When you’ve dug yourself a hole, stop digging. Or if you’re the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), keep going until you hit the molten core of the Earth itself.

Regular PC Pro readers will know how the ASA has allowed ISPs to over-egg the speed of their broadband connections by permitting them to advertise fantasy “up to” speeds, which Ofcom’s research has proven time and again are pure fiction. Even Ofcom itself called for this insidious practice to stop over a year ago, since when the ASA has dithered with a year-long consultation on the use of “up to” speeds, but still hasn’t arrived at a conclusion.

Consequently, one ISP took matters into its own hands. Last year, Virgin Media launched its Stop The Broadband Con website, calling on ISPs to advertise typical rather than maximum speeds – very similar recommendations to those made by Ofcom itself.

Virgin, of course, has very good reason to make such calls. Ofcom’s research has repeatedly shown that Virgin’s actual connection speeds are much closer to the advertised headline speed than those offered by the ADSL providers.

Here, according to Ofcom, is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers of “up to” 20Mbits/sec or 24Mbits/sec ADSL packages (click to enlarge graph):

And here is the distribution of maximum and average download speeds for customers on Virgin’s “up to” 20Mbits/sec cable lines:

As we can see, only 1% of ADSL customers get a maximum speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec. None get an average speed higher than 18Mbits/sec. Are those customers being conned when they’re sold “up to” 24Mbits/sec lines? In at least 99% of cases, yes.

Virgin made that very same point on its website. After complaints from rivals Sky and BT, the ASA decided that was beyond the pale, and ordered Virgin to shut down the site and not run its ads again.

“[We] considered the text “Not getting the broadband speed you’re paying for … Stop the broadband con” was also likely to be interpreted as suggesting other ISPs dealt with consumers dishonestly in relation to broadband speeds, rather than as highlighting Virgin’s concerns about the disparity they believed existed between broadband advertising and speeds delivered to consumers. We therefore concluded that the claims were denigratory.”

So outright exaggeration of ADSL speeds is fine; pointing this out isn’t.

Faster speeds “not better”

The ASA made another extraordinary statement regarding broadband speeds. Both Sky and BT had challenged Virgin’s assertion that “faster connection would always give a perceivable benefit for surfing the web and watching TV online”. Sky also moaned about Virgin’s assertion that an average ADSL speed of only 6.5Mbits/sec would lead to “buffering delays” compared to Virgin’s cable services.

The ASA, inexplicably, backed BT and Sky with one of the most technically inept judgements I’ve ever had the misfortune to read.

“We understood that, in order to surf the web or stream TV online without interruptions, consumers would need a certain amount of bandwidth and that some ADSL customers would have sufficient bandwidth to do so, even if their service was used concurrently. We noted that Virgin would therefore be unable to offer those ADSL customers who were not experiencing interruption problems an improved broadband experience.”

Here, the ASA appears to be claiming that a 20Mbits/sec Virgin cable line with an average speed in excess of 18Mbits/sec for the vast majority of customers, wouldn’t necessarily offer “an improved experience” over an ADSL line where only 1% of people get in excess of 18Mbits/sec. That is categorically wrong. If you’re waiting for a HD iPlayer video to buffer before playback, an 18Mbits/sec connection will start playing more quickly than a 6.5Mbit/sec connection every single time.

Not to mention the fact that you need a steady connection of at least 4Mbits/sec to even watch HD iPlayer streams –  something that 41% of customers on “up to 24Mbits/sec” ADSL lines simply can’t achieve, according to Ofcom’s empirical research.

Yet, because the ASA “had not seen evidence that a speed of 6.5 Mbits/sec would cause delays for internet users in all instances, we concluded that the claim was misleading”.

It’s one thing to allow ISPs to peddle lies about their broadband speeds; it’s quite another to censure another ISP when they point them out. The ASA is entirely responsible for the broadband con. It’s high time it stopped.

Our latest App of the Week, and one of the newest additions to the store, comes courtesy of Sky and, with almost 3.5 million Sky+ subscribers in the UK, this free tool could prove very useful indeed.

At first glance it looks like a slick TV guide: load the app and you can choose from numerous channel categories, from HD channels and movies to sport, documentaries and music, and clicking one of these unveils a list of what’s showing now and next on each particular channel, along with its Sky channel number.

Click a channel and Sky+ begins to flex its muscles, showing off daily programme listings along with running times and other important information. It’s also possible to save favourite programs and channels.

Switch your phone to its horizontal view and the Sky+ app swivels into grid view – which is much like the electronic programme guide (EPG) on the Sky box itself – listing every channel in each category and letting you scroll forward, backward and around each category. Buttons make switching day and category easy, and scrolling is surprisingly smooth given both the wealth of information and slick presentation.

