Net TV (or IPTV) is Coming - Project Canvas Approved Today

What is Project Canvas and Net TV / IPTV Going to Mean?

Oh dear. No, I'm not crying over BSykyB or Virgin who are unhappy about the prospect of a subscription free TV service that will let you watch mainstream schedules (BBC, ITV etc), alongside on demand TV, cable, satellite, YouTube, terrestial etc. Oh, and in HD. Oh, and let you do all your tweeting and facebooking too (should the living room laptop breakdown). For that is what Project Canvas promises, and the first consumers should see it in 2010 for a one-off set-top box price of around £200! No subscriptions.

No, my "oh dear" is that there is yet another reason to either mourn the purchase of that snazzy new Christmas TV gadget (HD receiver, recorder etc.), because it may be redundant within as little as 12 months. Or, if one is lucky enough not to have bought it yet, because this provides another reason to delay purchase and stick with last year's features.

When To Buy That Humax Freesat+ HD Recorder?

I've been wondering when to buy myself a Freesat enabled HD receiver/recorder (such as the Humax FOXSAT-HDR Freesat+ PVR) and ditch my Sky "pay once, watch forever" box. This announcement kills that idea for me. At least until the Canvas Specs have made their way into a software upgrade that shows it can do all the necessary tricks. I shall wait and see.

I'm not a TV addict, I love the internet more, and my online TV guide has had tempting little "watch now" links on the schedule for ages. I've just not wanted to click them and watch TV on my laptop (excepting FlashForward), but that time is ending.

Within a year or so, my Internet TV watching and my normal TV will begin to dissolve into a single activity, made seamless by integration on a single platform (the set-top boxes arriving alongside Project Canvas). My TV watching will become more and more Internet, less and less 'schedule.' Project Canvase will, without doubt, redefine TV in an even bigger way than happened with cable or freeview.

BBC News gives a quick summary of the announcement (Trust gives green light to net TV), from which the following is quoted. These are the conditions on the BBC's participation:

• The core technical specification must be published well in advance to allow manufacturers to adapt to the Canvas standard

• Other content providers must have access to the platform.

• Any quality standards for internet service providers must be applied on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.

• A Trust review, 12 months after its launch, will assess the effects Canvas has on the partner's incentives to syndicate their content to other platforms.

• The platform must remain accessible without a subscription.

• The BBC must return for further approval if costs exceed those projected by more than 20% in any one year.

• The BBC must report on whether the proposed accessibility features, such as audio description, have been incorporated. The Trust will review the signposting of content and parental controls.

As you can see, the "conditions" placed on the BBC are hardly restricting at all, and I imagine will likely infuriate Virgin and BSkyB. If there's a legal avenue I expect they'll challenge this, but have no idea whether there is anything they can do that will change or delay this 'terraforming' TV development.

The full announcement from the BBC Trust is also available (BBC Trust gives provisional approval to Project Canvas).

No new set-top TV toys for me in the January sales then.

Any thoughts? Please leave a comment.

Mark

Linkback confusion. Should I Refback, Trackback or Pingback?

I'm new to blogging but not the web or internet or PC's, so I'm going to stick my neck out and risk getting my head lopped off for what might turn out to be a "bad idea." However, if that happens I'll be in Godin company.

I came across the term 'Trackback' reading Seth Godin's blog today. You'll find it under all his posts. Today he posted about Fear of bad ideas and underneath you'll find something called a "Trackback URL." Knowing that Seth Godin is a "God in" blogging circles I headed off to learn what this was and why it is such a good idea. At Wikipedia I found that its a kind of "Linkback" and there are three types, so I had to decide: "Should I use a Refback, Trackback or a Pingback?" My conclusion: Its a Bad Idea to worry about this, so don't. Just link as normal. I'll explain why.

What are Linkbacks?

Linkbacks are ways that a blogger (or website author, content publisher etc.) can let someone know that the blog or website is linking to that person's content. They provide a means for someone being referenced to find information about content that contains links to them. According to Wikipedia there are three types of Linkback: Refback, Trackback and Pingback.

I list them in order of complexity, and one might therefore presume, of benefit - however I'm thinking that there isn't much, actually anything, to be gained by worrying about them. Just link as normal and forget it. Please let me know if you disagree - I may learn something, which I always welcome. I don't mind people thinking I'm dumb, or saying so if it makes you feel better, so by all means go ahead! But first let me explain my reasoning, and then you can explain why I'm wrong, rather than just contradicting me.

What's a Refback, Trackback and a Pingback?

A Refback is a normal hyperlink. You put it in your content so a reader can click on the link and be taken to the content you are referring to on another site. The other site can usually tell where the click came from (so long as the browser supplies appropriate headers which almost all of them do).

