´óÏó´«Ã½

I know you have explained the reasons why, and probably wish the whole subject could just be laid to rest, but I must make some further comment regarding the lack of international distribution of the finished programme.

It's not just that the nature of the content is international, what I have a problem with is that you have been crowdsourcing globally for months now to help with this project and it is particularly galling that large numbers of people who contributed can't see (legally) the finished product. It's all very well for you to say that the rushes and interviews are available, but this is not the same as the finished programme.

Heck, even some of the people interviewed in the programme are disappointed to not have access. I ended up having a twitter conversation with Howard Rheingold regarding this. asked Aleks when the full video will be online and I () explained to him that had already said this would not be happening now. hoped he would be considered enough of a 'relative' to get a DVD from Aleks.

You really have to ask yourself are the copyright laws we have fit for purposed in the digital world when situations like this occur?

Also, I don't know if this is also crossed wires or a misunderstanding, but I asked Aleks earlier today, on her , if the Interactive 3D Documentary viewer can also be used in a 2D linear way. To which she replied "Yup!". If this is the case then the regional restrictions on iPlayer seem a bit pointless if we can view the programme via the Interactive 3D Documentary viewer anyway (or maybe I'm missing something).

I know in this kind of forum I am preaching to the converted, but I just had to pull you up on the international rights issues. I think public service broadcasters around the world should be showing the way in this area but it seems more and more often they just roll over and accept the overly restrictive demands of rights holders instead of challenging them.

I'm rather disappointed in the one sided portrayal of Microsoft as the bad guys in this program. They are one of the biggest reasons for the use of the internet beyond the hippies and the hobbiests. They are one of the driving forces behind the personal computer as a consumer product. They put the internet into the hands of the people by baking the tcp/ip stack into Windows 95 and giving away internet explorer.
I remember the rigmarole that was involved in going online before that: telneting into the isp's server to download the dialer and netscape. And if Microsoft has paved the way for Amazon and eBay to make money from the Internet I don't see this as a bad thing.
I can understand individuals giving their opinions on this but the overall tone of the program seemed unbalanced.

Hopefully we can get along without the ´óÏó´«Ã½ resorting to CENSORING a real and meaningful discussion about the internet's current direction of travel and the concerns and hopes about what it may become.

In an age of Government D/DA notices and Corporate Super Injunctions, it is a course of great concern that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ feels it has to tread so warily in discussing a subject so important to mankind's future and the hopes of ´óÏó´«Ã½ in being allowed to play a meaningful part.

Whilst like yourselves I wish to tread carefully, I am only too aware of the forces at play here. However I think most of us are aware that allowing the future of mankind to be shaped by the narrow and selfish interests of an ever tighter political and corporate elite that have little concern or respect for the rest of us - is equally dangerous.

Robin Rowlands Guildford Surrey

Sorry Dan you are right, it's not a question of copyright and we don't need to discuss that here.

However you say the problems lie in the area of UK public licence funding. If this means that the problem just boils down to the fact that UK license fee payers have paid for the programme and therefore get it free to stream and download whereas others have not contributed financially and so they don't get access. Then the simple solution is to make overseas viewers pay. I don't want to be forced into stealing the program via bittorrent and I am quite happy to pay for access to iPlayer, it's just that this option does not exist!
The ´óÏó´«Ã½ must know this so it just begs the question why is it taking so long? For programmes that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ owns all the rights to this should be a simple process. The TV industry is making all the same mistakes as the music industry. It had a chance to nip the illegal filesharing problem in the bud by providing good quality paid for alternatives, but it's taking too long. By the time they come up with a solution it will fail because everybody is already using bittorrent or some other alternative filesharing technology which is out of their control.

As this is essentially an educational programme I was initially surprised how easily the terms 'World Wide Web' and 'The Internet' (note the capital 'I' !) were swapped, incorrectly.

However, although it wasn't until over 20 minutes into the first episode I must commend you for explaining in an easy to understand way what the Internet and Web actually are and how they are related to each other.

Hopefully by presenting that essential information on national TV will resolve common misunderstandings and help Internet users to be more aware of what they are using !

Point out a single 'copyright' statute that governs this decision. Aside from the age of the most recent copyright laws, nowhere is there a law that would mean the iplayer cannot be used in the same countries where the ´óÏó´«Ã½ currently broadcasts. Its nonsense ,lazy and more importantly Dishonest

No series catchup for this, so it doesn't expire after 7 days?

