A Consuming Experience

I've updated my post on BBC iPlayer, the Beeb's planned new service for "7-day" catchup TV over the internet or cable - which when launched will mean the BBC will finally be catching up with other broadcasters on the convergence / video on demand (VOD) front.

There will be an open beta launch of iPlayer internet TV on 27 July, with a full public launch in autumn 2007, so be poised to sign up then if you're keen. I'm currently taking part in a limited technical tests trial (formerly known as BBC TV Test). I participated in the BBC iMP (integrated media player or MyBBCPlayer) trials before that and posted on iMP key issues, tips and tricks, and initial views on iMP.

Here's the BBC promo video (note that the embed code and full story are from the BBC News website i.e., and I recite, This content is from the BBC News Website (this page), as I wouldn't want to fall foul of the BBC again - I trust that was enough of a full functional link and attribution, but I can well imagine that in many cases it wouldn't be easy to figure out which BBC News content us mere bloggers are supposed to link to or what attribution to use; why don't the BBC add that link to the embed code and then people wouldn't have to puzzle / worry about it?). There's a few screenshots of iPlayer in action towards the end of the video, just don't blink too often:



(You can add the video to your own blog if you want to, here's the code, but if you don't want to get into trouble with the BBC you'd best include this link very clearly near it. UPDATE: BBC code and Blogger don't seem to get on. Preview is fine but after publishing the code gets mangled, at least on my system (inserting a %27 before and after the src URL), and visitors get a blob on IE or a (fruitless) request to get a plugin on Fox. I had to edit HTML for the post and re-paste the code to get it working.)

Streaming, series stacking and the integration of BBC Radio Player, which presumably means non-DRM podcasts (all covered in my original post), won't be available initially but will only be added later. One good thing however is that at launch iPlayer is intended to be fully accessible to visually impaired and hearing impaired people and those with restricted motor functions.

Third party syndication will be via YouTube later this year (promo clips only with links back to the BBC site), and on cable via Virgin Media (full programmes within the 7 catchup period but no local storage, I believe), with possible syndication via other sites like MySpace, with whom the BBC are currently in talks. According to the BBC press release

"Later this year, [BBC iPlayer] will become widely accessible across bbc.co.uk, as well as via links from YouTube and a number of other potential distribution partners (subject to the BBC Trust's new syndication policy and management's guidelines [draft here]).

Users will be able to watch promotional clips of programmes, and link back to BBC iPlayer on bbc.co.uk, enabling them to download the full programme.

The BBC is in discussion with a wide range of potential distribution partners, including MSN, telegraph.co.uk, AOL, Tiscali, Yahoo!, MySpace, Blinkx and Bebo. "

Catch-up TV is also to be available on Freeview sometime, though it's not clear to me whether this means Freeview on digital terrestrial TV, or on cable.

It seems "a version for Apple Macs could be available in autumn, with versions for Window's Vista and mobile devices to follow."

Complaints about DRM for iPlayer continue to be reported e.g. by the Open Source Consortium. I bet a lot more people generally made a noise about the point. It's interesting that in the BBC's 2-minute promo video for iPlayer, Ashley Highfield spent as much as the last 30 seconds, yes that's a full quarter of the promotional video's total duration, justifying DRM for iPlayer: "The OSC have already made their case to the Trust and the Ofcom, who said there is no case to answer. I'm more than happy to engage with the OSC in meaningful debate but as the OSC themselves said, in an ideal world the BBC wouldn't have DRM (digital rights management) on its programmes. We don't live in an ideal world. We simply wouldn't be able to offer the iPlayer unless our rights holder were happy that we were protecting their content." I fully appreciate the BBC has to come to a compromise with rights holders, but "there is no case to answer" etc seems a bit on the defensive side to me...

Remember, it'll take a while to download and cost you bandwidth, even though it uses P2P (peer to peer filesharing). BBC director of future media & technology Ashley Highfield said "over a 2MB broadband connection half an hour of programming would take approximately half an hour to download." You can't book a download in advance as you could for the iMP trials (which I took part in).

It seems the commercial iPlayer for global audiences, described in my previous post, could launch in 2008.

On the technical side, it seems that others involved in the development, as well of course as the BBC Future Media & Technology team, include Red Bee Media, and Verisign working through Siemens, and Autonomy for the search and browse facility.

Labels: BBC, convergence, media, VOD

This is a first look at the BBC iPlayer, the umbrella term for "catchup TV" and other "on demand" services proposed by the BBC's management. The new services were finally approved on 30 April 2007 by the BBC Trust following an extensive public consultation - but with a couple of changes (see the BBC news report, and my earlier post on the consultation - the BBC Trust have produced FAQs on the main changes).

UPDATE 30 June: there will be an open beta launch on 27 July, with a full public launch in autumn 2007. Streaming, series stacking and the integration of BBC Radio Player (all covered below) won't be available initially, but will be added over time. At least at launch iPlayer is intended to be fully accessible to visually impaired and hearing impaired people and those with restricted motor functions. Third party syndication will be via YouTube later this year (promo clips only with links back to the BBC site), and on cable via Virgin Media (full programmes within the 7 catchup period but no local storage, I believe), with possible syndication via other sites like MySpace, with whom the BBC are currently in talks. It is also to be available on Freeview sometime, though it's not clear to me whether this means Freeview on digital terrestrial TV, or on cable.

A "remarkable" 10,500 individuals and organisations responded; most of those were individuals, which I think is excellent - it's great that consumers are making their views heard on important proposals that will enable the Beeb to provide licence fee payers with on demand services and other services more in keeping with this age of increasing digital convergence.

I'll outline the proposals, and then launch into some details on the planned new services, as much as I know so far anyway, with screenshots and videos of the current latest version of iPlayer below. (I took part in the 2005-2006 trial of the iPlayer's predecessor, the BBC iMP or integrated media player, and posted on iMP key issues, tips and tricks, and initial views on iMP, and I am currently also participating in what they call the "BBC TV Test" which was designed to "test the technical resilience of the digital infrastructure that supports all the BBC's on-demand services, including BBC iPlayer" - more on that below).

When will the new services be available?

Originally the BBC said the services would launch "soon" after the BBC Trust's final approval, but more recent reports say "later this year", and the Financial Times of 1 May 2007 said it was "expected to be launched November", which judging by the progress of the BBC TV Test trial seems a lot more likely to me than late May.

In offering catchup TV only later in 2007, the BBC are unfortunately having to play catchup (see the BBC's own webpage about the on demand offerings of other TV broadcasters. And Greg Dyke, ex-Director General of the BBC, has publicly criticised the BBC Trust as a fudge which just slowed the BBC down on iPlayer).

UPDATE 30 June: as mentioned above, there will be an open beta launch on 27 July, with a full public launch in autumn 2007.

What are the proposed new BBC services?

There are to be four new services for UK licence fee payers:

• BBC iPlayer. Three services will be under the umbrella of BBC iPlayer (formerly MyBBCPlayer or BBC iMP):
• video on demand (VOD): 7 day TV catch up over the internet - catch up on missed BBC TV programmes broadcast up to 7 days ago (aka "retrospective scheduling"), plus all back episodes of certain new series even where broadcast more than 7 days ago (series stacking), via the internet (P2P downloads - watch on PC or portable media players etc) or
• simulcast video - internet simulcast TV - BBC programmes streamed live (multicast) over the Net ("linear" rather than on demand) at the same time the TV programme is conventionally broadcast, so you can watch it on computer or, more likely, Net-connected PDA or mobile phone e.g. in a wi-fi café (simulcast radio is already available from the BBC)
• audio on demand: non-DRM podcasts - download BBC radio programs without digital rights management (DRM), which means they're freely playable (on computer or iPods, other MP3 players, mobile phones etc), and freely copiable and transferable forever without restriction - but excluding classical music, full [deleted, I think they've changed this from their provisional conclusions but it's not entirely clear, see this comment] book readings, and commercial full track music.
• Cable or IPTV. One service is via cable TV or IPTV (initially NTL / Telewest (Virgin Media) and Homechoice, who have been trialling it):
• video - seven day TV catch-up via cable - i.e. again "video on demand", almost identical to catch up TV over the Net including series stacking, except you only have 7 days after broadcast to view a programme; you can't store it for later viewing.
  

