stake are potentially huge because the software industry insists on payment per viewer, per hour of encoded content. This contrasts with TV technology, for which viewers and broadcasters alike make a one-off royalties payment when they buy their equipment." We've mentioned this project before but this story goes into a bit more depth about the goals and motivations of the developers.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

373 comments

Good old Auntie! (5, Insightful)

jdtanner (741053) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957561)

It just proves that you get a hell of a lot for your 125 GBP license fee!

John

Re:Good old Auntie! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957570)

uhm sure, whatever.

???

Re:Good old Auntie! (4, Informative)

jdtanner (741053) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957614)

Nice comment! For 125 GBP you get...

8 channels of television
11 radio stations (not including local radio)
BBCi (http://www.bbc.co.uk) including live streams of all of the radio content and 'listen again' facilities
BBC research labs contributing to the open source community.

I would say that the license fee is a bit of a bargain!

John

Re:Good old Auntie! (3, Insightful)

skaffen42 (579313) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957693)

8 channels of television

Even better, you can usually find something worth watching on those 8 channels. Since I moved to the US I have 20 times as many channels, and the best thing on is still British comedy reruns on public access TV.

Re:Good old Auntie! (1)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957704)

Actually, you get two channels, without being digital. You don't need a license for the radio, nor the rest. So I'm coughing up £125 for the priviledge of *owning* a telly. Despite the fact I can get at least three other channels that I don't have to pay for. I'd rather see my money go into a system whereby BBC1 & 2 can be blocked to non-license payers.

Re:Good old Auntie! (1)

jdtanner (741053) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957749)

True, but you'll have to be digital in a few years! Also, your 125 GBP funds the radio even though you don't need a license to listen to it...exactly the same with BBCi! The only radio station that isn't funded by the license fee is the world service (but that wasn't intended for UK residents anyway).

Just bite the bullet and get a digibox (they are only 30 GBP or so)! :-)

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957850)

Whynot purchase a freeview box? They can be had for as little as £40 new, and they'll let you get a good 30-50 channels(unsure of the exact number). Not to mention a boatload of radio channels; all with crystal clear digital reception, no hidden charges, no installation.
Most TVs now come with a Freeview DB3 decoder built in -- so if you don't want to shell out for a new tv, £40 will go a long way towards enhancing that privelidge you pay for.

Re:Good old Auntie! (1, Troll)

ray-auch (454705) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957951)

like a lot of people, I would if it would do any good.

10 miles from the centre of major city (leeds) and can't even get C5 let alone freeview. They won't even give a date for possibly upgrading the transmitter (presumably they will do it before they switch off analogue, but maybe not, who knows...)

Re:Good old Auntie! (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957751)

For 125 GBP you get... 8 channels of television

I think you mean "2 channels of television". Although the others are made by the BBC, IIRC their funding doesn't come from the license fee.

Re:Good old Auntie! (2, Informative)

jdtanner (741053) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957802)

I think they are funded by the license fee...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/

and

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2004/text/financ ia l_statements_review.html

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

jdtanner (741053) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957836)

Ooops...that last link should have been to

http://tinyurl.com/3z982

Sorry!

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957933)

What is this tinyurl bollocks all about?

Re:Good old Auntie! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957828)

the others are funded by the license, but don't require you to pay the fee to receive them. there used to be a radio license, but a long time ago.

The BBC does have other sources of income to supplement the fee, but that isn't directly used for radio only or anything, and is dwarfed by the fee.

World Service Radio is funded by the Foreign Office, however, but uses BBC resources. That's why, of all the BBC, it's the bit that is scandalously being decimated.

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957869)

Seeing I never watch any BBC television (until Doctor Who starts anyway) or listen to any BBC radio and generally stay away from most of the BBC's online offerings I pay 125 GBP for pretty much sod all. And if I don't pay? I get fined or go to jail. Yup the licence fee sure is one big bloody bargain.

Re:Good old Auntie! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957705)

The OU...? :P

Re:Good old Auntie! (3, Insightful)

Shisha (145964) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957731)

On the other hand, it could be argued, that many people benefit enormously from the BBC, despite not paying the TV license. Me, for one, I don't have a telly and so I don't pay, despite listening to BBC radio, reading the website etc.

