Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The NICAM Codec replacement project

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#71

Post by duskwuff »

flurpitude wrote: post #18
linker3000 wrote: post #6

That's some decent BBC engineering from a team that works away quietly in the background and just makes things happen, or keep happening. I don't work in that field, but like many people in my profession (Systems and networking), I also tend to be invisible until something breaks, and then I am the fall guy if it's not fixed within a heartbeat. /I was half expecting the article to outline how a box full of 80s techno…

"I was half expecting the article to outline how a box full of 80s technology had been replaced with a Raspberry Pi!" The Parallella computer, which looks a lot like a Raspberry Pi, has a Xilinx Zynq chip similar to the one in the BBC's new codec. So it's almost true.

Here's the exact board that's in there:

http://store.digilentinc.com/zedboard-zynq-7000-arm-fpga-soc...

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#72

Post by toyg »

jnbiche wrote: post #56

I read the article with interest, waiting with anticipation for them to announce the resulting hardware and software had all been open sourced. And then...nothing. I'm surprised, I thought in the UK these kinds of taxpayer-funded projects were required to be open source. In any case, it's too bad. I was not familiar with the NICAM codec up to now, but I'm sure that software and hardware plans would have been very use…

> I thought in the UK these kinds of taxpayer-funded projects were required to be open source.

There is no law, afaik, and even the BBC has commercial interests. iPlayer has never been open-source, for example.

The BBC has obligations in terms of content reach and content quality, but they're not particularly bound to specific ways of achieving those targets (beyond some stuff about not abusing their position in commercial terms). Actual engineers are mostly pro-OSS and try hard to push for it internally, but they have legal obstacles similar to any other company.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#73

Post by dtf »

acheron wrote: post #17

Really interesting article, but terrible clickbaity title. I wouldn't have read it if there weren't so many positive comments on HN already. It could work if there were a subtitle. "35 million people didn’t notice a thing: BBC Radio's NICAM Codec replacement project". I dunno. But it is (or should be) very important that the title actually informs you as to what the article is about. "35M people didn't notice a thing…

Apologies for that, I submitted this and did actually go looking for the HN title guidelines, which seemed to say use the original title. I'll try to be a little braver with title editing in future.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#74

Post by vidarh »

thorin wrote: post #59
jmtd wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the title-writer has been infected by the BBC news editorial policy. They seem to be turning clickbait titles into a fine art, combined with renaming articles so you think it's a new piece on the same story, but turns out you've already read it. (If you read BBC News at all that is: my wife still does, I gave it up years ago and haven't looked back.) I love many aspects of the BBC but sadly not their news out…

I used to think the BBC news was definitive 5-10 years ago. I'm not sure what has changed? Have the recent governments and their pressure on the license fee really made the difference or is it just my perception? When I was young the BBC was always seen as pretty left wing (it certainly wasn't at it's inception though) it seems pretty conservative (and sensationalist) right now.

Both sides of the political spectrum regularly complains about the BBC being biased towards the other side. It's the best evidence that whatever bias there is either is minor or short-lived.

In my eyes, the biggest problem with the BBC isn't bias, but that they're terrified of seeming too biased, and as a result they're wishy-washy in ways that ironically makes them seem biased.

E.g. the left will accuse them of being right wing because they don't write in more critical terms about the governments willingness to deal with the Saudis, while the right will accuse them of a left wing bias for not writing in more critical terms about Chavez, and so on. Similarly they're often accused of bias for not reporting something, or very carefully reporting something, that either side believe to be fact, but where there's not (yet) actual firm evidence. Of course, if done "against" just one side, this too would be actual bias, but the BBC appears to be pretty consistent about it.

So we're left with reporting that is rarely very biased, but often exceedingly unsatisfying for everyone.

I'm not saying there's no bias - I don't believe that would be possible. But I do think that the allegations of bias against the BBC tend to be wildly exaggerated.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#75

Post by inanutshellus »

SilasX wrote: post #68
acheron wrote: post #17

Really interesting article, but terrible clickbaity title. I wouldn't have read it if there weren't so many positive comments on HN already. It could work if there were a subtitle. "35 million people didn’t notice a thing: BBC Radio's NICAM Codec replacement project". I dunno. But it is (or should be) very important that the title actually informs you as to what the article is about. "35M people didn't notice a thing…

Yeah, the HN title should be more like "Changing the NICAM radio transmission protocol without 35 million people noticing."

I came here (directly to the comments section) to see what the clickbait-title actually meant. Thanks for fulfilling! ;-)

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#76

Post by Piskvorrr »

jon-wood wrote: post #41
Piskvorrr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, that's probably the point: there is no threat (to the utility provider) in that model. Worst thing you could do is make someone's appliances run with a more expensive rate; hardly a likely event or one worth preventing. (As for power cutting, that seems unlikely - the system is in place to provide larger power consumption when base production exceeds the load. Around here, the basic low/high rate info is provided…

The smart metres that are being rolled out at the moment have a remote kill switch, although it couldn't really be used to implement rolling blackouts as you have to physically hit a button to reactivate it.