Who will be able to get the new services?

Catchup TV

UK only. There are geographic restrictions - TV downloads will be available to UK TV licence fee payers i.e. only to computers or Net devices with a UK IP address. TV catch-up via cable or IPTV will only be accessible to subscribers to those services, of course - and then only if their provider actually offers TV catch up for BBC programmes.

Syndication by third parties. The BBC Trust consulted on a draft policy for wider syndication of BBC material e.g. by online aggregators like Google (YouTube?), and of course other cable or IPTV providers. The principles were fairly obvious: non-discriminatory, non-exclusive, platform neutral as far as possible, free, but consumption must again be restricted to within the UK. I guess we'll hear more about that at some point. The BBC previously agreed with Google to show BBC clips on YouTube so I wouldn't be surprised if things moved quite quickly on this front once iPlayer is officially launched.

UPDATE 30 June: according to a recent BBC press release,

"Later this year, [BBC iPlayer] will become widely accessible across bbc.co.uk, as well as via links from YouTube and a number of other potential distribution partners (subject to the BBC Trust's new syndication policy and management's guidelines [draft here]).

Users will be able to watch promotional clips of programmes, and link back to BBC iPlayer on bbc.co.uk, enabling them to download the full programme.

The BBC is in discussion with a wide range of potential distribution partners, including MSN, telegraph.co.uk, AOL, Tiscali, Yahoo!, MySpace, Blinkx and Bebo. "

Podcasts

In practice anyone anywhere will be able to download the DRM-free MP3 files of radio programmes, whether via iPlayer, browser download or software like iTunes.

TV simulcasts (mobile TV) - very few ISPs support this

Simulcast TV over the internet will be provided via multicast real time streaming from the BBC website; the programme resolution, or range of resolutions, is still to be determined. (From the BBC application footnote 73: "When a content provider unicasts content, they provide one stream of the content for each user wanting to watch it. When the provider multicasts it, it provides one stream to each ISP, and each ISP replicates this stream for all their users who wish to watch".)

Simulcasts are going to be via multicast technology to save the load on the BBC's servers and costs for the BBC, but it seems only very few ISPs can handle that as most ISPs' routers are only unicast-enabled (I've not had the chance to look into exactly which ones, but apparently not including the biggest ones!).

The BBC thinks over time more ISPs will upgrade to multicast; in fact (8.41) "these proposals are designed to drive ISPs toward installing multicasting routers in their networks". No one seems to have made much about this issue. Of course, till the major ISPs install multicasting routers, this seems a bit of a non-starter.

UPDATE 30 June: streaming won't be available at launch in summer/autumn 2007 but will only be added later.

I'll say a bit more about the two services that most interest me: seven-day catchup TV over the Net, and non-DRM audio downloads, then get down to the nitty gritty of iPlayer itself.

"7 day" catch up TV over the Internet

Time limits - what does "7-day" catchup mean? (7 days can mean 44 days...)

Effectively, catch-up internet TV via BBC iPlayer is the son of BBC iMP or MyBBCPlayer, trials of which I took part in during 2005-2006 (see my posts on iMP: key issues, tips and tricks, initial views).

They call it 7 day catchup - but "7 days" isn't really 7 days, hence the quotation marks I used, which the eagle-eyed will have spotted.

What we'll get, borrowing the terminology from 9.4.1 of the BBC Trust's public value assessment (PVA), is actually a succession of different windows (in total up to 44 days max. to watch a programme after its broadcast):

• 7-day download window or distribution window: after initial broadcast of a show, it's available for download only for 7 days; plus
• 30-day (originally 13 weeks) catch-up window, storage window or convenience window: you must open the downloaded programme at least once within thirty days after you first downloaded it, or else you'll lose access to it after that 30 day period expires; plus
• 7 day consumption window: you then have 7 days after first opening the downloaded program to watch it in, but you can watch as often as you like in those 7 days. After those 7 days, pffft, the program self-destructs, disappears from your hard drive, becomes totally inaccessible, becomes an ex-programme, a programme that is no more, etc etc.

DRM

All that self-deleting and automatic inaccessibility after certain time limits is done through the magic of DRM (well many might use ruder words than "magic" to describe DRM, but I'll comment no further on that here. At least some in the music industry have said they want to get rid of DRM - and EMI have, with iTunes, while it's yay to Amazon for planning a digital music store offering non-DRM music downloads in competition with iTunes).

Basically they can use digital rights management to restrict how long you'll have to watch downloaded files, and also limit copying/sharing and access depending on location, though you can transfer the files and watch them on PMPs (portable media devices) if they support DRM, the sort of DRM the BBC are using anyway (the iMP trial supported the Orange SPV C500 and Portable Media Center). The same time limits will apply to watching downloads on portable devices, of course. The use of DRM for time restrictions etc was proposed by the BBC and agreed by the BBC Trust as preferable to the alternative of lower quality / reliability and more costly streaming video. (Also, "The Trust considered the argument that it is possible to provide content under an open licence and still realise its commercial value. It regards the business models for this approach to be unclear at present".)

UPDATE 30 June: it's interesting that in the BBC's 2-minute promo video for iPlayer, Ashley Highfield spent as much as the last 30 seconds, yes that's a full quarter of the video's total duration, justifying DRM: "The OSC have already made their case to the Trust and the Ofcom, who said there is no case to answer. I'm more than happy to engage with the OSC in meaningful debate but as the OSC themselves said, in an ideal world the BBC wouldn't have DRM (digital rights management) on its programmes.We don't live in an ideal world. We simply wouldn't be able to offer the iPlayer unless our rights holder were happy that we were protecting their content." I fully appreciate the BBC has to come to a compromise with rights holders, but "there is no case to answer" etc seems a bit on the defensive side to me...

Why only 7 days to download?

The consultation focused on the reduction of the storage window, originally 13 weeks as proposed by the BBC Executive, to 30 days. But the major issue to me here is that the 7 day download window is too short for users (and in fact it's not just me, the BBC papers indicated that some other iMP triallists also said they felt it was too short). It's useless if you're on holiday for more than a week, or have a very busy spell and just forget. I bet people would download after 7 days if they could. I certainly would.

(The BBC Trust's PVA said in 9.4.2 that "BBC research, based on the NTL trial and where programmes were available for longer than one week under the series stacking proposition, showed that approximately 55% of programmes were viewed within a week of initial broadcast, 95% were viewed within four weeks and near to 100% within six weeks of initial broadcast. If this pattern, based on a limited trial, is representative of broader consumer behaviour, then a shorter window might be sufficient for meeting licence-fee payers’ consumption patterns." Eh? That research was used to justify shortening the storage window. But surely that research could equally be used to argue that, to meet consumption patterns, the download window should be increased to 4 to 6 weeks, rather than that the storage window should be reduced! I suspect that for many of those series stacking downloads, the first download was itself within the 4 to 6 week period rather than just 7 days; it would have been good to see the figures for that.)

There were suggestions that people either downloaded a day or two after broadcast, or else they wouldn't do it at all. I totally disagree, from my own experience. They need to cater for busy people too, who can barely draw breath until the weekend, and sometimes not even then. If they provided a longer window, I believe people would use it (and they can always gather stats to see what the actual usage pattern is in terms of when the first download happens; but the iMP trials never offered longer than 7 days, so it would be difficult to predict timings from that, even if the NTL trial stats are of help). I think it's not a question of progressive decrease in downloads as time goes by; I'm personally convinced there would be a spike, an increase, after a few days, at the weekend when people have more time.