This app isn’t called Sky+ for nothing. Select a programme and sign in with your Sky account and the Record button appears: click this and the show you’ve selected with be added to your Sky+ planner at home. There’s no need to miss your favourite show because you’re on the other side of the country or, indeed, the world: load up this app, pick your show and it’ll be waiting for you when you get home.

It’s almost too simple. Once you’ve logged in, recording a show takes mere seconds, and listings for the next week mean that you can easily plan in advance. It’s testament to Android’s growing user base that big-name companies are investing in the platform, and the Sky+ app is one of the best we’ve seen.

Want more great Android apps? Then check out our previous Apps of the Week or read our 36 best Android apps feature

It’s the most important consideration when it comes to filming in 3D: what types of production does the technology really suit? The huge vistas of Avatar used the 3D effect better than any film we’ve seen so far, but can shots still look good when scaled down to less epic proportions? Buzz Hays believes it may be something far smaller scale than cinema that eventually shows what 3D can achieve.

Filming on a hand-held budget

If we move way down the scale from Avatar towards smaller productions, one technique crops up more and more. The hand-held style – as used in Cloverfield (above) and the Bourne films, and increasingly aped by lower-budget productions - just doesn’t work well in 3D. Buzz calls it “very much a 2D convention”, which goes where the action goes, keeping the wobbles and shakes intact. That supposedly immerses the viewer, but when combined with 3D it ratchets that motion up several notches.

“Say you’re riding a bicycle down a very bumpy mountain road. Your bicycle’s going to be juddering up and down, but your eyes stay much flatter, while your visual cortex is making a lot of corrections. We never see the world in that juddering way unless we’re subjected to some very erratic motion. So to then shoot an image like that and stick it into the head of somebody? That’s going to make people sick. We’re happy to help people figure out a way to shoot 3D like that, but it does not work out like they think – it doesn’t give a scene that level of excitement, it just makes people nauseous.”

Buzz gave the example of a US TV show that’s shot on the high seas, where the makers suggested filming in 3D to enhance the excitement. “I’m thinking hang on… if we’re standing on that boat any one of us would be throwing up over the rail after two seconds, and you want to recreate that in my living room? Certain situations are just very much 2D-centric.”

It’s not impossible to create a 3D scene using the hand-held approach, but for a watchable experience the level of motion has to be toned down. As Buzz says, “if you don’t want to change the style of your film then don’t shoot it in 3D. Once you use a Steadicam and smooth it out a bit, it’s no longer the film you were trying to make.”

3D in the home

One common complaint of 3D in cinemas (as made on this very site) is that the glasses make things too dark to fully appreciate the picture. Buzz agreed, but had more to say.

“You do need to compensate for the fact that you’re losing at least a full stop of light to each camera. But this is an issue unique to cinema; 3D television has the opposite problem. You have a luminance of 17fL* for a 2D cinema projection, yet we have 35fL in a 3D television, so we typically have to adjust these things for each particular style of display.”

Whether this brighter picture makes home 3D more palatable to a sceptical public remains to be seen, but it’s at least one hurdle cleared. The other is getting different types of content made in 3D, at a time when the blockbuster is the clear king.

“Live action 3D, especially in dramas, is a very new concept to a lot of people, and a lot of studios just haven’t been willing to go there yet – they figure it has to be the big tentpole, the big visual effects, the big action picture. That’s changing, and will change more with 3D television – not everything has to be the big blockbuster event.”

We’ve already seen Sky launch its 3D channel in the UK, initially for pubs and bars with the necessary 3D Ready projectors, but eventually making its way into homes. By now Sky has plenty of practice with sports, but the 3D team has also experimented with programmes intended for Sky Arts and even news. Could it be the more intimate productions that really harness the effect?

“There’s a truth to a 3D image that we will never get from 2D,” explained Buzz, “especially if you look at news photography. When we photograph war in 2D, it’s interpretation; regardless of how the filmmaker’s trying to present the facts, it’s a filter. Once you present the same images in 3D there’s a very visceral response to it, very truthful and honest, to the point where I think there’s a certain responsibility now with filmmaking, that you have to regard the fact that you’re about to show people something very real.”

That may sound surprising to those of us who see 3D purely as a way into fantasy worlds full of blue catpeople, but it’s being taken seriously in some quarters already.

“We had a situation in Beowulf, where the ratings board didn’t want to give the film a final rating until they actually saw certain objectionable scenes in 3D because they thought they might be more graphic.”

The DIY future of 3D

While Bob Zemeckis and James Cameron have been the ones putting the high-profile 3D productions out there for the world to see – and to criticise – Buzz sees the future as more in the hands of people with less money and more creativity.