Interesting that the graphic showing packets going different ways, that was previewed here, got chopped so we never saw them combining!

A couple of things were presented differently from how I've come to understand them, but maybe my understanding is wrong:

The "no centralised control" nature of the internet was related to the libertarianism philosophy around at the time, but I thought it was more to do with the technical requirements of a military network - you want nodes to be able to leave and join, and if something goes down for everything to route around it.

Also, I think the way Microsoft "got" the internet was more subtle than presented. Bill Gates "internet tidal wave" memo came out after Windows 95 was out. Their response was to develop MSN, as a rival to the AOL walled garden. They gave away IE for free, which I don't think was mentioned, which is not an obvious thing for a company trying to make money. A company that was, Netscape, suffered as a result of that.

I greatly enjoyed the episode and I was glad you got interviews with some key people.

@Dan Biddle - Thanks for the suggestion about looking at the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Internet Blog for better information and discussion regarding an international iPlayer. Unfortunately looking at, and searching through the blog just made me more depressed and cynical. I could not find a single specific discussion about an internation iPlayer, just a mass of comments from potential viewers, like myself, raising the question inside the comments to unrelated discussions in a desperate attempt to be heard and find some answers. It looks like I will have to continue to use bittorrent to get hold of programmes I am willing to pay for but the ´óÏó´«Ã½ are unwilling to sell to me either digitally via the internet or physically in the form of a DVD or Blue-Ray. As an example, will "Virtual Revolution" be released on DVD and sold abroad? If not, how does the ´óÏó´«Ã½ expect the rest of the world to see this programme legally?

I enjoyed the first episode and look forward to the rest of this informative series, but it is unfortunate (and annoying) that the presenter consistently pronounces such an important word to the topic as "imformation". I'm surprised this wasn't picked up in shooting and editing. Is it too late to overdub the remaining episodes?

aidanfolkes: Whilst the TCP/IP stack was in the first release of Windows 95, Internet Explorer was not, there was the original X25-based The Microsoft Network.

Excellent programme and presenter. However I felt the omission of any mention of Mosaic and Netscape's contribution to the web was unfortunate and might have given less informed viewers the impression that Microsoft pioneered the browser when they came in fact rather late to the party.

´óÏó´«Ã½ Virtual Revolution - UK Only!!!

Pushed this Blog could get interesting.

Especially if the Episodes are not set and can react dynamically.

It all hangs on who comes to the blog and what they bring to the discussion.

Robin Rowlands Guildford Surrey

Let's stop the nonsense. The Trust told me that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ is for anyone who wants to use its services WHO IS IN THE UK. It is financed by a license fee which it holds in trust for carrying out it prime functions. There are many things the ´óÏó´«Ã½ does to enable its work to be seen all over the world. The question is why was this programme financed the way it was and then more widely why is there no iPlayerTVI (iplayerTVInternational) funded off the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Budget.
Incidentally radio as far as possible is given away (true at low quality)

Watched VR on Saturday; really enjoyed it. Looking forward to how the themes develop over the next three episodes too.

Steve Brammer, Robin Rowlands & cping500.

Comments about iPlayer should be directed towards the Internet blog which covers iPlayer topics, amongst others.
/blogs/bbcinternet/iplayer/

You are by no means the first to raise points about restrictions on ´óÏó´«Ã½ programs and international viewers; I can understand your frustrations and you make some good points, but those type of decisions are made much, much higher up the ´óÏó´«Ã½ hierarchy.

Occasionally the Editors blog will cover iPlayer too, but you need to keep looking in on both blogs to see when the topic comes up.

This blog is just about one program series, the producers here have no say in the constraints iPlayer operates under.

Personally I think the history of computing is too easily lost, there have been a few TV programmes and books on the early pioneers, but most people are unaware of this history.

A series such as VR is a valuable contribution in both documenting and discussing the development of the Web; I hope one day this series will be permanently available on, say, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ channel on YouTube.

I enjoyed the first programme in the series. I am not really into computers. Thanks LPW, I've always been confused over the various terms that are bandied about - like the difference between the web and the internet (I thought they were the same thing) but I must have missed the explanation or else it went over my head (quite possible). I'll have to watch it again and pay more attention. Looking forward to the rest, just hope they don't get too technical or else I'll be lost. Oh and please tell Dr Aleks - love the hair!!

One analogy I've used with the difference between web and internet is cars and roads respectively. Cars aren't the only things on roads, and we had roads before we had cars.