The 7 day download window seems to be down to cost / value for money. Apparently it would be too expensive for the BBC to get permission from the rights holder for downloads more than 7 days after broadcast (plus, they want to exploit the secondary rights commercially after a period too, and not unduly damage the commercial opportunities for other broadcasters). To me, that makes little sense. If the total "watching window" (as I put it) could be 44 days, why can't they increase the download window to say 21 days, and reduce the storage window to 14 days? The total "watching window" wouldn't be much different, in fact a bit shorter (42 days = 21 + 14 + 7), and it would make life a lot easier for licence payers. Why would the rights holders charge more for 21 days plus 14 days, than for 7 days plus 30 days? What's the difference? I know the market does what the market does, but it's daft that they can't adapt.

So, though it may be a lost cause as both BBC management and BBC Trust seemed to agree on this point due to the costs and licensing issues, personally I think it's worth us consumers trying to lobby for 21 plus 14 plus 7 instead. The BBC Trust will review the whole thing in 24 months. The BBC Executive even want to roll out true video on demand (as people increasingly want the flexibility); Auntie clearly has vision - to me, the right vision - but whether the BBC Trust will in future listen more closely to the BBC's management and us mere licence fee payers, rather than powerful commercial broadcasters or other industry stakeholders as (it seems to me) they may have done with this round of proposed new BBC services, remains to be seen.

Now, back to 7 isn't 7. 7 days isn't 7 days in the case of series stacking either, because you can download back episodes of some new series more than 7 days after the episode is broadcast - see below for more on series stacking.

What content will be available?

No archives, yet. No archive TV material will be made available yet, unfortunately, i.e. not previously broadcast BBC programs. Only programmes broadcast after the launch date can be downloaded (including fresh broadcasts of repeats of archival material?). Over time the BBC do plan to digitise and provide on-demand access to their back catalogue, which I personally think well worth it in terms of not just user value but British cultural heritage. Sadly I was too late to sign up for the BBC Archive trial which was announced last month, which 20,000 lucky people are taking part in.

Future material. At launch, around 70% of the BBC’s network TV schedules will be available on catchup, to increase to more than 80% by 2010 (but the 70-80% should include popular programmes). In time the complete BBC TV schedule will be available on-demand. It's not the full 100% initially because of the practicalities of negotiating on-demand rights for the whole of the network content (according to the public value assessment.)

What's series stacking?

Series stacking is allowing "users retrospectively to download multiple episodes of up to 15% of on-demand television content... for first access within 30 days of download" (from the amended BBC TV service licence). In other words, it's TV catchup on all episodes of certain series. For example, with a 12-episode series, if you started watching the series part way through you could catch up on previous episodes even if they were broadcast more than 7 days ago. In fact all episodes including the first one would remain available for download until 7 days after the last episode had been shown.

The BBC decides which series to make stackable, but they can't total more than 15% of all the catchup TV content available from the Beeb; and they'll have to listen to the BBC Trust's views on what should or should not be stackable.The BBC Trust service licence says the series stacking function "should" be focused on "series which have a distinct run, with a beginning and an end and a clear narrative arc, or those with exceptionally high impact. It should cover a broad range of output." They were against stacking of "Long-running dramas, soaps, factual strands and magazine shows" and initially were going to restrict series stacking to only certain kinds of programmes meeting their editorial criteria, but they decided (especially as the public was very much in favour) that series stacking was sufficiently in the public interest and decided to allow it with a 15% quota and guidance as to suitability. So it's ultimately up to the BBC, as long as they stay within the 15% limit and don't stray too far from the BBC Trust's one true way.

UPDATE 30 June: series stacking won't be available at launch in summer/autumn 2007 but will only be added later.

Examples of programmes which the BBC Trust felt should be offered for series stacking and programmes which should not:

Stackable series	Non–stackable series
Bleak House	Eastenders
Planet Earth	Horizon
Doctor Who	Later with Jools Holland
The Power of Art	Top Gear
Strictly Come Dancing	Blue Peter

Non-DRM audio podcasts

Time limits?

In practice the BBC may possibly set a time period after broadcast during which non-DRM audio downloads will be available, although the BBC Trust is not actually imposing one. Of course, even if there is a time limit, someone who downloads this kind of podcast will be able to use and copy it freely for all time, anyway.

What kind of content will be available?

The BBC Trust said that the BBC "may also offer broadcast radio content for download for an unlimited period of time after broadcast, although this must not include unabridged readings of published works nor full track commercial music nor full tracks of classical music (even if recorded by the BBC)".

In other words:

• no full [deleted, I think they've changed this from their provisional conclusions but it's not entirely clear, see this comment] audio book readings
• no popular music, and
• not even full tracks of classical music. So, effectively, no music, period. (Except classical music as incidental music or signature tunes. That's allowed, how very magnanimous of the Trust.)

The exclusion of full track commercial music was on the cards from the start and given the perceived potential huge market impact if it's included, I'm not surprised the BBC Executive and BBC Trust did not consider its inclusion. (According to A2.25 of the market value assessment, full track commercial music is: ‘the full length of a ‘sound recording’ of a ‘musical work’ (both of which are protected copyright works), in which the writer(s)/composer(s), music publisher and record company have rights, which has been released for commercial sale e.g. on CD or as a download, and normally by a record company’)

But it's a big shame about classical music and book readings. I personally believe there should not be a blanket ban on classical music, much of which is out of copyright, and which the BBC had planned to record internally for broadcast (so avoiding rights/licensing problems). I feel there should at least be some ability to offer downloads of littler-known music to help increase exposure and hopefully build up audiences for more niche material. (The same argument applies to some pop music too, of course, and free downloads have been instrumental in spreading the word about some bands and ultimately leading to their commercial success, as is well known, most famously in relation to the Arctic Monkeys). The BBC Trust decided to ban classical podcasts because they felt it would threaten the commercial market for classical recordings, despite 66% of the over 10,000 individuals who responded to the BBC Trust's consultation supporting non-DRM classical downloads, and Mark Thompson the BBC's director general has since reiterated the BBC's disagreement and disappointment with the Trust's decision.

For book readings, I don't personally think sellers of audio books would suffer disproportionately as a result. Again I think exposure and publicity would help encourage people to go and buy something they might not otherwise have heard of. And there is the accessibility factor. Excluding downloads of full audio book readings would disadvantage the blind or disabled (e.g. who can't hold a book very well), who could benefit greatly from access to them.

The good news, however - existing services won't be affected, notably BBC Radio "Listen Again" (which is easily available on Macs too). People can already record streamed internet radio using cheap or free software like Freecorder anyway, yes including classical music and book readings (just like they can record it from live radio including digital quality DAB via e.g. the Pure Digital Bug or Elan), so not allowing full downloads makes even less sense. Such downloads, I feel, could get people interested in music they might not otherwise listen to. People wanting top quality audio would then go off and buy the full CD etc anyway. I've also made the point about free material not necessarily being at the expense of the paid market, in my answers to the consultation questions in my previous post, so I won't repeat it here.

UPDATE 30 June: looks like non-DRM podcasts won't be available at launch in summer/autumn 2007 but will only be added later.

So what exactly is BBC iPlayer anyway?

"BBC iPlayer version 1.0" will in fact stand for two separate but related things (I'm assuming Apple, who've battled the Beatles themselves over the use of "Apple" in music, haven't got a monopoly on the use of "iWhatever", iSqueez etc, though maybe not iPhone, in the same way easyJet seem to claim but not always win on easyWhatever! Or else what will the BBC do??):

• BBC interface / branding: a single unified consistent user interface/brand to give UK licence payers on-demand access to the BBC's audio and video content from the BBC website integrating and replacing all existing BBC players and consoles within bbc.co.uk: currently the BBC Radio Player, BBC News Player, BBC Weather Player, BBC Sport Player and BBC Media Console Player (UPDATE 30 June: Radio Player won't be available via iPlayer at launch in summer/autumn 2007 but will only be added later.)
  