My point is that by developing this code, _eventually_ and _slowly_ less and less people are going to have a television in the house and hence less and less people will pay the license.

Which means that the UK government will have to figure out how to finance the BBC. I would hate to see them deciding to sell it. It would be really unfortunate if this project marked the beginning of the end of BBC as we know it.

Re:Good old Auntie! (0, Redundant)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957768)

Which means that the UK government will have to figure out how to finance the BBC

The same bl**dy way the other channels manage. ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5? None of my Licence Fee goes to them, and IMHO, most of the shows are better...

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957879)

Me too.

I thought about this a lot, and decided that they should tax the internet to support BBC+X.

Not likely to appeal to libertarian /.ers, but they might be slightly more amenable if X was OSS software development (like the codec).

In other words, the BBC can be taken as a model for supporting good software development as well as good TV, one that doesn't
  • require everyone to work for nothing nor
  • force software to be treated like a physical commodity via stupid licenses

Re:Good old Auntie! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957763)

maybe, but is this what we *should* be getting?

The BBC's remit is to produce public-service content that couldn't be produced by commercial broadcasters. if it starts using its unique funding mechanism to start to compete in new commercial areas, then there's a problem. it's already been forced to cut back on some of its website, since it was insufficiently distinctive public service.

I'm no lawyer, but could Commercial video codec makers (like Real) sue under anti-competitive or monopoly, or EU subsidy laws/regulations ?

Ogg Theora (4, Interesting)

SWroclawski (95770) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957563)

It seems to me that the best way to support Free codecs would be to throw support at an existing project such as Ogg Theora [theora.org]. Does anyone know why they're not throwing support behind it?

Already started on the CODEC (1)

jeffbruce (166203) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957590)

The artical states that the BBC has been working on the project for some time. They are now looking for outside contributions because they believe the software may have wider applications than the initial scope.

Re:Ogg Theora (4, Insightful)

Gilesx (525831) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957595)

Perhaps because they are attempting to develop a broadcast standard codec from the ground up, which I would speculate would require different goals and optimisations to the Ogg Theora project.

Re:Ogg Theora (2, Interesting)

langarto (718855) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957743)

Actually both projects seem to be using similar techniques (besed on the wavelet transform). But Theora didn't get very far and the project seems stalled long ago.

Ogg Theora is alive (4, Informative)

tialaramex (61643) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957906)

Theora is a conventional (block, motion, color transform, throw away bits, then ordinary compression) 2nd generation video codec, it is alive and well, and it reached bitstream freeze just a couple of months ago. Presumably beta and then final releases of the software & associated documentation will follow in good time.

Tarkin is the Ogg wavelet codec. You're correct that work on Tarkin has more or less stalled, but wavelet codecs are a legal quagmire today, in part because so many people have conflicting patents in this area and are just waiting for the chance to litigate. Are any of the images on your website JPEG2000 instead of regular JFIF? Thought not.

Re:Ogg Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957900)

Perhaps because they are attempting to develop a broadcast standard codec from the ground up, which I would speculate would require different goals and optimisations to the Ogg Theora project.

Also Ogg Theora has a stupid sounding name.

Re:Ogg Theora (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957600)

Maybe because the trouble of making certain that no patented technology found its way into an existing project could easily become greater than the value of using that existing project.

The started with a clean slate with much attention paid to keeping the IP clean. I think this was necessary, any excuse for MS or Real or whoever to shut down or slow down the project should be avoided.

Re:Ogg Theora (2, Informative)

deimtee (762122) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957647)

Keeping the IP clean only works to guard against copyright infringement. You don't have to know about a patent to infringe, you just have to use the technology described in the patent. It doesn't matter if it was independently developed, you are still infringing.
This is one of the main reasons companies try to get software patents, as well as copyrights.

Re:Ogg Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957665)

Well it sounds as though they took care to research and avoid patented "technology" as well.

(Yeah scare quotes and those who use them suck, but patents on math disgusts me)

Re:Ogg Theora (4, Interesting)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957639)

From what I read last time this was covered... Dirac kicks Theora's arse, and xvid too.

IIRC, it takes forever-squared to encode, but once done it beats just about anything in terms of file size and picture quality. Since the BBC's model is going to be encode once, then let the public download at will, this is fine by them.