That's a DoS waiting to happen, IMNSHO. If it's easy to transmit on the frequency locally at low power and there's no auth, a drive around the neighborhood could create a blackout at anyone's demand.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#77

Post by Piskvorrr »

leoedin wrote: post #23
Piskvorrr wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something akin to this? http://gpsworld.com/wirelessinfrastructuregoing-against-time... I believe that operating a rogue transmitter in a licensed band would get you located rather quickly - even though the tech itself may not necessarily be secure, there are other enforcement mechanisms.

It depends how strong it is. The obvious benefit for a malicious person would be to set their meter to the cheaper tariff by replaying the signal. It wouldn't need to be a powerful signal - if you were broadcasting right next to the meter even a few milliwatts would be enough. Build a faraday cage around the meter to be sure! Just remember to dismantle it before the meter reader comes round.

That would also disable the legit switching, no?

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#78

Post by SapphireSun »

jerf wrote: post #54
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because if they don't have clickbaity headlines the UK government will scrap the license fee?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2477726/BBC-face-cut... That's a small example of what I mean, not the full totality of the threat space. Building more readership makes them that much more difficult to cut funding to, in a variety of ways (more people to get outraged if the government tries, more evidence to show the government that they are worth the money, etc.). Clickbait headlines create more readership.…

Also, one might argue, funding aside, that increasing readership (without sacrificing quality below some threshold) is the whole point of the enterprise. Click-bait headlines are annoying, but they aren't the actual body of the report themselves.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#79

Post by 7952 »

vidarh wrote: post #74
thorin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think the BBC news was definitive 5-10 years ago. I'm not sure what has changed? Have the recent governments and their pressure on the license fee really made the difference or is it just my perception? When I was young the BBC was always seen as pretty left wing (it certainly wasn't at it's inception though) it seems pretty conservative (and sensationalist) right now.

Both sides of the political spectrum regularly complains about the BBC being biased towards the other side. It's the best evidence that whatever bias there is either is minor or short-lived. In my eyes, the biggest problem with the BBC isn't bias, but that they're terrified of seeming too biased, and as a result they're wishy-washy in ways that ironically makes them seem biased. E.g. the left will accuse them of bein…

When you just look at the website it is easy to forget just how much current affairs content the BBC produces. Across TV and radio their are numerous news programs with different skews. News Night or PM can sound completely different to Breakfast or Five Live. I would rather individual programs are allowed to show bias as long as the output in general is balanced. It is ridiculous that every single program acts like it is the only thing the viewer will ever watch.

Re: The NICAM Codec replacement project

#80

Post by newjersey »

vidarh wrote: post #74
thorin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think the BBC news was definitive 5-10 years ago. I'm not sure what has changed? Have the recent governments and their pressure on the license fee really made the difference or is it just my perception? When I was young the BBC was always seen as pretty left wing (it certainly wasn't at it's inception though) it seems pretty conservative (and sensationalist) right now.

Both sides of the political spectrum regularly complains about the BBC being biased towards the other side. It's the best evidence that whatever bias there is either is minor or short-lived. In my eyes, the biggest problem with the BBC isn't bias, but that they're terrified of seeming too biased, and as a result they're wishy-washy in ways that ironically makes them seem biased. E.g. the left will accuse them of bein…

There was a comment here a few months ago which mentioned a term. I have forgotten the term since but it effectively described a situation where an expert in subject matter foo reads an article about foo in a well-regarded news source (like say the Economist) which is either pretty incorrect or pretty biased and then the subject matter expert goes "wow they know nothing about foo" and then turns the page and reads about another topic let's say bar (or maybe let's say Middle East politics) which our subject matter expert knows little or nothing about and then our subject matter expert says "wow, this news source is very insightful".

If we read about articles on key escrow or actually anything about cryptography and surveillance in general, we will find it hard to see BBC is accurate (neutral is not the same as accurate because to be neutral about anything -- and here comes Godwin's law -- involves saying that there was a legitimate excuse governments to act in a way that is not beneficial to millions of its citizens. Anti-terrorism rhetoric is way overboard and news outlets like BBC are fully on the bandwagon (although thankfully much less so compared to CNN, Fox News, and other low lives). Honestly, I think our fear of terrorists has caused more damage to the world economy than all the "acts of terror" combined. Ordinary people should not be afraid or even mindful of "acts of terror" in their daily life any more than they need to be afraid or mindful of a meteor shower hitting them in the head. Everyone goes over the top with "security precautions" because they don't want to be seen as doing nothing. The point here is BBC does not preserve this neutrality at all. I bet even CNN and Fox could do better if they were organizations that has their funding guaranteed, as opposed to being under the mercy of its advertisers. Sorry but what BBC does is nothing exemplary for someone in its shoes.

Post reply on HN