• Software: a download manager by Kon Tiki (to be available as a free download from the BBC website) to:
• handle peer to peer (P2P) file sharing for downloads, and
• manage DRM on catchup TV content.
• (Note that iPlayer doesn't include a media player - it uses player software already on your computer, initially Windows Media Player 10.)

Non-DRM audio podcasts may be downloaded via iPlayer for convenience - but as they're just standard MP3 files they can be accessed in other ways too e.g. via iTunes or just normal download via web browsers.

UPDATE 30 June: Technical - it seems that others involved in the development, as well of course as the BBC Future Media & Technology team, include Red Bee Media, and Verisign working through Siemens, and Autonomy for the search and browse facility.

Microsoft, Apple, Linux and platform neutrality

There's been an outcry, particularly by Apple Mac users, about the planned initial rollout of 7-day internet catch-up via the BBC iPlayer download manager only for Microsoft Windows XP computers. This was because DRM was required to deal with the time restrictions required by the BBC / rights holders, and Windows Media Player 10 (or above) was the only system that could do this, and XP was the only operating system supporting WMP10.

The BBC had been planning anyway to provide, eventually, catchup TV via RealPlayer (which can be used on Apple Macs etc) - but the public support has been overwhelmingly in favour of catchup TV being available on a platform-agnostic basis, quite understandably and rightly, so the BBC Trust are putting more emphasis on this aspect. As the BBC are dependent on third parties to get the iPlayer download manager working on non-Microsoft operating systems, the BBC Trust have decided not to impose a specific time limit (initially 2 years) for when a non-Microsoft alternative has to be available by, but will be reviewing progress every 6 months instead.

UPDATE 30 June: complaints continue to be reported about the BBC approach e.g. by the Open Source Consortium. It seems "a version for Apple Macs could be available in autumn, with versions for Window's Vista and mobile devices to follow."

BBC iPlayer in action - pre-beta trial

As mentioned, the iPlayer is the successor to the iMP or integrated media player or MyBBCPlayer (anyone interested in iMP can also see screenshots from last year's iMP trial on my blog and on the BBC site.)

System requirements

For the BBC TV Test pre-beta trial of iPlayer: broadband connection with Windows XP (not yet Vista compatible), Internet Explorer 6 browser (or later), Windows Media Player 10 (or later) with DRM enabled; a video card and sound card capable of playing streamed or downloaded programmes; and JavaScript enabled in the browser. Obviously, you also need to download the iPlayer download manager. Vista compatibility is being worked on, as is Mac compatibility.

Access to iPlayer and programme downloads

You can't get into the iPlayer part of the BBC website without a username and password to access their walled garden. The only bit of the secure iPlayer section which you can see without a password is the display settings page so have a look at that if you're curious.

In the trial, at least, you also can't download a programme unless you've, in addition, registered with the BBC for their BBC Single Sign On (SSO) system. Existing members of other bbc.co.uk services like Celebdaq can use their usual login details for this bit.

iPlayer in action

Update 30 June: iPlayer will launch as an open beta on 27 July 2007, with a full marketing launch this autumn, the BBC have announced (as reported in various news sources e.g. the BBC News website).

Here's their promo video (note that the embed code and full story are from the BBC News website i.e., and I recite, This content is from the BBC News Website (this page), as I wouldn't want to fall foul of the BBC again - I trust that was enough of a full functional link and attribution, but I can well imagine that in many cases it wouldn't be easy to figure out which BBC News content us mere bloggers are supposed to link to or what attribution to use; why don't the BBC add that link to the embed code and then people wouldn't have to puzzle / worry about it?). There's with a few screenshots of iPlayer in action towards the end of the video, just don't blink too often:



Here's a video with a quick walk through the pre-beta trial version, as it was earlier this week: REMOVED, SEE UPDATE AT THE END OF THIS POST.

The BBC have since asked triallists to uninstall iPlayer completely and wait for the next incarnation, which is interesting as the last incarnation only became available last week - maybe there have been more problems than originally expected. UPDATE: the trial is now steaming ahead again.

And here's what the iPlayer picture and sound are like, again in last week's version - the quality's in fact very good, anything which seems rough is down to my video recording software, my not very powerful processor plus the compression necessary for uploading to YouTube!:

REMOVED, SEE UPDATE AT THE END OF THIS POST.

(Credits: CamStudio 2.00 for the screen recording, thanks Nick the Geek!, and Screaming Bee's MorphVOX Junior 2.6 for the voice changer, you didn't think that was my real voice, did you? I blog anonymously, but my voice is quite distinctive and people have recognised me after just one phone conversation, so no way am I using my real voice on the videos. VirtualDub for compressing the AVI video file took ages and still kept not working, as did several other programs I tried, so finally I had to use Windows Movie Maker. All open source or free.)

I can't show the download process as the iPlayer site wasn't accessible when I recorded the video, but basically you can view a TV schedule on the site, like a calendar, ideally search for something you wanted, and then click to download it. Here are some screenshots but they are of the old pre-pre-beta site so be warned they'll be even more out of date than the versions on the video: REMOVED, SEE UPDATE AT THE END OF THIS POST

What about picture quality, screen size?

First, a note about how it will work. For catch up TV over internet everyone generally talks about "downloads" but in fact it seems there will be "streaming" options for some programmes (where it plays as you watch or listen, rather than your having to download the whole programme before you can start playing it).

Streaming. A limited number of programmes (approximately 60 hours of content per week at launch due to capacity constraints; but will comprise the most popular programmes) will also be streamed on demand (via unicast), offering the option of immediate access without a download wait. The streamed offer will be lower quality than download option and at launch would be made available at quarter-screen size. The technology required to use this streaming service is expected to be a minimum of Windows 98 and Microsoft Windows Media Player 9 or RealPlayer. (PVA 2.4.1, p. 22).

Download. However, catch-up TV over internet via download will be available in full screen quality "at a quality comparable to a standard definition analogue TV broadcast" and as you'll have seen above, it's pretty decent quality. I predict people will increasingly want to pipe the picture to their TV sets, ideally wirelessly (see below), and picture quality will be important.

Any particular issues?

The BBC say shortcomings to the current system will be improved including unavailability of repeats for downloads (as the 7 days is from when the programme originally airs - interesting this, I'd always thought repeats wouldn't trigger another 7 days, but it seems they're meant to). Plus searching capabilities will be expanded including the ability to search for programmes by title.

As for other issues I've noticed, the major one is the file size and download time - as I said on the video, it can take half a day just to download a single programme, and it's nearly 1 GB per program too. That should improve as more people use iPlayer (as it's based on peer to peer file sharing), but still it's not exactly instant gratification. Quality of user experience is a factor the BBC Trust considers important, and the download delay doesn't help on that front - but streaming would produce lower quality video/audio.

UPDATE 30 June: BBC director of future media & technology Ashley Highfield said "over a 2MB broadband connection half an hour of programming would take approximately half an hour to download." Who wants to wait that long, I ask?

(And depending on what kind of plan you have with your ISP, it could really cost you too. The increase in costs was predicted, it remains to be seen how providers and their customers will adjust to the expected huge increase in bandwidth requirements not just because of iPlayer but also because of the more general rise in the demand for VOD and IPTV.)

A facility called "bookmarking" or "booking" a download (to schedule a download of a show in advance of its broadcast) would have helped improve reach and address service quality issues i.e. concerns about download speeds and time delays, if users could book in advance to download something in the background. I don't know what's behind it, but for some inexplicable reason the BBC management decided to drop bookmarking from their request for approval, even though the BBC Trust asked specifically if they wanted to include it (see the FAQs). I think that bookmarking is important, if not essential, given that downloads take so long. I think booking should have been a feature of iPlayer from the outset. Why restrict people to being able to download only after the broadcast? Why can't they use the EPG (electronic programme guide) to book in advance of transmission when they want to download something? (This post sets out the arguments very well.)

While I've disagreed with the Trust's decisions on some aspects, I do think it's very positive that they're going to ask the BBC Executive to resubmit a formal proposal for bookmarking and that they think it might not necessarily require yet another full "public value test" (see below). In fact, as things are, downloads just don't seem very workable to me without the ability to bookmark.