“There’s already the possibility, especially in the CG world, for people to get involved in 3D. There’s a little group who did a film for a Bjork song called Wanderlust, it was shot by a duo called Encyclopedia Pictura in New York. They didn’t know the first thing about 3D. They researched it, they talked to [stereoscopic guru] Lenny Lipton, they talked to a bunch of people, they built their own camera rig, they shot this thing and it’s great. They knew nothing and it cost them almost nothing. If people have the wherewithal to figure it out they’re going to do some amazing stuff.”

People like us? People at home with everyday jobs, no specialist knowledge and nothing but a camera and some imagination?

“It will become more accessible, especially as consumer-grade cameras come out. We already have a couple of still camera systems right now that can shoot 3D, the Sony NEX series can shoot 3D panoramas.” [Panasonic has since announced the HDC-SDT750 3D camcorder, right.]

“Once you put 3D cameras into the hands of general consumers, that’s when we’ll start to see amazing things. I am convinced that the best 3D we’ll see is going to come completely out of leftfield.”

Read more:
Why we can’t ditch 3D glasses just yet.
Why bad 3D, not 3D glasses, is what gives you a headache.
From the Pole to Pandora: the shaky progress of modern 3D.
Why 3D and modern filmmaking techniques don’t mix.

The core Sky Mobile TV News and Sports app is available for free, and offers full listings for the core sports and news channels. But for the paltry sum of £6 a month, you can stream live coverage from those channels over a Wi-Fi connection.

For that price you’ll get the full Sky Sports package of 1,2, 3 and Xtra, Sky Sports News and Sky News, as well as the added subscription channels ESPN and At The Races.

ESPN alone – thanks to its Premiership football matches – will add £9 to a Sky TV bill which will already be at least £36 with the Sports package, so the £6 app looks like staggeringly good value. And a limited number of iPhone owners with O2 can get three months free to try it for themselves.

I downloaded the app and signed up to test it and it works flawlessly. The connection to Wi-Fi is instant, the channels load in seconds, and the admittedly YouTube-quality footage runs smoothly and is surprisingly watchable on the small screen.

Obviously it’s dependant on being able to connect to Wi-Fi when you’re out and about, but the thought of being able to watch the Monday night ESPN match in an airport or on a commute is wonderful. It manages to make the overpriced channel seem palatable.

Horse racing channel At The Races is probably less of a draw for most, but its inclusion isn’t too surprising given its importance to Sky’s gambling arm, SkyBET.

The obvious comparison to Sky Mobile TV is Spotify, but they’re really very different beasts. Spotify’s unlimited music will take time to prove its worth at £10 a month, particularly as we already own so much music on our phones. But this is live sport, something that can’t really be had anywhere but your living room or the pub. And it’s priced low enough that it really doesn’t register on your budgetary consciousness. Spotify will no doubt be watching with considerable interest.

As will I. So if anyone needs me I’ll be enjoying the tennis under my desk. Just don’t tell Tim.

It’s… sorry about this… it’s… um… footage from 1953 of the Queen’s coronation year. In 3D.

Not exactly what I had in mind, but the news that Channel 4 is going to run a week of primetime 3D content this Autumn is just one more step along 3D’s road to the mainstream. The line-up also includes a Derren Brown special and a selection of 3D movies, and it’ll all be possible with your existing TV set – all you’ll need is a pair of special specs from Sainsbury’s.

Now, this worries me a bit. I’ve seen the type of technology Sky is planning to use – with a 120Hz TV set required – and it works well. Really well. By contrast, the simpler method used by broadcasts such as this isn’t so immersive. My recent feature, 3D: Coming to a Screen Near You, explains the differences.

My worry is that, by beating Sky to the punch like this, Channel 4 could be merely extending the disappointment most viewers feel when they buy one of those cheap 3D DVDs, with cardboard glasses in the box. Too many people have an idea of 3D that’s based on outdated technology, and it takes a real 3D viewing experience to alter that misconception.

Channel 4 will be using ColorCode 3D glasses, which use amber and blue filters to produce the 3D effect. I’m sure it’s new technology, and I’m ready to admit I’m wrong when the broadcasts begin, but that sounds to me like a backward step, not only from the active-shutter technology used by Sky and Nvidia, but also even from the polarised glasses used in current 3D cinemas.

What sort of damage could be done if the nation tunes in and watches with an underwhelming collective shrug? To be fair, the technology has been tried in America for an episode of Chuck, and the reaction was apparently positive.

I really want the same reaction to occur in the UK, so I’ll be switching to Channel 4 in the coming weeks with my fingers and toes firmly crossed. Will you?

But it’s how I’m doing it that I love most:

It’s as close to real-time as I’ve ever seen such a score tracker – it’s currently three entire service games ahead of the BBC’s live text, and (by checking the current live odds – always a dead giveaway to the score) I can see that it’s no more than 10-15 seconds behind reality.

