Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Media Programming The Internet IT Technology

BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BBC Begins Open-Source Streaming Challenge

Comments Filter:
  • Only in the US (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @08:57AM (#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:Good old Auntie! (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdtanner ( 741053 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:00AM (#9957614) Homepage
    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
  • by McCall ( 212035 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:02AM (#9957623) Homepage
    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:Ogg Theora (Score:2, Informative)

    by deimtee ( 762122 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:05AM (#9957647) Journal
    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:Only in the US (Score:5, Informative)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:07AM (#9957656) Journal
    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.
  • 14 times (Score:4, Informative)

    by James The Gent ( 152034 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:21AM (#9957764)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/events03/uk_pol/ cons/leadership/nb_newsnightiv.ram
  • Re:Good old Auntie! (Score:2, Informative)

    by jdtanner ( 741053 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:24AM (#9957802) Homepage
    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! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:27AM (#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:open codecs? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alan Cox ( 27532 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:31AM (#9957857) Homepage
    and its not open in some countries in the "free to use" sense. You collide with the various mpeg related patents
  • Videolan (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hi_2k ( 567317 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:32AM (#9957868) Journal
    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 (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:33AM (#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.
  • Ogg Theora is alive (Score:5, Informative)

    by tialaramex ( 61643 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:36AM (#9957906) Homepage
    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.
  • by SlamMan ( 221834 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:39AM (#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.
  • Re:From the article (Score:2, Informative)

    by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:41AM (#9957968) Homepage Journal
    "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.

  • Dirac homepage (Score:5, Informative)

    by flyhmstr ( 32953 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:44AM (#9958011) Homepage
    Dirac homepage [bbc.co.uk] and the Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] pages
  • Re:Quicktime (Score:3, Informative)

    by Quobobo ( 709437 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @09:45AM (#9958026)
    Really? First off, Quicktime is an application/api, not a video codec. Secondly, they're looking for an open source and royalty-free way to do this. Quicktime most definitely isn't open source, only runs (officially) on two platforms, and the best codecs included with it are definitely not royalty-free.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:01AM (#9958190)
    QuickTime Streaming Server is open source, so you can run your own server on whichever platform you want.

    And Apple doesn't charge any per-stream or per encoded hour crap either.
  • Re:Good old Auntie! (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:02AM (#9958206)
    Whine whine fucking whine. Go ahead and buy Sky; I've had it for years. Want to know a little secret? The vast (99%) majority of stuff on Sky are crap, or repeats of crap. BBC1-4 all have at least something worth watching on them. Stop trying to drag a perfectly good set of TV channels down to your troglodite level.
  • Re:Good old Auntie! (Score:4, Informative)

    by tialaramex ( 61643 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:08AM (#9958264) Homepage
    ITV's shows are dire, as atested not only by critical failure (not winning many awards these days are you, ITV?) but also by poor audience figures. Some ITV regions are supported by the taxpayer indirectly, but it's true that the large part of programming and broadcasting is funded through the obnoxious advertising.

    Channel 4 is partly government funded, and seeks grants for its, uh, unconventional programming from European projects which are themselves... government funded. Whether it means sending film crews to Italian beaches to film topless women, or showing 30 year old obscure Dutch movies about bicycling in 16:9 with subtitles, C4 reads the latest funding trends from Brussels and incorporates their needs into its schedule.

    Channel 5 is entirely pointless and should never have been launched on analog. The government (the one you think shouldn't be interfering) forced them to add the movies and news bulletins which break up their otherwise relentless schedule of old material bought from other networks. In some cases the BBC (which you don't like) paid for this material (which you apparently DO like) to be made more than 20 years ago. Didn't you notice how the average C5 program seems kinda... retro?

    In general I'm not in favour of government interference, but it's the reality we face. The technology for everyone and their dog to try to run a TV station doesn't exist yet, and might not for another decade. In the absence of that situation the invisible hand of market forces cannot operate properly, so the government inevitably must REGULATE broadcasting activity or we'll experience the spiral of reduced expectations. Once the government actively regulates the activity you're going to pay those taxes, and you might as well get something useful out of it. I think the BBC is fairly good value for money, and would support direct taxation rather than the "license fee" to support it until better means are available, despite the fact that this would inevitably mean that I personally wind up paying more for the same service.
  • by CroyDax ( 211988 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:11AM (#9958289) Homepage Journal
    If you're interested in the guts of Dirac, here's a link to some documentation http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/dirac/documentati on/api/html/index.html [bbc.co.uk]
  • by MikeDX ( 560598 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:13AM (#9958306) Journal
    It annoys me that I have to pay even if i own a set, regardless of what i watch, even if I only use if to play my XBox.

    If you do indeed only use your TV in the UK to play DVDS or consoles, you can apply to be EXEMPT from a TV license as I did for 3 years. When you get the letter advising you have not got an up to date Television license, simply call the number on the bottom of the form, and advise them that you use your TV for console and DVD use and they will add you to the exemption list.

    Of course when they show up at your door or sit outside and see if your TV tuner is actively tuned to broadcasted television channels instead of playing the XBOX or watching DVDs then you can expect to get heavily fined and rightfully so.