Errors. Some people seem to have suffered from unknown "Delivery errors" relating to proxy settings, but supposedly this should now have been fixed, or at least when iPlayer goes live again I assume it'll be fixed. I've been getting Javascript errors too (but I did with iMP too, and of course it's early days yet).


Usability is another bugbear of mine. While I know that the BBC have been very conscious about accessibility (and the amended TV licence emphasises its importance), from a user-friendliness viewpoint I hope the iPlayer will be better than iMP and have a lot more keyboard shortcuts - I've made that point already in my post on the consultation.

Major issue: PC vs TV, PC to TV

With the increasing convergence of PC and TV - FreeTube, Joost, the launch of downloadable video on demand by all the other major UK TV broadcasters like ITV (to be free, ad-funded) and Channel 4 (4od) etc - there's one big factor I think the BBC Trust and others might have underestimated. As I said in my summary of major issues with internet downloads of TV programs after the BBC iMP trial and my previous post about the consultation, I believe most people would prefer to watch video material on a large screen TV set from a sofa, not a PC monitor screen, for reasons of visual quality, sociability and comfort (though I know you can now chat live with your friends over the Net while watching the same video!). I feel the new services will only take off generally, and take off the quickest, as and when it becomes dead easy to watch downloaded content on a normal TV.

The powers that be do appreciate that: that's why they think catchup over cable, which of course is immediately watchable on TV via the cable set top box, will be much more popular than catchup over Net. That's why Ashley Highfield, the Beeb's Director of New Media and Technology, said they're rolling out iPlayer to broadband users first, then cabled homes, Macs, but then media centres, and smart handheld devices, then the "really tricky platforms: DTT [digital terrestrial TV] via either PVRs or IP hybrid boxes".

But I suspect digital media receivers, digital media adapters or DMAs, digital multimedia receivers, wireless media players and the like may become a lot more popular a lot more quickly than they think, driven not just by iPlayer but (more likely) by the VOD services other broadcasters are offering. You can already buy, for about £150 to £200, equipment to watch, on your TV set, video downloaded to your PC. Some of that gear is wireless, so you don't even need a cable between PC and TV. Some come with remote control for playing, pausing etc the video. Such devices will become increasingly attractive to gadget freaks and, in time, even non-early adopters. And some, like a Philips unit I've seen in passing, even support WMP DRM.

The BBC description does briefly mention convergence and that linear digital TV set top boxes (STBs) will become internet-enabled, but that's only one possible option. I'm talking about piping video from PC to TV, not providing video on demand via Freeview or Net-enabled STBs. The key point really is, how soon will DMAs etc become user-friendly and cheap enough for the mainstream (and usable for replaying programmes downloaded via iPlayer and the like, DRM permitting)? If I were an electronics manufacturer I'd be putting money into this. From a consumer viewpoint users would just want a very easy to use gizmo (yes all right "media center"!) where a consumer can simply plug one bit into their computer, another into their TV, ideally with no cable between them, plus minimal and straightforward software installation on the PC and a remote control that works like a normal TV one, but preferably not requiring line of sight to the PC (and of course, my eternal bugbear, simple userfriendly setup instructions for non-geeks). And ideally it should be Mac and Linux compatible too.

Longer term, yes there will be STBs with hard drives where you can store the downloaded content and not have to leave the PC on in order to watch catchup TV, even Net-enabled STBs to which you can download stuff direct without needing a PC. But my point is, the technology is available now (again DRM limitations permitting!), and I think people will start using it if - the big if - they think it's worth it. Is it worth it? Maybe not if BBC content is all you can get over the Net (and a limitation of iPlayer is that at first it'll work only for BBC content). I'd hesitate, myself; sorry Auntie, content is king and if I'm not going to watch BBC live because the programs don't catch my interest, I wouldn't watch it retrospectively either... But VOD and IPTV / internet TV from all sorts of sources, not just the BBC, are starting to be available - and I'm sure that will stimulate demand for media centres etc generally.

So, I believe that sales of "digital media receivers" and the like will increasingly take off (and their prices will fall) in the same way that, as Mr Highfield notes in the same speech, Freeview boxes are now flying off the shelves. (I hope Dixons, Maplins,Tesco Direct etc take note and start stocking up!)

What about the commercial iPlayer? What's that?

You may have heard of the planned BBC "commercial iPlayer". That's different. It's an initiative by the BBC's commercial arm, BBC Worldwide, to monetise the same technology / software that's to be used for the free downloads, i.e. iPlayer. It's to be launched in September 2007 (or maybe later, now?) in the UK and then US and Australia.

Initially they wanted to offer BBC archive material, both video and audio, on a pay per download basis. But John Smith of BBC Worldwide has been talking about advertiser funding and other broadcasters making their programmes available via iPlayer too, "saying they could create an alternative to Apple's iTunes site for video and audio downloads... John Smith, chief executive of BBC Worldwide, said its iPlayer software could be "like Freeview [the digital terrestrial television service] in creating a new digital platform for broadcasters, giving them a chance to control their own destiny, but like [British] Sky [Broadcasting] in its opportunities for monetisation".

Update 30 June: it seems the commercial iPlayer for global audiences could launch in 2008.

Any other points of interest?

The vast amount of research undertaken by Ofcom and the BBC in relation to these proposals provides interesting insight into the state of the British market today, current media consumption by the UK public, etc, including the main changes following the introduction of digital terrestrial television or DTT i.e. Freeview.

This is the first time the BBC Trust have applied their new Public Value Test or PVT, which they're supposed to use from 1 January 2007 to evaluate proposed new BBC services. They must assess the public value of proposals (against certain criteria e.g. "reach" - increasing the BBC's audience), and weigh that against their impact on the market, in particular competing commercial services - e.g. in this case internet VOD, free or paid for; other simulcasts; DVD and VHS video tape rentals and sales; PVR sales; terrestrial, cable and satellite TV including what they call "linear TV" (as opposed to VOD); mobile TV etc.

The BBC Trust will be reviewing the new services in 24 months. They regard "reach" as critical to their public value assessment of the proposals, so anything that can increase reach would be considered good (although it must be balanced against market impact etc). "Reach – the services will help maintain the volume of BBC consumption as viewing and listening habits begin to shift from linear to on-demand. The internet-based services may also help improve consumption by and reach to younger audience groups and the proposition as a whole has the potential to increase the consumption and reach of niche, specialist programmes often found in the margins of linear schedules." I think a longer download window would have improved reach amongst the very busy sector of the population, while allowing book readings and classical music downloads would have increased consumption and benefited niche interests, but I've probably said enough on that!

I'll report further after the trial recommences, but all in all this is very positive, and not before time too.

UPDATE: The screenrecordings I had uploaded to YouTube of the BBC iPlayer in action have been removed, allegedly because of copyright infringement. I am trying to investigate this matter as BBC Worldwide did not attempt to contact me but went direct to YouTube and claimed the screencasts I'd made of the various views and tabs of iPlayer etc were copyright infringements. I haven't the resources to argue this so I've removed the YouTube links from here, obviously - and, just in case, though they've not said a word to me about that, I've removed the screenshots too. I've just left in the one with the Javascript error message, they'll have to talk to Microsoft about who owns copyright in a Windows error message! I'd deliberately not included more than a few seconds of the actual programmes, just enough to give an idea of video and sound quality, and this is clearly a review, and I'd thought that for review purposes it was OK to include very brief extracts, but obviously not according to the BBC.