AndrewH - Yes, I would definitely recommend watching the explanation in the programme (at around 24 mins into it, or so) as it also uses graphics - 'a picture paints a thousand words' !

I am fairly well versed in the nuances but not a guru (or Doctor as Aleks Krotoski is !) but it is important to realise that the Internet is the 'Big Daddy' which also provides the services such as ftp and e-mail.

Some sources state that the capitalisation is often (or can be) omitted, which is wrong and usually done due to laziness or ignorance, and it not only demonstrates you don't properly understand the subject but the distinction can be important (ie there is ONLY one Internet in existence but there are many, many internets + eg you could be somewhere which has an internet that offers Internet access !).

The explanation in the programme also mentions those Internet services but not necessarily in a specific overt manner. I am not sure I agree with the explanations others have given in this Blog (hence my recommendation to get it 'straight' by watching the relevant bit in the programme - I would not dare to define it in just a few words...).

But do be wary as I think Dr Krotoski (and other contributors) continue to confuse the terms themselves - which doesn't help !

Ok, I've watched the programme again and am now totally confused. I thought that the Web was the thing that carried the internet/Internet (whatever), but the picture before the Tim Berners-Lee interview seems to say it's the other way round. However, from what Mr Berners-Lee said, it appears to me that the Web is the software that allows everyone to connect up to the internet. Which is right? Help!
paulmorriss & Dan Biddle - re 'cars and roads' - which is the cars and which is the roads?
LPW - 'ftp'??

As mentioned before, I don't think this forum can be used to adequately explain the terms 'Internet' or 'WWW' and I can understand the confusion that has become apparent to others as I don't think the first programme did a good enough job of it and all too often confused the terms.

An analogy I can think of which might go some way to starting the job (I suggest you forget about forget about roads, cars etc) would be to compare the Internet and WWW to a computer and an operating system (OS) such as MS Windows.

A computer offers many functions and services but requires an OS to access them; initially this was done with an OS such as 'DOS'. Whilst DOS satisfied the need it was difficult to use and not very intuitive. MS Windows (for example) 'replaced' the job done by DOS as an overlay (eg which is why you have to wait for it to 'load' up over DOS, which is actually still there to start with and in the background ...) and presented a graphical and easy to use way of accessing those exact same computer functions. Windows is still using the core computer services, but everything is integrated, easier to access and given more 'user-friendly' names; such operating systems were obviously a revelation for us 'mere mortal' computer users !

In my analogy, the Internet is the computer which offers a wide array of functions and services but it is not very user-friendly to use or access as it is essentially command-line orientated (as is DOS). In very basic terms, the brilliance of the invention of the WWW was that (in much the same way as Windows) it provided an easy to access and far more intuitive method of using what exists on the Internet and accessing data stored on computers connected to the Internet. When you begin you hopefully appreciate that you are making a connection to the Internet and not the WWW (as the Internet is the source) but most people then use a Web Browser from then on and access the WWW to use those Internet services.

The most obvious feature of the WWW is the use of Hypertext (ie links) to provide an easy and efficient method of accessing data available on the Internet and that is normally achieved with the use of the aforementioned Web Browser. It might help to add that a browser such as Internet Explorer has a command-line where users usually insert commands starting with 'www', but you might notice 'http' precedes this (which is essentially the Hypertext 'function' being accessed). That hopefully explains why the browser is called 'Internet' Explorer and not 'World Wide Web Explorer', as it is actually accessing the Internet albeit usually via the easy to use WWW 'interface'.

Finally, to expand on that explanation, Internet services such as 'mail' and 'ftp' (File Transfer Protocol, a file transfer/management function used by the Internet) are still there and utilised by the WWW, but users might not realise this as they are not always referred to in that way or even mentioned ! For example, when you 'download' a file or use the 'Listen Again' feature available from a WWW site you are essentially using the ftp service provided by the Internet, but the method of usage is far easier to do and appreciate than if you tried to achieve the same objective by using ftp directly via an Internet-enabled terminal. As an aside, you might notice that the term 'ftp might be in your web browser command-line as that Internet function is being accessed directly instead of via a user-friendly link on a webpage....

I hope that helps. I'm not a teacher (and to repeat NOT an expert, merely well-educated by others/usage on the matter over many years) and to repeat this is merely a 'starter' on the subject; perversely, I think a well-written book on the subject is the best way to learn the basics - and preferably an older edition as, as the Web evolved, is less likely to have been affected by explanatory errors as authors made the same mistakes I think exist in this TV programme ! I also feel as though I'm involved in some sort of issue related to that classic film 'The Matrix' !