Re:Ogg Theora (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957848)

That's great, but do the BBC want to maintain the infrastructure around an open-source project or simply develop the codec?

There's more to running an open-source project than giving away your code. You have to maintain it, patch bugs, run a mailing list to inform people of the bugs, and so on.

Wouldn't it be better if they collaborated with the Ogg project so that, even though they are developing a new codec, the codec would be an Ogg codec, with the surrounding infrastructure maintained by the Ogg project?

Re:Ogg Theora (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957864)

Since the BBC's model is going to be encode once, then let the public download at will, this is fine by them.

Personally I would think that this should be a goal for a lot of codecs. People want to fit movies onto a single CD with the best picture quality. Most people are interested in moving this video from a remote source (ahem BT) and put it on permanent storage for multiple views.

From the article (3, Interesting)

Megaweapon (25185) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957573)

It can be used for passing video round home networks, rights-managed peer-to-peer file sharing, or playing media in handheld devices, as well as for web streaming.

And this is why it will be fought against on the political front. How much you want to bet that the feds will want to require some sort of keying/user tracing mechanism in order for this "free" technology to be made publically available? Big media will argue that in order for the government to protect copyright, they shouldn't allow technology that can subert other's copyrights.

Re:From the article (4, Funny)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957609)

I would imagine that the British Broadcasting Corporation doesn't much care about the feds.

Re:From the article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957610)

Erm, excuse me.

What the fuck does this have to do with 'the feds'? This is the British Brodcasting Company.

Please realise that there is more to the world than The United States of America.

Thanks,
A UK citizen

Re:From the article (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957660)

Please realise that there is more to the world than The United States of America.

Oh yeah, says a resident of the 51st state, whose governor is a republican called Tony.

Excuse me while I have a quiet laugh...

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957713)

If fantasizing that the UK is the 51ST state makes you happy carry on. As for blair yes your Partley correct (but remember he is personal friends with Bill clinton with Bush it's just business) but he is the first and last American style politician we will have so he wasn't to bad, he showed us how not to be.

Re:From the article (1)

Bill_Mische (253534) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957730)

Weirdly enough he's actually head of the *Labour* Party, and he only managed to get rid of this clause from their constitution in the last 10 years:

"To secure for all the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry of service."

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957871)

but isn't he "New Labour" - now with 50% less labour?

Re:From the article (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957776)

Oh yeah, says a resident of the 51st state

Tut-tut, the Aussie government bent over first - the UK will have to be the 52nd state.

Re:From the article (1)

mrkurt (613936) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957661)

In the BBC's case, since they are non-profit, they don't have the same motives as for-profit "big media" companies do. And the potential for controversy is delayed, since the Beeb is shooting for streaming of standard definition quality video first. When BBC programming comes to the USA, it always seems to go to PBS anyhow, not a commercial network. It will be interesting to see what happens with Dirac, and as it says at the end of the article, there are commercial companies that have an interest in this too-- it means not having to pay MS or Real a "tax" for the privilege of using their players. Once again, it seems like it will come down to a struggle between broadcasters and content providers over control of the standard.

Re:From the article (5, Interesting)

Bill_Mische (253534) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957666)

The BBC is the biggest media organisation in Britain and goes regularly goes one on one with governments including our own.

If the "feds" were to ask the BBC not to release it we'd end up seeing one of your politicians getting an unexpected kicking in his next interview. A few years ago a BBC interviewer asked the Home Secretary (in charge of the police, prisons, immigration, "Homeland Security" etc.) the same question *14* times, when he wouldn't answer the question.

Re:From the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957753)

Although in fairness, that was because they had to fill some time on the (live) programme rather than anything else

Re:From the article (1, Informative)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957968)

"A few years ago a BBC interviewer asked the Home Secretary the same question *14* times, when he wouldn't answer the question."

Jeremy paxman (the interviewer) asked that question 14 times because the computer he was using to view his question list had frozen, and he couldn't get to the next one. It was still a great thing to do, but it's not quite the 'revenge of the BBC' that you suggest.

Re:From the article (1)

deathazre (761949) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957684)

It can be used for passing video round home networks, rights-managed peer-to-peer file sharing, or playing media in handheld devices, as well as for web streaming.