If it was the demo of iPlayer they objected to, I don't understand the secrecy. I didn't give away any login or other access info, which they'd said had to be kept confidential, and I don't think they made it clear enough what else was meant to be confidential - why didn't they say that we're not even supposed to show people what it looks like, if that was their issue? I think it's a bit heavy handed as they didn't even try to discuss this with me and tell me which bits were a problem and why, in which case I'd have removed those bits. You'd have thought they'd want to encourage viewer interest in these new services, but... I guess we ought to stick with 5, Channel 4 and ITV etc! Maybe the person who commented wondering if the BBC were trying to keep Sky employees from having a peek was right. Though in the area of downloadable TV the other broadcasters are now ahead of the BBC, so I don't quite understand what it is they feel they need to keep quiet. I'd made it clear in my review that the final version will be different, so that people wouldn't be misled. I'll report back if I manage to get to the bottom of this. See the BBC Ask Bruce site for iMP screenshots, if you want an idea of what it might look like, but even the latest trial version looks quite different already, e.g. the programme schedule is accessed via Internet Explorer rather than iPlayer / iMP.

Further update: Clearly I'm not the only blogger now confused about what we are or are not allowed to say about the iPlayer trial - see this discussion.

Tags: BBC, BBC Trust, iPlayer, BBC iPlayer, MyBBCPlayer, iMP, BBC iMP, BBC TV Test, VOD, video on demand, video-on-demand, cable TV, IPTV, internet TV, internet television, catchup TV, catch up TV, catch-up TV, TV catchup, P2P, peer to peer filesharing, convergence, media, internet, mobiles, retrospective scheduling, DRM, digital rights management, convergence, consumer, review, preview, introduction, Improbulus, Consuming Experience, A Consuming Experience

Labels: BBC, convergence, media, VOD

I've come excruciatingly late to this meme. Jeremiah Owyang started it, and John Tropea tagged me way back in Feb. I was offline for some weeks when John tagged me, and have been trying to catch up on my blog since. In internet time this is probably a year or two too late, but better late than never. There's internet time, dog years and Improbulus months. No prizes for guessing which runs the slowest!

As many people now know, for this meme you're supposed to list your media consumption diet with the most used on top. This has also crossed over a bit into a "my fave gadgets/software" post too, but the two are very closely related for me.

What's "media" anyway?

Being a detailed deconstructionist by instinct (sad but true), my initial reaction was in fact to ponder the meaning of "media" in this context. Of course looking at Jeremiah's original post you get an idea of what he's after, but trust me to always want to break things down...

Text, pictures, sound, audiovisual - our senses

At the purest, most basic yet broadest level, I think of media as:

• text, absorbed visually - books, magazines, Webpages, emails
• static images, also visual - photos, paintings, graphics on webpages or in emails
• audio e.g. music, radio news, auditory naturally
• video, both visual and audio of course - TV, cinema, online videos

In other words, it's consumption through our key senses.

And more senses...

It might be going too far at this point to consider "media" to extend to what is consumed via our other senses, like touch/sensation. But maybe not.

True virtual reality seems to be not too far around the corner now. Witness the Nintendo Wii with its 3D motion sensing and feedback, and the development of other haptic devices (though not much seems to be happening in teledildonics, not that I follow that field closely, of course, nope... - but it's odd, I'd have thought there was great money making potential there). Then the increasing sophistication of 3D printing, even of living tissue. Recording and playing back smells and scents, or "attaching" smells to digital photos to help you sniff them out, and the development of electronic noses and even electronic tongues that taste, and electronically simulating taste and "mouthfeel".

I do think that convergence of media, generally thought of as the merging of Net, TV and phone, will eventually lead to convergence of some of these aspects too, that media consumption via the (currently) lesser used senses will be a huge, huge growth area for the future. Anyway, back on point..

Or media consumption devices?

You could also consider media consumption by the type of device or tool used to consume it:

• computer
• TV
• cinema
• mobile phone
• music players - MP3 or CD player
• video players and portable media players (PMPs)
• gaming device - XBox, Playstation, Wii
• radio
• etc.
  

(And by the way if you're talking convergence by device, I think it's not just the triple play of internet, TV and phone but also gaming consoles and of course music players, digital cameras, video cameras and indeed full computers too. Which is why I listed "gaming device" there).

Well I think most people who've written about their media consumption diet have effectively blended the two - type of media, type of device - so I'll do that too.

But first I'd say that at the most basic level I think my media consumption diet would be:
text >>> audiovisual >> audio > visual (non-text)

I'm impatient. Text is the quickest way to get an overview, literally take in the big picture depicted in a meaningful way, then absorb the bits I want. In terms of finding info rather than being passively entertained, linear audiovisual or audio is just too slow for me, and fast forward / rewind through audio/video just isn't as accurate as flipping pages or scrolling text.

As for trying to drag me to an art gallery or museum or on scenic walks, it's harder than trying to give a cat a bath, believe me. Though you can always try to bribe me with icecream. The operative word being "try".

And so, finally, on to my media consumption diet, set out in the more usual way. (No further digression hopefully, beyond saying that there's of course also increasing media production - what are blogs after all? - and increasing interplay and convergence between media consumption and production, the whole interactive TV, social Web 2.0 thang. OK, no more on that now!). Here goes.

My media consumption diet is (not surprisingly):
Internet >> paper / print ~= TV >>> music >>>> games >>>>> art (on the consumption versus production front, at least).

Internet

Web

I'm on the net constantly, both at home and at work (broadband ADSL at home). Always had an enquiring mind, and I love having (almost) instant answers literally at my fingertips to the eternal what, why, when, where, how. Web as giant reference library, woohooooo! I'm forever rushing off to PC to look things up.

PC not Mac, because it's PCs at work and I figured the learning curve would be shallower with Windows at home too.

Firefox is my fave browser for speed, flexibility and power, but I use Internet Explorer 7 too despite its speed issues (even with tweaks) and lack of features - and not just for internet banking (though kudos to First Direct for a Fox-compatible site!). Some sites or services still work better in IE and e.g. sometimes PDFs which crash Fox open OK in IE.

But mainly, it's a privacy thing. I set Fox up to open certain sites in tabs on launch e.g. Blogger, with cookies saved so I'm automatically logged in to my (since New Blogger) Google Account.

Though Google now say they will anonymize server logs of users' details (queries, IP addresses etc) after 18 to 24 months, I still don't like the idea of Google keeping track of the searches made when logged in to my Google Account "for personalisation".

So I'll use IE for searches I don't want Google to associate with Improbulus (no sniggering at back, it could be quite innocuous, it's just none of Google's business that I've been researching X for instance). And I'll use IE even for searches which I don't mind anyone knowing about, just on principle. (I don't maintain a personalised Google homepage, for the same reason.)

I'm happy to get ads in Net searches, as of course they'll often be related to what I'm looking for.

Communication - email, feeds etc

Email. Gmail rules, particularly with its effective spam blocking and alias function (I use Spamgourmet too). Though I'm generally paranoid about my privacy I don't mind software agents reading my mail and serving up ads, some of those ads are actually quite useful. I figure that any free Webmail provider could read their users' mail if they want to anyway; my main protection is keeping my different online identities separate e.g. this one and my real one. I mostly access my Gmail via POP on Outlook 2003 unless I'm out, in which case for checking mail or writing quick emails I use the Nokia 7710 smartphone or LG Shine. I do have some niggles about Gmail, but that's another post...

I'm not a huge Microsoft fan but I'm a keyboard person and I'm too used to the keyboard shortcuts in Outlook to switch to Thunderbird though I tried a couple times (I even use draft Outlook emails for my personal notes, having not yet found note-taking software that suits me exactly - ctrl-n for new blank email, type title and tags in the subject, full notes in the body including links, pasted screenshots and files, ctrl-s to save to my Drafts folder, and all fully searchable. If only Outlook categories were a bit easier to use).

Feeds and news. I rarely use feed readers. I just keep an eye on some key sites like the main Google blogs, though mostly via email alerts (I've set Outlook plus some other apps to all launch on startup. Email arriving gets my attention even if there are lots of them, it feels easier and quicker to me reading emails than looking through feeds - maybe emails feel more bite-sized? Anyway, somehow, to me scanning feeds seems more of a chore, requiring more active work on my part. But that's just me).