Thank you to Dan Biddle and LPW. Though I have to say my head hurts now.
Dan - I looked at Richard E's comment but didn't understand a word. Also, what's with putting '@' in front of everyone's name?
LPW - Thanks, but I'm sorry it's all a bit too much for me to take in. Terms such as 'command line orientated' mean nothing to me. You say you're not an expert, but a 'mere mortal computer user'. I doubt that very much. If that's a starter on the subject, it's clearly aimed at someone much brighter than me.
Seeing the OU link on the website should have given me a clue. When OU programmes used to be on Saturday mornings on ´óÏó´«Ã½2 at least I knew to steer well clear as they'd just go over my head. Hands up, I never went to college or university but I hoped that in this series things might be explained for us thickos out there, but it seems more suitable for IT bods and people who have PHDs (and know what they are!).
Sorry, rant over. Thanks anyway, chaps. I'm not sure if I'll watch any more - my head may explode!

Why was episode 1 only available on iPlayer in "normal" form for 7 days? Most series such as this make all episodes available for up to 7 days after the final episode has been broadcast. Indeed I did find a link to the first episode on the series site but this was to the HD version only. Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to watch HD online and there is no download link for this episode either. I had planned to catch up on the series this evening but found my plans were thwarted. Since I'm on Virgin I checked the Series Catchup section in iPlayer on my set top box. TVR is listed but with only 1 episode so far - episode 2! What was in episode 1 that you are so keen for me not to watch?

Comment from a different angle. The presenter of this documentary is so unwatchable, I can hardly go through this documentary. Maybe (or even definitely from what I see) she's got knowledge but is unsuitable for TV.

I'm as puzzled as Mike Storey is. I managed to miss the first episode, but have watched the second online, where it is available for download, or streaming in standard definition. Naturally I want to see the first episode too, but it's only available in streaming HD! Why? If this is a series covering the ease of access of information from the internet, and makes a big thing on its website about how interactive it is, surely the simplest thing – being able to watch it! – should be possible! :-(

To respond to my own comment. I see the packet sequence was played in full on episode 2, as was a bit more detail on the military origins.

I learned some interesting facts from "Virtual Revolution: the Great Leveller" -- for example, I had not previously heard the story of the The Well in San Francisco. However, especially in regards to the main premise of the programme, I wholeheartedly agree with Jimmy Wales when he said to Dr Aleks: "I don't even agree with the terms you are using in your question."

One significant error is the contrast between Tim Berners-Lee and Bill Gates - Gates being the bad guy because he insisted on being paid for his software. The error is that it's comparing apples and oranges; it is just wrong to characterise Bill Gates as having anything much to do with the pioneering of the internet at all, because he just did not have much to do with it. Gates' insistence on making profit was completely centred on sales of personal computer software. The example in the show, when Gates complained about people copying his BASIC, is from 1975, more than a decade before civilians could access the internet on their own computers. In fact, it was clear to any of us who were in the field at the time that the power of the internet forced Gates to back off his insistence on charging for Internet Explore He could never understand why Netscape didn't charge; only when he stopped charging as well did IE win out.

To characterise the pioneering of the internet as hippies versus capitalists is just not true either. The internet had its roots in the American military, with connections to American universities (the university connection surprisingly did not even get a mention in the show), but it did not take too long for commerce to successfully argue its right to the forum as well. Some of the earliest commercial players were AOL and Compuserve where one could log in and purchase airplane tickets. This was only seen as empowering and convenient, not any sort of betrayal.

I would say that the idealistic vision of the internet was and continues to be the fact that it offers even a chance of a meritocracy. If you are a talented musician who has no access to the recording companies, you may make your own access to your own audience via Youtube or Jamendo. If you are a talented blog writer who knows your stuff, you may be offered paid work by the editor of a traditional periodical who has read your blog. These things happen not infrequently on the internet.

Finally, why does Dr Aleks persist in saying "the web" when she is clearly talking about the internet? She is shown doing things on the iPhone which for most of its functions utilises the internet but not the web; she is shown in Africa where the fastest-growing method of access to the internet is not via browsers on computers but via mobile phones -- again, using the internet but not the web. At one point, she said something to the effect that "we use the words interchangeably" -- well, maybe she does but not everyone does, and it's confusing. Words mean things, and it's important for a communicator to use the word that identifies the thing you mean. This should be obvious.