I doubt they're going to complain about that.
now we just hope that it's a reasonable DRM.

Last I checked the UK Was Not the 51st State (3, Interesting)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957780)

And this is why it will be fought against on the political front. How much you want to bet that the feds will want to require some sort of keying/user tracing mechanism in order for this "free" technology to be made publically available?

Let the feds scream like stuck pigs.

Now that the Bush administration has completely gutted our diplomatic clout to such a degree we can't even rally people against emerging nuclear threats (remember the boy who cried wolf?), no one but no one is willing to blindly go along with the United States.

Britain is the last staunch ally we have, and at this point we need them more than they need us. If Hollywood's lackeys in Washington try to push London around on this one I suspect they will be in for a very nasty surprise.

Cheney/Bush: "Ban this subversive technology or we'll have to impose tarrifs on many British goods."

UK Prime Minister: "It would be a shame if the US felt it necessary to impose trade tarrifs on the UK. That would depress our economy enough that we could no longer afford the fiscal expenditure to maintain our presence in your latest cockup, that is to say, Iraq. It might well call Afghanistan into question as well."

Cheney/Bush: ??? Who knows if they would be stupid enough to do so anyway, and lose both wars before the year is out, or if they would cave and crawl back into their backrooms for some more Haliburtan deals. Either way the US will have lost even more political and diplomatic clout (which at one time had been our greater asset, far outweighing our military strength), and the BBC's free codec will continue to be developed and deployed, unabated.

And, lest Kerry think he could pull a similiar stunt (remember, as destructive as Bush/Cheney have been on every other front, they are equaled by the Democrats on this particular topic: selling the interests of the people out to Hollywood), he would face exactly the same reaction, and results.

So, I think the BBC is reasonably safe from the depredations of Washington, whether Hollywood and Redmond like it or not.

open codecs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957575)

Isnt divx (or is it xvid?) open?

I could of sworn that one of them was.

Go BBC! (5, Insightful)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957576)

Another reason why I'm glad to be a UK citizen - every time I start to wonder if it's really worth having a 'public service' broadcaster the BBC goes and does something like this. I'm hoping they'll be able to make a stand when someone tries HDTV regulations over here.

Re:Go BBC! (1)

EdZ (755139) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957611)

Pity that no boradcasters in the UK even offer HDTV. Still, this may even be a sneaky covert tactic to muscle in on the broadband crowd, with a media streming format setting them up for a HDTV service, and allowing them an excuse to offer cheap (and profitable for them), fast broadband. The clever bastards!

Re:Go BBC! (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957841)

Got to agree!

Sometimes I get home from work and there's Celebrity Pets Makeover From Hell Revisited on, and I just think it's all a waste of money.

But then you get series like Nighty Night or The League of Gentlemen or news like this, and it's all worth it.

Re:Go BBC! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957969)

everything costs 10 times as much, it rains all the time, the roads are always blocked, the trains never run on time, you can't get a drink after 11pm or before 10 am, there's 70 million people crammed onto an island a third the size of Ohio, and the NHS offers the worst service and the filthiest hospitals in the developed world.

but it's all OK, because we have yet another video codec all of our own design. Hoo fucking ray.

Way to keep it quiet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957579)

The BBC is quietly preparing a challenge to Microsoft and other companies jostling to reap revenues from video streams.

It won't hard to keep the news quiet much longer once the /. crowd kills their server.

Re:Way to keep it quiet... (1)

bailey34 (589016) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957618)

Good luck slashdotting the BBC servers... They're very robust these days, with servers either side of the atlantic too.

codec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957580)

compressor/decompressor

but, yeah.

Only in the US (4, Informative)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957589)

This contrasts with TV technology, for which viewers and broadcasters alike make a one-off royalties payment when they buy their equipment.

Again, there are other [tvlicensing.co.uk] countries [zdnet.fr] in the world where things don't happen that way. In most of the EC in fact...

For your information Michael, the Beeb is in the UK where your statement doesn't apply.

Re:Only in the US (4, Informative)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957656)

Again, there are other [tvlicensing.co.uk] countries [zdnet.fr] in the world where things don't happen that way.
A TV license is a payment against royalties on content, not royalties on TV technology. In contrast to existing TV technology, users of commercial streaming video applications pay a per-viewer/per-hour fee for the technology. That is what the BBC wants to avoid by developing their own streaming solution.