Key sites, to me, are mainly the generators or creators of news and new info, more than those who merely report it. Sorry, no offence to journalists. I prefer to hear it straight from the "horse's mouth", or from sites (like Out-law) which include a clear link to the original source - press release, corporate blog, government paper etc. That's one reason I think the BBC website is one of the most authoritative, reliable news sites - they usually link to the original source in the right sidebar.

Another aside: I think that as competition for our attention increases but our spare time decreases, people will more and more prefer to cut things down and get their news from one or two media sources which they feel they can trust, which aren't afraid to reveal their original sources (within reason e.g. protecting whistleblowers), whose reports they know they can verify for themselves.

(My views, I admit, may be slightly coloured by the fact that once I was "in the know" behind the scenes, though only very peripherally - you know, the 23rd handmaiden from the left in the 458th scene's basket carrier's left littlest toenail trimmer's nailclipper sharpener - on something that was for a time widely reported in the media almost every day. I would read "news" reports and think, OMG where did they get that info from, they're printing that as fact but it's totally wrong, what do they think they're doing, how can they say that, where could they have got that idea from, are they just making it up or what? Now I'm really digressing on the power of the press and how people seem to accept things as true so much more readily just because "it was on the news". But I feel very strongly that we the public should be able to rely on journalists having some integrity and sense of social responsibility, when all too often we can't. We can, at least, reliably rely on the instinct to sell, sell, sell more papers, ads, etc. Ah, well.)

Anyway, must get back on track again! That was still on media so maybe not too much of a digression...

As I've so little time (this blog is effectively my 3rd job) I limit the sites I check and even so I still never have enough time to read everything I'd like to. Yes, I'm currently behind on checking my email alerts too, though I try to keep up with personal email that I get.

(Phones, don't forget phones, if we're talking communication they shouldn't be left out. I don't text much or even use the phone much, to be honest. I'm mentioning this under Communication but in terms of volume of usage it should go below TV and reading. Though I don't know if it's stretching it to call phone usage "media consumption", unless you're talking email or mobile TV etc on a phone.)

My ultimate dream gadget: full internet (Web and email, feeds etc) everywhere via a Psion 5mx with a phone and full broadband-speed Net access (web, email, everything) on an "all you can eat" fixed monthly fee price plan. (A real keyboard, not onscreen, is best for quick data entry - two hands faster than one - and I'm not the only one who feels that nothing beats the 5mx keyboard for data entry on the move, if you're a touch typist - in the Tube, the little room, etc. Plus the Symbian EPOC32 OS is rock solid and lightning fast). Oh and with a colour screen, voice recorder, camera/video recorder, music player, and headphone socket while I'm at it, well I can dream. Krusell case too of course. Now I'm really digressing! But Santa, if you're listening..?

Paper

Reading from paper, well that's mostly non-fiction magazines and the like. New Scientist, Financial Times, Private Eye. Fortean Times and T3 for fun. The occasional Economist and Wired. I read a lot for work and for general interest e.g. for this blog.

Nowadays I don't read much fiction though I did when I was a mere slip of a lass. Finished all the Agatha Christies by age 11, Asimovs by 13. As with video my favourite genres are crime and detective fiction (the puzzles, mysteries, whodunnit theme again), and SF, fantasy and horror (the "literature of ideas" theme). Faves: Robert B Parker, Janet Evanovich, Sue Grafton, Dick Francis, Terry Pratchett, Guy Gavriel Kay, David Feintuch (not dissimilar to Parker in terms of the integrity and honour themes, I've noticed, though rather more angst-ridden), Lois McMaster Bujold. All time faves include Asimov, Ellison, Russ and Tolkien, not surprisingly.

My fiction reading these days goes in spurts. I'll go to the library, borrow a big wodge of books, read them all in quick succession. Then not read fiction again for a few months.

Yes, borrow. I now mostly only buy books which I've already read and consider worth re-reading, or referring to. Reason - I read too quickly, if I bought everything I read I'd be out of both room and cash fast. Plus I prefer to try before I buy. So libraries are my mainstay for fiction.

Trilogyitis, bah. A rant about trilogyitis. It's a disease, I say. I hate with a passion the fad, too longrunning in my view, for trilogies in SF and fantasy. I think it's put a lot of readers off unnecessarily. Call me impatient, but I can't stand waiting a year for volume 2, then another for volume 3. I'll have forgotten what happened in vol 1 by the time they're out anyway. So, I'll wait until all 3 volumes are out and available on the shelves at the same time, and then I'll read them all in a row. Not before. I utterly refuse to.

I don't mind self-contained books in a series set against the same backdrop, possibly with a longer-term story arc, e.g. Bujold's, but I think trilogies sell the reader short. I guess trilogies must be more profitable for the publishers or they wouldn't butcher perfectly good books by splitting them into 3 volumes, often incomprehensible individually, but I'd much rather they rolled the 3 into one fat book and charged me triple for it. Kudos to Mary Gentle for Ash, for instance - one of my faves, though I haven't taken to everything she's written. Why can't there be more slim single books like many that Pat Cadigan writes, I ask?

If I pick up an interesting looking book but it's clearly part of a trilogy and not self-contained (or even if it is, but the author's not someone I already like), I put it straight back unless all the volumes are there. Yes, all. Sure I could miss something good that way, but as at least a few good books are released not as trilogies (e.g. Naomi Novik's series) I'll go for those instead. It's one way to pick what to read, and life is too short to battle with trilogies when there are other alternatives. /rant.

I hardly read non-fiction books, these days.

Electronic books. I've not tried e-paper devices yet and I won't till they're more advanced. They'll have to be as clear and easy on the eye as paper (my eyesight isn't brilliant even with glasses) and as quick and easy to flip through as books and magazines, though a search facility, quick navigation (links from contents pages, "go to" page X etc) and zooming would be essential additional features for an electronic reading gadget. A5 size, lightweight, water-resistant, computer connectivity (ideally wireless). New pages would have to come up instantly, if I had to wait even a second for that I'd scream. So as you can guess, with resolution and navigation not being what I'd like, I don't even read e-books at the moment, not even on my beloved Psion.

TV

I watch at least an hour of TV a day, most days. It's a way to unwind after work and other stuff that I do (I'm out a lot), over a home-cooked dinner (I cook a few days' worth at a time then reheat). I have a widescreen Philips, no room on floor or wall for anything bigger or I'd have it.

I like crime/detective and SF/fantasy/horror, preferably with interesting plots leavened by a touch of wit and humour, and strong characterisation. I've probably seen or read too much as I usually guess whodunnnit very early on, or before the denouement anyway, so it matters that there are characters I can care about.

Or else I watch gripping action thrillers or light comedy fluff, both of which serve to take my mind off serious stuff and rest the brain. I rarely watch "heavy" angst-ridden worthy art films or foreign language subtitled etc fare these days and the word "experimental" has me running a googol miles, too much hard work, I watched more than my fair share of all that when I were a young 'un and now I just want to have a break and be entertained.

Fave series are listed in my profile but currently include The Closer, CSI, New Tricks, Without a Trace, Criminal Minds, The Inside, Numb8rs. Plus Lost, House, Desperate Housewives, Ugly Betty, West Wing, Commander in Chief, Medium.

My favouritest mini-series of all time would include Maximum Bob, Buffy, Babylon 5.

PVRs. With my trusty Topfield 5800 personal video recorder (twin Freeview tuners, EPG, loads of great user-produced mini-applications), it's a constant battle to watch and delete stuff before I completely fill up its 250 GB hard drive. (I could archive to DVD but my DVD-RW drive that came with my Dell PC went bust and I've not got round to getting another yet). I very rarely watch live TV.

Yes, I often skip ads. But I do see the "sponsored by" bits before and after the ads, so I think sponsorship of programmes or channels is more effective these days. (And I watch some too if they're good - I love the comfy glove ads by Spontex for House (they should have had them for download from their website from the start, huge missed opportunity, though the ads are downloadable now, no doubt by popular demand), and the Cobra mini-movies. But I want to strangle them, throw something or worse when the annoying 118 men come on, and as for that pseudo American prat they have for CSI (I think it's CSI, I hate him so much I've blanked out what the show is and especially what product or service they're supposed to be advertising) grrrrr - they're positively counterproductive.)