    So if it bothers you that much about paying £125 for quite easily the best broadcaster in the world, I'm sure you will find my advice useful.
  • Re:Videolan (Score:3, Informative)

    by elandal ( 9242 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:13AM (#9958307) Homepage
    VideoLan is not a codec but an application. Dirac is a codec. You could stream dirac-encoded video with VideoLan I presume.
  • Re:Good old Auntie! (Score:3, Informative)

    by fyonn ( 115426 ) <dave@fyonn.net> on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:14AM (#9958317) Homepage
    So I'm coughing up £125 for the priviledge of *owning* a telly

    well, to be fair, you're paying for thr priviledge of receiving broadcast TV. you don't need a licence just to own a tv if you only use it for video's, dvd's, consoles and the like (ie no broadcast tv at all).

    not that it should make you feel any better mind you :)

    actually, what I dislike about people like sky tv is that they charge you the earth for alot less service (or so it seems). sky seems to spend it's time just buying shows from other people, while the bbc does that, it also makes shows itself, some of very high quality (some pretty crap admittedly).

    sky just seems to be a huge rip off to me, how can they charge you a huge monthly fee for the posrts channel and then have the cheek to ask you to pay even moe to see some boxing match, and then not allow you to record it!

    and then carpet bomb it with more and more adverts. ads, or subscription. pick one dammit. that just really pisses me off and I just won't sign up to it. but I suppose I don't watch a huge amount of telly now. I've got freeview (and a tivo*) and thats mostly enough for me.

    dave

    * please, give us a new UK tivo! I want a high quality dvdv/dvda/sacd player/dvdrw/tivo with huge HD, ethernet, multiple tuners etc. I'll pay a good fee for that
  • Re:The BBC (Score:4, Informative)

    by CarrionBird ( 589738 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:34AM (#9958540) Journal
    All in all it's probably a better deal than we get here (US). We have "free" TV, but it is Ad laden and restricted by what the ratings will support.

    Our public TV has some good stuff (and some HD too), but it gets minimal federal funding and has to beg for donations all the time. (AFAIK, the congress mandated push to HD is reaming their budgets too, they won't survive this decade)

    The pay options are ok, but still ad driven and you can end up with a $100+ a month TV bill if you get any "top tier" stuff.

    As for me, basic cable is bundled in my rent, so there's little choice in it.

  • by MikeDX ( 560598 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:42AM (#9958639) Journal
    There was talk a few years back about charging per TV, but as it stands, you are charged per household. Each household pays £125 per year (less any disability allowance) for as many TVs/receivers in the house. TV licenses cover recievers and not just the television, so Video recorders, Televisions, satelite recievers, etc.

  • by vrai ( 521708 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @10:52AM (#9958754)
    Lots of companies make such devices - they're monitors with SVHS/composite inputs. Perfectly capable of displaying the output of DVDs and consoles, but devoid of the tax incurring UHF receiver. Most mid to high-end LCD monitors have at least a composite input. Failing that you can buy VGA output boxes for all the major consoles at Lik Sang.
  • It's patent-free (Score:2, Informative)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:09AM (#9958925) Homepage Journal

    so how does it compete with current codecs at all?

    DivX and XviD: heavily patented. Theora and Dirac: not patented. From the article:

    Borer believes Dirac could turn out to be more efficient than standards based on commercial patents, even though it has to use technology more than 20 years old to avoid breaking patents.
  • Re:From the article (Score:3, Informative)

    by hoofie ( 201045 ) <mickey@MOSCOWmouse.com minus city> on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:16AM (#9959025)
    What a spanner.

    The reason he asked the same question 14 times was that he wanted a straight answer and the politician concerned (as usual for all politicians) wouldn't give one.
  • Explanation of name (Score:2, Informative)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepples.gmail@com> on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:21AM (#9959101) Homepage Journal

    The Dirac delta function corresponds roughly to a spike in a flat signal. Run a low-pass filter on it and you get the various scaling functions used in wavelet image coding.

  • You mean Ogg Tarkin (Score:3, Informative)

    by benwaggoner ( 513209 ) <ben.waggoner@mic ... t.com minus poet> on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:26AM (#9959158) Homepage
    The wavelet codec was Ogg Tarkin. Ogg Theora is a more traditional codec, based on On2's open sourced VP3 codec from a few years back.

    Ogg Theora is lurching towards an actual release, and is supported in a few tools like VLC, while Ogg Tarkin never really got very far along in implementation. Theora was meant to be the quick interim release while Tarkin was developed, although the schedule has slipped quite a bit since.
  • by tom taylor ( 610506 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @11:49AM (#9959431) Homepage

    Currently the BBC are trialing iMP (interactive media player), which allows users to download TV content from the last 8 days. It uses a peer to peer basis for downloading (like Bittorrent), and is currently using Windows Media 9 with its DRM to restrict the content. As I gather, it is a standalone application.

    Cross platform compatibility is a fairly hot subject at the Beeb at the moment, and one of the developers hinted that WM9 is just a stand in for any other codec. Presumably when Dirac matures, we'll see Dirac being used.

    It's currently in trials with up to 1000 users.

    This [independent.co.uk] is probably the best public article about it.

  • For the lazy... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Friday August 13, 2004 @12:04PM (#9959611)
  • Re:Ogg Theora (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @12:03AM (#9965478)
    I believe that discussions were held between BBC R&D and Xiph before Emmett was removed. People at BBC R&D are more video engineer than hacker, they wanted documentation and were interested in contributing experience, they are not expert at reading code to discover the algorithm. However the Xiph codecs were pretty much undocumented and weren't likely to change soon even though some funding may have been available.

    Note that even Vorbis which has been version 1 released for a couple of years now and which was started many years ago is not properly documented. LibVorbis has no official documentation and this is the library which you need to use if dealing with asynchronous sources such as network connections. As far as I know the Vorbis encoding algorithm is completely undocumented.

    You might notice that the source of the docs when they do appear isn't offtopic for this thread. The BBC do have one or two hackers ;)

    http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.multimedia.ogg .vorbis.devel/2891 [gmane.org]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 14, 2004 @01:31AM (#9965747)
    BBC R&D are not included in the sale. It remains part of BBC proper.

    However the day to day running of the server farm and a lot control over that aspect is being outsourced so it remains to be seen how the products of R&D get used in the new structure.

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Working...