And tennis isn’t the only sport in which you can keep track of progress in close to real-time. Tim’s already blogged about the wonderfully comprehensive Olympic coverage on the BBC website, and while it’s rare to find live video online, score trackers are increasingly common and more high-tech than ever.

Sports with numbers fare best online. Golf gets the live score treatment on the European Tour website (above), and the USPGA too – current holes, scores and positions are all updated as and when things occur all over the course.

And although Sky Sports’ Score Center won’t give you the delight that is five solid hours of the great Jeff Stelling on a Saturday afternoon, it will give you all the football scores, all the goals and all the stats in one constantly updating package.

In fact, pretty much any major sporting event can now be followed live, without access to a TV or radio, and that’s something that I find hugely liberating.

And also hugely distracting. Murray just lost the second set 6-1, which is my signal to get back to that Labs…

I remember when we first started talking about HD. Back then it was this mythical beast that would tear apart video as we know it with its millions of pixels, and leave us all cursing standard definition for being as fuzzy and vague as Colin Jackson’s “expert” Olympic analysis.

Then it arrived and we loved it. The first time I ran a 1080p video on my 40in TV, my non-techie housemate grabbed the controller and kept replaying the same HD movie trailer for what seemed like an hour, so enamoured was he with the detail. Those of us with a PlayStation3 or Blu-ray player can enjoy the delights of HD by renting movies, but TV has been much slower out of the blocks.

Put simply, even a drum-beating HD lover like myself can admit the line-up of HD channels just hasn’t been worth paying for. Cable customers with Virgin’s V+ box can watch several free channels like BBC HD (and enjoy the excellent Olympic coverage, Jackson aside), but Sky HD is the big gun we all pinned our hopes on. And it’s expensive. Very expensive.

The cost of the Sky HD box has recently been slashed by half to £150, which is a good step. But there’s still the £10 per month premium on your subscription, which if you want any decent line-up of channels will also have to include a Sky Sports and Movies subscription too. All in, the full HD package will cost you £55 a month – a lot of money for what began as a pretty paltry smattering of channels.

But that list has grown, and now Sky is upping the ante again. Today it announced the addition of seven more channels to the roster, bringing the total to a much more flattering 26. Three Sky Sports channels were already covered, but it always seemed unfair that the premium you were already paying for both the movie channels and the HD didn’t translate into a great amount of what you might expect – actual HD movies.

This update rectifies that with many of the best movie channels, including Sky Movies Action/Thriller, Sci-Fi/Horror, and the awesome Modern Greats, all appearing alongside the existing Screen and Premiere HD channels.

Don’t get me wrong, the Olympic coverage on the Beeb has been great, and the fact that we’ve all got so into it must partly be down to the techological advances like live online streaming – as Tim pointed out earlier in the week. But, apart from the two weeks of every year when people pretend to like tennis, it’s about the only major sport Auntie has left.

Sky has all the best bits, and seeing as movies and sport are the main things most people want in HD, it seems to me that the quantity of HD TV on offer has finally reached the threshold at which I always said I’d invest. Credit crunch? What credit crunch?

The Premiership was the case in point, but the Cup Final gave me my ammunition: the BBC/Sky choice was just that – a choice, as both were doing their best to win over viewers to the same spectacle simultaneously.

Since Sky’s rights over the Premiership were broken up and Setanta “won” one of the packages of games, we don’t have any more choice than we did previously. I can’t choose whether to enjoy a match on Sky or switch to its rival, as they never show the same games. Instead I have to subscribe to both packages – at considerable cost – or miss out on some games completely.

Far from increasing the choice to consumers it’s just: a) made things more awkward; b) made things more expensive; and c) forced us to turn to an inferior product for some games. Have you seen the quality of Setanta’s coverage?

There’s no direct parallel in the world of IT, as most software doesn’t involve subscriptions, but you can draw a comparison with the Microsoft antitrust cases. Forced to remove certain bundled applications from Windows, we were assured that people would then have greater choice, and we’d flock to those superior alternatives in our droves… what’s that? You quite like having everything on a plate? Oh.

If Google’s rise continues and we all end up organising our lives online, with calendars, email, office apps and more, all in one place, is that really such a terrible prospect? I have difficulty keeping track of even a small handful of the logins I use online, if someone told me I had to split that up even more and made out it was in my own interests I’d probably cry.

The simple fact is that, regardless of what the few may argue, in a lot of cases Joe Public likes a monopoly. It gives everything in one place, from one source and (PC Pro readers aside, before the emails start piling in) that suits the needs of the majority of people. When that product is also undoubtedly the best – as in Sky’s case – I’ll take the monopoly over the alternative any day.