DVD rentals? I barely have enough time to watch the programes and films I record from Freeview, as it is. So I rarely have time to go out and rent a DVD (and am too lazy to walk to the DVD rental shop, especially as the one nearest me has closed recently, victim of the growth in DVD rentals by post no doubt).

I've never taken to DVD rental by post. I know I can set the list of movies I'd like to see, but for me so much depends on my mood, and if the one they've sent me, though it's on my list, doesn't suit my current mood, it's no good for me and I won't watch it. I want to decide exactly what I feel like watching, as and when I have time to watch something.

I don't buy many DVDs, like with books I only buy if I want to re-watch for reasons of space and money. So it's just Lord of the Rings, Buffy, Babylon 5 pretty much. And I find I don't have the time to re-watch them anyway so I may just stop buying them.

Cable or satellite? For me it would be a waste of money subscribing for cable or satellite as I have trouble getting through my Freeview recordings as it is. Plus I considered cable before and the company's left hand clearly didn't know what their right was doing so I decided it wasn't worth it. Satellite would also be too troublesome as I live in a listed building and getting permission to have a dish would be nightmarish.

Mobile TV? Mobile TV on smartphones and PDAs etc, even laptops, don't really grab me (unless perhaps I'm desperate to keep up with something on the move, so I can see it would appeal to sports fans wanting the latest score etc. Which I'm not). I prefer video on a bigger screen, with remote control. Even TV on computer (e.g. Freetube) doesn't appeal very much to me unless I can watch it on my TV in decent size and quality.

VOD, downloadable internet TV, IPTV. I've been thinking of getting BT Vision video on demand - they provide a set top box so you can definitely watch downloaded films on your TV. If I do get BT Vision it would be mainly as a video or DVD rental substitute, so I can rent a movie I feel like watching without having to go outdoors and, eeeek, walk down the road. Especially in the winter, brrrrr... Which is probably why I rarely rent DVDs. I think I'd be much more likely to download something I can watch on a full TV screen in the comfort of my own home without having to move my butt more than a few feet.

I'm looking forward to the forthcoming BBC iPlayer for TV catchup over the Net, but will only use it seriously if I can pipe it from PC to widescreen TV (and of course if there's anything worth watching on the BBC channels!). I don't find watching video on my PC monitor much fun if it's more than a few minutes long (see my post on BBC iMP, the iPlayer's precursor, which I was involved in trialling; I'm also taking part in the BBC TV Test - I think this page is the only public one so far).

I expect I'll be watching more and more IPTV / video on demand.

Cinema

I do once in a while go to movie theatres, but I feel no compulsion to rush to see the latest thing (well except for Lord of the Rings, went to see that). I'm quite happy to wait for films to come out on DVD or even TV. It's only for stuff I really want to see and where a smaller TV screen wouldn't do it justice, that I'll make the effort to go to a movie theater to see it.

The main times I'll go to the cinema will be to see films that I'm not likely to be able to get to see otherwise - like the annual London Film Festival and other film festivals that the BFI puts on. So annually I probably see as many movies as most people do, I just tend to cram them in all at once over short festival periods.

Music

These days I produce more than consume. My time's very limited, and I'd rather spend it making music than listening to it (it's almost my second "job"). Plus, unlike many other people, I don't bother putting on background music. My focus is such that I wouldn't hear it if I was concentrating on something else, so there's no point. I listen to music as a primary activity when I can pay proper attention to what's being played - when I've time for it, that is.

The exceptions are:

• music while travelling when I can't do anything else - radio or background music in a car or to send me to sleep on the plane (but not Tube or train, as even there I'd rather read or write - unless I can't get a seat!); and
• MP3s I listen to while travelling to help me learn certain music.
  

So nowadays I really don't listen to CDs, radio or music on my PC much. But I'll listen to MP3s for learning, as mentioned, and occasionally go to live concerts and shows. I very rarely go to pure plays without any music.

My favourite music is vocal, whether pop, rock or classical. Orchestral or instrumental-only stuff sends me to sleep after a while, though I appreciate a good tune in whatever form. I guess I'm mainly a words person.

Gaming

I think of gaming as media consumption, though its "consumption" is generally more active / interactive than passive. For me, it's too much hard work to little real purpose. For entertainment, or rather just letting my mind unwind a bit, I will play Freecell or Tetris or Brickbreaker (and like reading fiction I have phases where I'll play say Freecell continuously for a while), but I've never really got into the hardcore stuff.

It's my pragmatic bent I guess. I'll spend hours trying to figure out how to get a widget to work but wouldn't feel like spending that same time on Second Life.

Art

My limit is cartoons of the Gary Larson or Private Eye variety - again, pics with words! Or pictures that say something.

Not much of a "pure image" person, me. Which may explain why I struggle so with visual stuff like CSS. Though oddly my friends say I compose photos quite well (I prefer portraits, expressions, people to scenery). I just don't have a particular interest in the consumption or production of visual art.

(As for what they call "art", installations and suchlike, puh-lease, don't get me started. It's sheer brass and cheek, not art. Anyone want to pay me zillions for my unmade bed, be my guest. How about my unwashed - well I was going to say something else but this is a family blog hah so I'll say T-shirt. Symbolic of life in all its crumpled reekiness, it is. There.)

Hmmm this post has turned out to be quite personal, in that I don't usually post so much about me, myself or even I. I figure people who read my blog are generally more interested in the tech and bloggy stuff and of course I want to cater to my readershop.

I did wonder about how much of a giveaway this would be, as I blog anonymously (this is why - and I now feel vindicated when even the venerable FT warns that what you say on your blog or social networking sites will influence potential employers). But to be honest only those who've really got to know me properly in real life would know these things about me. So the only ones who could identify me from what I've written would already know about this blog or would be good friends whom I could trust to keep this "secret". So I guess I'm OK there...

Thanks again to John for tagging me, I might never have thought to ramble on about all this otherwise!

And I now tag - well I don't know if there's some unwrtitten limit to how many you can tag but if so I'm just about to break it (and if you've already been tagged, then I've missed it haven't I, and sorry!):

From the Bloggers Brigade: Kirk, Liz, Aditya, Jasper, Satish, Amit, John, Efendi
From the Copyfighter Cohorts: Becky, Suw, Cory
From the Geekdinners Gang: Sarah, Ian

Labels: internet, media, technology, TV

If you like funny animations, have a look at the BBC's "New TV Animators" page.

The BBC had previously invited entries of short films from UK animators. They're paying the winning entrants for the use of their animations in a planned new comedy sketch show pilot "FAO3", which will be broadcast on TV later in 2007 ("Spring") on BBC3.

It's not quite internet TV, but you can watch the 48 short films on the shortlist free online on your computer, and even rate them - and your ratings will "influence the decisions of the judges".

I don't know when the deadline for rating the shorts is, it just says "March / April 2007 The top animations showcased online" - so if you want to see them (and some of them are very funny indeed), best get your blow in quick, and certainly before the end of April (I'm A type so I hate it when people don't spell out their exact deadlines, like Delicious for their survey...).

All you need is RealPlayer - so whether you have a PC or a Mac, you should be able to watch the films.

I don't know if you can watch it from outside the UK though - generally the BBC limits access to their online video and audio content to computers with UK IP addresses (see my post on the forthcoming BBC iPlayer.) I'd be interested to know if anyone from outside the UK can get to see these shorts?

Also the BBC have a warning note: Please note, the animations are for a BBC Three audience, so some are made for more mature viewing and will only be viewable after 10pm and before 5am.

A good way to avoid kids watching "more mature viewing". And probably encourage viewing by those who like adult comedy cartoons!

Labels: humour, media, TV