I agree with #13. The reason that Microsoft became involved at all was because the net, and the WWW in particular, were taking off with users of Mosaic and (Netscape) Navigator and it looked like a risk to their software dominance. Internet Explorer was a defence, not an innovation. Omission of Mosaic’s and Navigator’s vital part creating this momentum in this is misleading.
#30. You are perpetuating an urban myth by suggesting Netscape gave away its products for free. Netscape’s revenue came from selling its browsers to commercial users. Netscape made versions available for free download for non-commercial use only. Microsoft’s decision to pre-install its browser on Windows and not charge anyone for it is a standard commercial tactic to remove competition by destroying their revenue stream. It worked very well. This was of course illegal and they were convicted of abusing Window’s PC operating system monopoly. If they had just made it a free download to everyone and not bundled it, it is unlikely they would have ended up in court. That approach would have given users a choice, but it would not have crippled Netscape anywhere near as well (if at all).
On the whole though, it was good value for money for Microsoft as they then had no credible competition for over five years which saved them the cost of any significant developments to their product over the period; and most people forget about the little detail of the monopoly abuse conviction anyway.

Virtual Revolution episode 1 - very disappointing that there was no mention whatsoever of the Association for Progressive Communications in the history of the internet. Sure you interviewed the usual suspects - Brand, Gates, John Parry Barlow - but these people were serious as well as politically active, not breadheads, deadheads or amateur rocket scientists. Founded in 1990, they expanded a network of networks created in the 80s by PeaceNet/EcoNet and GreenNet, and in 1995 they were given consultative status to the UN!

I mean, what kind of research did you actually do?

No mention either of TCP/IP developed in the 70s, without which there would have been no internet to connect Tim Berners-Lee's web. I mean, just a mention - no need to get all technical.

At the end of the programme Dr Kotoski muses on the power struggles of information control and hierarchies being imposed on the internet by corporations. Doesn't she know that the internet is a self-organising system? It is autonomous and is governed by the cybernetic principles of Ashby's law of requisite variety and Beer's viable system model. If it ceases to be viable, it will cease to exist.

A good effort but could do much better.

Its good to see this documentary showing the history. But when it comes to sharing of files they showed their true nature. Her great speech about democracy, sharing of ideas etc vanished.

They completely ignored the community of people who like to share knowledge and files legally. Initial computer programmer's group believed in sharing of programs. During 1984 a new community began. Their name is . Today more than 29 million people uses their work. They developed an Operating system name Gnu/Linux that can be shared. Instead of copy right they believe in Copy Left. Those computer programmers work motivated a lot of people in different domains. Artists and musicians are among them.

They created Free Art License and some Creative Common kind of licenses. They created communities like and , where people are allowed to share music. There is no mention of these kind of movements, where musicians are getting most of the money where as traditional record industry they get only 5%, in ´óÏó´«Ã½'s documentary. 95% of the money that record company gets goes to non- musicians. Instead of revealing the real pirates, the corporate, they gave chance to Metallica to talk about his losses by Napster kind of file sharing like in the old story of Neapolitan and small fisherman.

Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich asking plumbers and car mechanics whether they would like it if he used their services for free. There are answers for these questions. But Aleks Krotoski, who calls herself as a journalist, did not tried to get those answers or ignored the answers.

Music is not a new thing that Metallica invented. It was there from the beginning of civilization. Classical arts, music etc are protected and encouraged by King/State and folk kind is protected and encouraged by the people. Nobody was restricted to performing or enjoying it.

But when Thomas Alva Edison invented the recording technologies then it become a weapon. Now these arts and music got owners. With age old copy right laws from the time of Guntert, they attacked people asking for money. This new digital media is designed for easy copy. You cannot change its property. So they brought Govt. and made anti-social law against people by using their enormous amount of money.

Its really bad that ´óÏó´«Ã½ missed this side. You are rhetoric about the democracy, openness of internet and gate keepers role in internet, but you yourself showed censoring of ideas. That is the real problem. I am not saying that you should be in our side. But what I am saying is that just show the people that there another perspective in legally sharing of file as per Gnu General Public License.

If all the knowledge world has available to everyone, then we can solve all the issues in the world. But people like you manipulating people by hiding the truth. Shame on you.

it was not Napoleon but it was Alexander the Great.