So a normal hyperlink (a Refback) is a type of Linkback that lets the referenced site know that it is getting traffic and where it is coming from. Note - this is true for all hyperlinks without you (or you blogging platform) having to do anything special. It just happens because when a web browser follows a link it very politely tells the website it is accessing where it came from.

Now, if people are not clicking on the link, I don't see much value in the reference, and very little to be gained from knowing about it. I see no significant disadvantage in this kind of linkback compared to Trackbacks or Pingbacks.

A Refback provides less information than a Trackback but I'll comment on why that's irrelevant while explaining Trackbacks, next.

What is a Trackback?

A Trackback is a special feature supported by some publishing systems (e.g. blog platforms) that send some information to a referenced site when the content including the reference is published.

In theory this makes it easier for sites whose content is being referenced to keep track of who is referring to them and to gather a little information about the refering site and content (e.g. site and content URL, and title).

However, a spammer can send fake Trackbacks very easily which means that they need to be verified if you want to avoid acting on unreliable data. So it is still necessary to go to the referring site and gather the information from the referring page to check it exists and also to try and filter out spamming links.

Hence I see no benefits in using a Trackback for the owner of referred content. So there is no benefit, only a cost, in providing this extra information to someone making a reference.

Which brings me to Pingbacks.

What is a Pingback?

A Pingback is like a Trackback, but uses a different protocol. Its a little more sophisticated, but for most people that doesn't matter because like a Trackback it is taken care of by the content platform. Some blog platforms provide this feature for you. When you publish your post, they scan your article for Refbacks, and do a Pingback for each one.

The Pingback tells the owner of the referenced content the address of the referencing site, and the URL of the content being referenced, and the URL of the content containing the reference (e.g. a blog post containing the link). To get more information (e.g. to help weed out spam) the referring page needs to be retrieved and analysed and referring sites checked for spam etc.

Now I guess there are some benefits to the Pingback system or it wouldn't be there, but I can't see them. Ok, so you get to know if someone links to you even if people are not clicking on the referring link. But why would you care about references that bring no traffic?

If you know any other benefits, let me know, because I would hate to be giving out poor advice! In the meantime I say...

Don't Worry About Linkbacks, Just Link as Normal

For the Blogger/Webmaster linking to someone else's blog post, article, website content and so on I believe that you might as well just link as normal. By all means use a URL shortener to track numbers of referrals if you like. Currently I use http://j.mp (formerly bit.ly) but there are many others.

But whether you link direct or using a URL shortner, I suggest you use a normal hyperlink and not worry about whether your platform provides Trackbacks or Linkbacks.

When linking, you might want to include a 'target' attribute with value "_blank" so the link opens in a new window rather than navigates away from your site.

Example: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.markhughes.com">markability's website</a>

I can check my weblogs to find out where visitors are coming from, go get the referring content and track that. If that link is not bringing visitors, why would I care?

For the Content Owner wanting to track referring links and their owners. You can't rely on everyone using Trackbacks or Pingbacks, so you are going to have to assume a lot of Refbacks and handle these.

So I suggest you forget about this issue. If you need to know about referrals, by all means make use of Trackback or Pingback information if you can, but as a referrer, I shouldn't worry about it. There seems little if any advantage in providing the extra information by supporting Trackback or Pingback. Just link!

Unless of course, you know better, in which case please comment and let me know if this is just one of my "bad ideas".

Happy Linking!

Mark

References:

Wikipedia: Linkback

How to Keep facebook status, posts, & photos Private, not visible to everyone!

I like the new facebook privacy controls. I don't like the new defaults, or the way they have made the defaults override existing behavior. Its damn rude!

As of today, EVERYTHING you post will be visible to EVERYONE, unless you explicitly change this when you post - using the new padlock menu. Amazing isn't it. All your photos, status updates etc public. I don't want this. Some people will. If you don't, read on about what to do about it.

How to keep your facebook private

To stop EVERYTHING you post (status updates, comments, photos you upload, notes you post) being "visible to everyone" by default, you will need to change the new privacy settings. After you have changed this, you can still override it whenever you post.

I think most people are sharing with friends not "everyone" on facebook! So it makes sense to have the default have a safe setting, and to do what you want most of the time.

To set the default for everything you post, open your facebook profile and follow the instructions here.

How to change default facebook privacy settings

To stop facebook making EVERYTHING you post, status updates, photos, etc. being visible to EVERYONE you now need to do this:

1. Go to your facebook profile page.
2. Menu (top right): Choose, "Settings" and then "Privacy Settings" to get to the Privacy Settings page.
   
3. Scroll down to "Posts by me" and click on the button to the right which says "Everyone"
4. Choose what you want the default for everything you post to be (e.g. Friends, or Friends of Friends etc.)

Note: When you post an item you can override this default with the little padlock menu.

What facebook privacy settings do you recommend? Please share with others by leaving a comment here.

Be safe on facebook! Be happy. Keep updated - follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/markhughes

mark