Re:Only in the US (1)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957936)

A TV license is a payment against royalties on content, not royalties on TV technology.

This may be true now; but during the 1980s it certainly wasn't. I needed a TV License to use a portable TV with no tuner, that I used solely used for my "micro-computer"[1]. No tuner in the house, still needed a TV License. The reason given was that the license was a license "to use the technology" - what use I put the technology to was my business.

20 years ago, etc, YMMV.

[1] A ZX-81, a Spectrum and (finally!) a BBC Micro B. Ah, the good old days!

The BBC (5, Interesting)

payndz (589033) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957603)

Another good reason (among many) why the BBC should remain a non-commercial operation. Yes, paying the licence fee is an annoyance, but everyone gets a lot out of the Beeb, not just TV (BBC Online has all but replaced daily newspapers for me, and after having grown up with BBC radio, I find commercial radio unlistenable). And they're even bringing back Doctor Who!

Sure, it has its problems, but I'd trust the BBC over any politician, especially ones who make threatening noises about its charter every time it does its job by being independent and embarrassing the government of the day...

I am glad this is what my license fee pays for! (3, Informative)

McCall (212035) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957623)

I have paid for ten TV licenses in my life, and I have to admit that I am glad the the organisation that gets some of this money is developing something like this...

...although I have to admit, the BBC would have probably have been better off using my money to become the "offical" sponsors for an existing open source project such as Theora [theora.org], rather than starting from scratch.

The link is the story is dead, I found the home page here [bbc.co.uk], and the SourceForge site here [sourceforge.net].

Thanks,

Andrew McCall

Re:I am glad this is what my license fee pays for! (1)

REBloomfield (550182) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957736)

the organisation that gets some of this money

How about: gets all of it? The Licence Fee goes straight to the BBC.

Re:I am glad this is what my license fee pays for! (1)

DataCannibal (181369) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957893)

I'd prefer that the BBC spent it's ..er.. money on quality TV programmes such as good documentaries like we used to get (Civilisation, Ascent of Man, Alistair Cooke's America, Horizon like it used to be) rather than the drivel we get nowadays that makes me want to claw my eyes out most of the time.

JF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957631)

JF is an asshole!!!

3GHz (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957646)

I'm in half of RTFA, and

The figures assume a 3GHz processor but the focus is on gaining speed by code optimisation rather than hardware because the BBC wants Dirac to be usable on a broad range of devices.

Who on the world has 3GHz processor in his desktop computer? Certainly not me, not my friends or relatives, nor even my boss, who has 2.4GHz.

Re:3GHz (1)

kzinti (9651) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957711)

Who on the world has 3GHz processor in his desktop computer? Certainly not me, not my friends or relatives, nor even my boss, who has 2.4GHz.

Perhaps they're looking down the road. When Dirac is deployed, a 3GHz processor might be the norm. (By then your boss will have a 4GHz processor.)

Re:3GHz (1)

Troed (102527) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957733)

Who on the world has 3GHz processor in his desktop computer?

Today: Me, among others (3.2)
In the future: Everyone ... everything depends upon the timeframe for "in the future"

Re:3GHz (1)

fozzmeister (160968) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957754)

Well it aint being used yet is it, say it takes another 2 years to finish, then that will probably be about right. When id where making Doom3 no one was like "targetting 1.5Ghz, who has one of those". progress happens, if your making a product it makes sense to aim above the current standard speed cpu etc, as by the time your finished it may well be a very basic PC.

Re:3GHz (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957917)

Who on the world has 3GHz processor in his desktop computer?

isengard:~% egrep '(processor|GHz)' /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz
processor : 1
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz
processor : 2
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz
processor : 3
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz

That'd be me, then! Or at least very nearly, although I freely admit I'm not a typical user. But the point is, by the time this is ready for prime time, that level of CPU power will be commonplace.

Any synchronized-streaming server software? (ABT) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957659)

(A bit of topic) but are there any servers/clients solutions that can send synchronized, time-wise, audio streams. Not audio-video synchronization, but rather, clients-time-wise synchronization?

TIA

Not only the codec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957672)

For video you need to support the whole life cycle.
You need a way to capture content, produce it (mixing, etc) and broadcast it, and support all that doing live and offline as a download/streaming. Is the BBC going to produce such tools as well?

OGG streams off line though? (1)

Galik (730522) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957686)

So why has the BBC shelved it's OGG streaming technology in favor of proprietary formats? This technology is available now and works very well. Hey BBC. Please give us back the OGG streams you used to run!

BBC (2, Funny)

5m477m4n (787430) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957691)

Did anyone else think it was funny that the BBC wants to provide something royalty-free? Me thinks that's grounds for a hanging.

Darwin Streaming Server / QTSS (1, Offtopic)

Jeppe Utzon (721797) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957729)

AFAIR, isn't that free of any streaming fees? If you install Darwin SS on Darwin (or use QTSS on OS X Server) and stream with MPEG4, is that a one-time fee (for the QT Pro license needed to encode = 30 USD) and then free for ever and ever. Or do you also have to pay a pr. stream fee on top of that too for the codec? I can't find anything on Apple's site about it.

http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/streami ng/ [apple.com]
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/ [apple.com]

Re:Darwin Streaming Server / QTSS (3, Informative)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957949)

None of the above. Darwin SS is free (source and usage). To encode sometihng to it, you can use Quicktime Broadcaster, which is free (but not source), and only runs on a mac. You can of course encode with other solutions. The one of best ones on the market is Live Channel by Channel Storm, which runs about a grand as a one time price.

morons continue PostBlock censorship devise (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957766)

mockerIE.

whatever.

from a PostBlocked post meant to be tietolled:

googlers really not all that nice of guise, but don't ask robbIE about IT (as he has 'shares' too?)?

raising to new fauxking lows, trying to steal .com(s) (froogles) from some disabled person(s). not surprising for the next big kludge of stock markup FraUD nazi billyonerrors?

playboy? they should more likely be included in the ever-being-rescheduled va lairIE/robbIE answer yOUR questions interview?

steaming vdo to follow? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957790)

just kidding. it's only an animation.

Ogg Vorbis & Theora (1, Interesting)

fozzmeister (160968) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957785)

What's wrong with those products BBC?

Re:Ogg Vorbis & Theora (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957982)

What's wrong with those products BBC?

Crap names.

A bit of politics (2, Interesting)

Maljin Jolt (746064) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957786)

"...a bit more depth about the goals and motivations of the developers."

Freedom of information is not about paying or not paying for commercial content. Freedom of information is about politics, human rights, rulership and ideology manipulation. BBC is on the side of freedom for some time, and currently under heavy pressure from the conservatives.

Letting free codec technology to public now may help in some near future, when independent journalists will be hunted to underground or illegality.

Anuradha Suraparaju (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957793)

I bet lead Dirac programmer Anuradha Suraparaju will soon receive a delegation from Microsoft with an offer he cannot refuse.

Good codec programmers are hard to find.

Quicktime (0, Troll)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957815)

And what's wrong with QuickTime? It already does what is dounds like they want, and does it very well.

Videolan (2, Informative)

Hi_2k (567317) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957868)

Why develop your own streaming software when VideoLan [videolan.org] is already out there and working great? I regularly use it for any media viewing, and I've had great sucess with the streaming features.

Project homepage (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957874)

no KW required

BBC Dirac [bbc.co.uk]

The Dirac Project

Dirac is a general-purpose video codec aimed at resolutions from QCIF (180x144) to HDTV (1920x1080) progressive or interlaced. It uses wavelets, motion compensation and arithmetic coding and aims to be competitive with other state of the art codecs.

complete (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#9957911)

Got it, start with part 3

XjjIwAmmk

Do it quickly before Blair kills it (4, Insightful)

NigelJohnstone (242811) | more than 9 years ago | (#9957924)

There's a green paper due on the BBC later in the year. A pre-report has already been critical of the BBC's online activities, suggesting it does too much itself.

From an investigation in August 2003:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publicatio ns/arch ive_2004/BBC_Online_Review.htm

You can bet MS (or Microsoft lobbyists the BSA) will try damn hard to kill this project.

I wish the BBC would stop dragging its feet and do it, start releasing the archive now with their codec, before the politicians kill.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...